From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu May 1 01:05:48 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 01:05:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <001e01c30eb5$eb1dbd10$37e536d2@Desktop> <002601c30ee9$ae127580$3d03e150@endicott> <005001c30ef3$ac875d20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000b01c30f75$917eea70$5411e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > 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. > +=+ Quite the little psychiatrist - and with a singular bedside manner. Nevertheless there is no infraction of law in leading before the last trick is turned down. I do not advocate anything; I simply point to the facts and the only 'interpretation' is in observing that the law imposes no restraint on it. Law 44G merely authorizes the player to lead when he knows he has won the trick. A player has a duty to turn over the card he played to a completed trick, but the laws say nothing about holding back the lead until it has been done. ~ G ~ +=+ From lskelso@ihug.com.au Thu May 1 01:36:39 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:36:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke and Claim (3) In-Reply-To: <000301c30f47$68be6a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3.0.6.32.20030501034650.00a0da00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030501103639.00a08dd0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 20:36 30/04/03 +0200, Sven wrote: > >> Laurie Kelso wrote: >> 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 seem needed to the balance of your post. (Your ruling that the >revoke was not established was definitely wrong). Law 69A defines acquiesence and establishes a time period for it. The WBFLC Paris minute says that in regard to scenarios like the one described above, the phrase "or in any other fashion" found in Law 63A3 provides the grounds to rule that such a revoke becomes established in a shorter time frame then that described in 69A. Acquiesence requires assenting to a claim AND subsequently not raising any objections within the defined time period (an offender calling on the next board). Sven argues that assenting is enough to establish the revoke. The Paris minute refers to a scenario that involved: (i) the assenting of at least one defender (ii) the returning the cards to the board (iii) the entering of a score Given the conflict between Laws 63A3 and 69A, what actions (by one or both defenders) are sufficient to rule that the revoke has become established? The Paris minute is repeated below for convenience. Regards Laurie *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)* From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 1 01:46:34 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 01:46:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030430130439.02461650@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003501c30f7b$1d71d7e0$759927d9@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > AG : may I suggest L74A2 and L74B1 ? No. L74A2 makes it illegal for me to wear a shirt that my opponent does not like, because his dear departed father was wearing a shirt of the same colour when he was run over by a bus. It is the second stupidest Law in the book, and is yet another example of the supreme idiocy that was involved in turning the Proprieties into Laws. L74B1 has nothing to do with the case - a player who leads to trick n+1 before all cards of trick n have been turned face down is at least paying enough attention to know who has won trick n, and such attention can in no way be described as "insufficient". His action, moreover, is entirely legal per L44. Japp is quite right - no one should lead to trick n+1 until all cards played to trick n are face down. The rules at the moment do not say this. They should, and it is even possible that the next lot will - after all, such an amendment would be (a) sensible and (b) non-controversial. The WBFLC should try to sneak in one or two cost-free amendments in this category, otherwise one might form the impression that they are a bunch of loonies. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 1 01:31:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:31:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board Message-ID: Alain: [big snip] >>Okay, let him go unpunished this time. Sven: [big snip] >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. This is another Beware of the Leopard situation; the experienced blmlers Alain and Sven have carefully read TFLB, and have concluded that its literal words mean that a psyche in a Law 15C situation is not an infraction. But, the WBF LC has issued a binding (albeit apparently unjustifiable) interpretation of Law 15C, stating a call with no demonstrable bridge reason is deemed an infraction of Law 74A2. No doubt lawful rulings by TDs post-2005 will be easier, if this interpretation is specifically incorporated in the 2005 Laws. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 1 03:31:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:31:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: Jaap wrote: [big snip] >- This interpretation makes the text of 66B complete >nonsense. This text clearly assumes all cards are >face down before the next trick starts. [big snip] Actually, in my opinion, the text of Law 66B is incomplete nonsense. This is because, in my opinion, Law 66B is not clear, but rather ambiguously written. Law 66B: "Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played." Due to the Kaplanesque terseness of this Law, and its interwoven clauses, it is possible to assume that - "Until a card is led" - can be contrued as - "Until his (declarer or either defender) card is led". That is, by that interpretation, pard or an opponent cannot prevent you from inspecting your face-up card by precipitously leading to the next trick. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 1 07:57:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:57:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Supreme idiocy (was When is a trick finished) Message-ID: David Burn's philippic: >No. L74A2 makes it illegal for me to wear a >shirt that my opponent does not like, because >his dear departed father was wearing a shirt >of the same colour when he was run over by a >bus. It is the second stupidest Law in the >book, and is yet another example of the >supreme idiocy that was involved in turning >the Proprieties into Laws. [snip] Richard's rhetoric: In my opinion, Law 74A2 - or a replacement 2005 Law with similar meaning - is necessary. Otherwise, the TD is powerless to promptly regulate many anti-social behaviours which might happen during a session. A post-session hearing by a C&E committee is not a sufficiently prompt rectification of anti-social behaviours. And the TD's ultimate power under Law 91, to suspend or disqualify, may be an excessive punishment which does not fit a particular anti-social crime. Anti-social behaviour was, in my experience, more common before the 1987 conversion of the Proprieties into enforcable Laws. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Thu May 1 08:23:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:23:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke and Claim (3) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20030501103639.00a08dd0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <000001c30fb2$8b7e4750$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laurie Kelso > Sven wrote: > > > >> Laurie Kelso wrote: > >> 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 seem needed to the balance of your post. (Your ruling = that > the > >revoke was not established was definitely wrong). >=20 > Law 69A defines acquiesence and establishes a time period for it. The > WBFLC Paris minute says that in regard to scenarios like the one = described > above, the phrase "or in any other fashion" found in Law 63A3 provides = the > grounds to rule that such a revoke becomes established in a shorter = time > frame then that described in 69A. >=20 > Acquiesence requires assenting to a claim AND subsequently not raising = any > objections within the defined time period (an offender calling on the = next > board). >=20 > Sven argues that assenting is enough to establish the revoke. >=20 > The Paris minute refers to a scenario that involved: > (i) the assenting of at least one defender > (ii) the returning the cards to the board > (iii) the entering of a score >=20 > Given the conflict between Laws 63A3 and 69A, what actions (by one or = both > defenders) are sufficient to rule that the revoke has become = established? >=20 > The Paris minute is repeated below for convenience. >=20 > Regards > Laurie >=20 > *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)* I do not see any conflict between Law 63A3 and Law 69A, nor do I find = any recognition of such conflict in the quoted Paris minutes except that = they studied an alleged conflict between those two laws. Law 63A3 defines that a revoke becomes established when either member of = the offending side makes or acquiesces in a claim or a concession ... orally = or by facing his hand (or in any other fashion).=20 This obviously includes absolutely any action (by offending side) that initially is part of an intention to terminate the play of that board. The immediate effect of a revoke becoming established is that it becomes = too late to have that revoke corrected, and it should be equally obvious = that no more than having the establishment of a revoke reversed in case a player = on the offending side for whatever reason might be permitted to retract a = card he has played to the following trick does it make any sense to have such establishment reversed if he wants an acquiescence withdrawn.=20 Law 69B handles the conditions for contestants to withdraw their acquiescence of a claim or a concession, but while withdrawing such acquiescence may cancel the claim itself it can never change the fact = that the revoke as such became established. Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu May 1 08:55:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:55:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030430130439.02461650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003501c30f7b$1d71d7e0$759927d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003201c30fb7$2fe3dcc0$f936e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > Japp is quite right - no one should lead to trick n+1 > until all cards played to trick n are face down. The > rules at the moment do not say this. They should, > and it is even possible that the next lot will - after all, > such an amendment would be (a) sensible and (b) > non-controversial. The WBFLC should try to sneak > in one or two cost-free amendments in this category, > otherwise one might form the impression that they > are a bunch of loonies. > David Burn London, England > +=+ Oh, perish the thought. That fate cannot be averted by any such devious manoeuvre. But how about: "44G: After each of the first twelve tricks is quitted, the four cards played to it having been turned face down, the lead to the following trick is made from the hand in which it was won." ? Could be shorter of course, but that might not clear up the definition of 'quitted', and could even retain the ambiguity over declarer's leading from either hand. Grattan Endicott Mertopia Parva +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 1 09:53:48 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:53:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030430130439.02461650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003501c30f7b$1d71d7e0$759927d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3EB0E09C.2010602@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > Japp is quite right - no one should lead to trick n+1 until all cards > played to trick n are face down. The rules at the moment do not say > this. They should, and it is even possible that the next lot will - > after all, such an amendment would be (a) sensible and (b) > non-controversial. The WBFLC should try to sneak in one or two cost-free > amendments in this category, otherwise one might form the impression > that they are a bunch of loonies. > Don't forget then however to consider the next problem: is it an infraction, by this new law, for the person who has won the previous trick, to lead to the next one while one card is still open on the table? And if so (and of course it would be) what should the penalty be? Why introduce in the laws a new regulation which would be: a- unneccessary b- impossible to enforce I agree that wording to the effect of "courtesy", "should" could be introduced in the lawbook, but to make a full force law out of this??? > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 1 10:23:53 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 11:23:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <200304301729.NAA18699@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3EB0E7A9.8010708@skynet.be> Well, Steve, Steve Willner wrote: > 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 I am quite willing to take up any of these bets. I know Sven and I sometimes have different views on the elements of a case, but rarely on the application of the laws. > 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. These tricks can no longer be changed 1-1. > Spade Q loses to K, second heart is won by declarer's A. 2-2. > On H-K, West > discards a club (revoke). On H-Q, both defenders discard (second > revoke by East). 4-2 to declarer. > Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. Declarer does not mention that he knows this is a lie. Important. > 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.) Declarer claims 5 more tricks and concedes 2, that's 9-4. > Defenders concede, and as cards are being > mixed, dummy points out the revoke. East admits the H-J was hidden all > the time. > Well, the HJ is bound to make one more trick. This is either a spade trick, making 8-5 +2, or the last trick, making 9-4 +2. I'm giving declarer 11 tricks. 9 actually made + the penultimate trick for the revoke and the ultimate trick which was made by the HJ, a card revoker could have played on the revoke trick. Of course the second revoke yields no tricks. And since the first two defender's tricks were made before the revoke, 11 is the absolute maximum. Sven? > 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? > Well, maybe a little side twist. Suppose this were me. Suppose I know there is a revoke. Do I play on or do I claim? I would realize that by playing on I could make very certain that the HJ makes a trick and the revoke penalties be applied. I would ruff my diamond and play a diamond, and then say "and who ruffs his partner's diamond for my last two tricks ?". But no, I would realize that it were far more interesting for me to claim, thus ensuring that the revoker doesn't spoil my plans. I know the laws and I can plan this. Should I be allowed to do this? Yes, I don't think I should be punished for knowing the laws. So to me the answer to Steve's question is "no, it does not matter what claimer says about the revoke". BTW, it does not matter in this case, but I would not rule specifically against this claimer for not realizing there must have been a revoke. > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu May 1 10:38:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:38:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <3EB0E09C.2010602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c30fc5$7358a8b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......=20 > Don't forget then however to consider the next problem: is it an > infraction, by this new law, for the person who has won the previous > trick, to lead to the next one while one card is still open on the > table? And if so (and of course it would be) what should the penalty = be? ....... Essentially I agree with Herman Before changing the laws we should have a clear understanding of what we want to accomplish by the change. What is wrong with the current laws related to tricks; when a trick is complete and finished, how that trick may be inspected and how the lead = to the next trick is to be made? A trick is (more or less) complete when four cards have been played to = it (one card from each hand) and at this time it is clear who won the = trick. Any player (except dummy) retains the right to see all cards played to = that trick until he has turned his own card face down except after when he or = his partner has lead or played to the following trick. The player who won a trick is to lead to the next trick. If he does so before all cards have been turned face down; what is the problem? If a player who has not turned his own played card face down wants to = see all cards (again) after an opponent has lead to the next trick; what is = the problem? Let us not create problems where none exist.=20 (I fear I begin to understand DWS) Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 1 10:44:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 11:44:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke and Claim (3) References: <3.0.6.32.20030501034650.00a0da00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <3EB0EC9A.6040009@skynet.be> Laurie Kelso wrote: > 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 > I think you ruled correctly, but I am far more certain that this is not fair. The laws need to be changed to correct the following malfortunate chain of events when a claim is made at the end of a trick in which there has been a revoke (a common occurence, since the non-following of suit quite often reveals the lay-out): - the revoke is not established by play to a next trick; - the revoke is not established by call in a next deal; - the claim is acquiesced to, but this acquiescense can still be withdrawn. I would propose to change the laws in this fashion: - a claim must be agreed upon, by each opponent separately; - agreeing can be done by any means (noting scores, putting down cards, silence without visible thinking, saying yes, ...) - acquiescence occurs when both opponents agree; - acquiescence can be withdrawn until the first call of the next deal; - a revoke becomes established if the revoker agrees to the claim; and probably something like: - a revoke becomes established if it is first mentioned by the revoker's partner. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 1 11:02:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:02:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <3EB0E7A9.8010708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c30fc8$c7b9e330$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Well, the HJ is bound to make one more trick. This is either a spade > trick, making 8-5 +2, or the last trick, making 9-4 +2. I'm giving > declarer 11 tricks. 9 actually made + the penultimate trick for the > revoke and the ultimate trick which was made by the HJ, a card revoker > could have played on the revoke trick. Of course the second revoke > yields no tricks. And since the first two defender's tricks were made > before the revoke, 11 is the absolute maximum. > Sven? I believe I arrived at exactly the same result already yesterday? 8-) To me the remarks (both by East and by declarer) and the knowledge or lacking knowledge of the revoke etc. have no significance at all. And = the fact that the revoke card H-J is the highest outstanding trump at the = time of the claim and as such cannot avoid taking a trick makes this a very simple case of a two tricks revoke. But assume that the revoke card had been a small trump or some other = card that not necessarily would win a subsequent trick but which could do so. = Let us further assume that the claim again is for the remaining tricks less = two and that there are several possible lines of play all of which will = secure opponents the last two tricks:=20 A: Offender wins one trick with his revoke card B: His partner wins both tricks. I shall tend to rule (supported in my opinion by Law 12C2) alternative = A: One of the tricks would be won with the revoke card; making it a two = trick revoke whenever such a line of play would not be directly irrational (regardless of the class of player!) Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu May 1 14:19:22 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:19:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <3EB0E7A9.8010708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <859E7594-7BD7-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. > > > Declarer does not mention that he knows this is a lie. Important. > It is not a lie (by any information we have been given). We do not know if declarer knows it to be untrue. How is it important? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 1 14:39:39 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 15:39:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <000201c30fc8$c7b9e330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EB1239B.3010708@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Well, the HJ is bound to make one more trick. This is either a spade >>trick, making 8-5 +2, or the last trick, making 9-4 +2. I'm giving >>declarer 11 tricks. 9 actually made + the penultimate trick for the >>revoke and the ultimate trick which was made by the HJ, a card revoker >>could have played on the revoke trick. Of course the second revoke >>yields no tricks. And since the first two defender's tricks were made >>before the revoke, 11 is the absolute maximum. >>Sven? >> > > I believe I arrived at exactly the same result already yesterday? 8-) > I deliberately avoided reading any replies before formulating my own, hoping we could win that bunch that was promised if we agreed. Pay-out time! > To me the remarks (both by East and by declarer) and the knowledge or > lacking knowledge of the revoke etc. have no significance at all. And the > fact that the revoke card H-J is the highest outstanding trump at the time > of the claim and as such cannot avoid taking a trick makes this a very > simple case of a two tricks revoke. > I believe the remark could have some bearing on the later handling of the claim - it makes a difference if declarer knows there has been a revoke or not to decide how he thinks the cards lie - which could determine his normal lines. But I agree that in this case this is unimportant. > But assume that the revoke card had been a small trump or some other card > that not necessarily would win a subsequent trick but which could do so. Let > us further assume that the claim again is for the remaining tricks less two > and that there are several possible lines of play all of which will secure > opponents the last two tricks: > A: Offender wins one trick with his revoke card > B: His partner wins both tricks. > > I shall tend to rule (supported in my opinion by Law 12C2) alternative A: > One of the tricks would be won with the revoke card; making it a two trick > revoke whenever such a line of play would not be directly irrational > (regardless of the class of player!) > We agree yet again! > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 1 14:46:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 15:46:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <859E7594-7BD7-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EB12541.5080000@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> >>> Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. >> >> >> >> Declarer does not mention that he knows this is a lie. Important. >> > > It is not a lie (by any information we have been given). It is an untruth - sorry. > We do not know if declarer knows it to be untrue. Yes we do - he would not have asked if he were certain, and he would have told us (or rather the TD who told us the story) if he had been vaguely aware. > How is it important? > Because it determines his normal lines. If he believes all trumps have gone, playing one more round is not normal (let's not enter the discussion), while if he knows there has been a revoke, playing one more round of anything (including perhaps trumps) in order to establish the revoke or in order to give a free throw-in or anything, might be considered normal. But I agree it's not important in this particular case. > > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu May 1 14:56:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:56:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <3EB1239B.3010708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c30fe9$6b9ddbd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ..... > > To me the remarks (both by East and by declarer) and the knowledge or > > lacking knowledge of the revoke etc. have no significance at all. And > the > > fact that the revoke card H-J is the highest outstanding trump at the > time > > of the claim and as such cannot avoid taking a trick makes this a very > > simple case of a two tricks revoke. > > > > > I believe the remark could have some bearing on the later handling of > the claim - it makes a difference if declarer knows there has been a > revoke or not to decide how he thinks the cards lie - which could > determine his normal lines. > But I agree that in this case this is unimportant. It could have some bearing indeed, and I would rule it perfectly OK (both legal and ethical) if the claimer added in his own mind the revoke as a safety factor in case he should have overlooked one loser among the tricks he claims. He may then "know" that if opponents get (at least) one trick after the claim that trick will serve to his favor as a revoke penalty trick. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu May 1 15:13:53 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:13:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <3EB12541.5080000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <23D44438-7BDF-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> I wrote > >> We do not know if declarer knows it to be untrue. > On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 02:46 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Yes we do - he would not have asked if he were certain, You seem to be arguing my case for me -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gester@lineone.net Thu May 1 11:01:53 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:01:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <000101c30fc5$7358a8b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001001c30fef$0cdcc060$9a242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] When is a trick finished > Herman De Wael: ....... > what should the penalty be? > +=+ A law written in the "a player does" mode would establish correct procedure but not attract penalty for violation +=+ > Sven: ...... (I fear I begin to understand DWS) < +=+ A condition much to be feared.+=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 1 16:08:36 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: <200305011508.LAA08061@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > The player who won a trick is to lead to the next trick. > > If he does so before all cards have been turned face down; what is the > problem? Come on, Sven. Having cards of two tricks face up on the table can only lead to confusion. Also (a mere technical matter), L66B makes no sense. > From: Herman De Wael > Don't forget then however to consider the next problem: is it an > infraction, by this new law, for the person who has won the previous > trick, to lead to the next one while one card is still open on the > table? The Preface gives at least two reasonable possibilities: just state the correct procedure, or make it a "should" statement, which is a bit stronger. What is wrong with one of these? Usually there will be no penalty, but if leading prematurely creates a problem, the NOS are protected. Look at it this way: if there is a card from trick N still face up on the table, does anyone think it is a _good idea_ to lead to the next trick? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 1 16:37:10 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:37:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: <8195679.1051803430818.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Steve wrote: >Look at it this way: if there is a card from trick N still face up on the table, does anyone think it is a _good idea_ to lead to the next trick? Of course it's a good idea. If you think your opponent has revoked, it is a good idea to get his side to play a card to the next trick as quickly as possible, for which reason it is in your interests to instigate that trick quam celerrime. I can't imagine anyone who would regard this as sharp practice, can you? It is a complete nonsense that cards from two different tricks can be face up on the table at the same time. Not only should the Laws establish that they cannot as a matter of correct procedure, they should establish that a card played to trick n 1 before all cards to trick n are face down is a card prematurely exposed. There should be a procedural penalty, and if a defender does it, the card should beconme a major penalty card. If declarer induces an irregularity from an opponent by doing it, that irregularity should not be subject to penalty. I can hear the bleats now. "That isn't the way we play the game!" "It would slow things down!" and the rest. But the way you play the game is wrong, and the speed at which you want to play the game creates more problems than it solves. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Thu May 1 16:46:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 17:46:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <200305011508.LAA08061@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c30ff8$cb410d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The player who won a trick is to lead to the next trick. > > > > If he does so before all cards have been turned face down; what is = the > > problem? >=20 > Come on, Sven. Having cards of two tricks face up on the table can > only lead to confusion. Also (a mere technical matter), L66B makes no > sense. Come on? I see no problem with the following scenario: One of my = opponents has won the current trick and leads to the next trick while I still have = the card I played to the current trick face up in front of me because I have = not yet completely digested the situation. Then I request to see all cards played to that last trick once again. = The player who led to the next trick while being unaware or ignorant to the = fact that I still had my last played card face up will have to be a bit = careful about his own cards; but problem or confusion? No. Herman wrote: > Look at it this way: if there is a card from trick N still face up on > the table, does anyone think it is a _good idea_ to lead to the next > trick? IMO it is very impolite. Sven=20 From john@asimere.com Thu May 1 17:13:58 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 17:13:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <859E7594-7BD7-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3EB0E7A9.8010708@skynet.be> <859E7594-7BD7-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <859E7594-7BD7-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> >>> Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. >> >> >> Declarer does not mention that he knows this is a lie. Important. >> > >It is not a lie (by any information we have been given). >We do not know if declarer knows it to be untrue. >How is it important? > If a player revokes, and you're not watching the cards particularly (as in oppo following to a round of trumps when you hold 9 to the AKQ) then it is *far* more likely that you think they've all been played, and *you* missed one than you think an opponent revoked. To suggest declare knows it to be untrue is absurd. To suggest a PP is friggin absurd. > > >-- >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 ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 1 21:46:24 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:46:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <3EB12541.5080000@skynet.be> References: <859E7594-7BD7-11D7-98B5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030501163650.01f2cab0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:46 AM 5/1/03, Herman wrote: >Because it determines his normal lines. If he believes all trumps have >gone, playing one more round is not normal (let's not enter the >discussion), while if he knows there has been a revoke, playing one >more round of anything (including perhaps trumps) in order to >establish the revoke or in order to give a free throw-in or anything, >might be considered normal. > >But I agree it's not important in this particular case. ISTM that if both opponents show out of trumps, declarer is entitled to continue on the presumption that there are no more trumps out even if he suspects, or knows, otherwise, so I don't think it's ever important. In the context of claims, we could say that if declarer knows that an opponent revoked on the previous round, it is "normal" for him to assume that another round would probably just fetch another revoke. In the non-claim context, we don't want declarer to lose the full protection of L64C because he didn't draw a trump that he knew was outstanding after both opponents showed out. 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 Thu May 1 21:57:53 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 08:57:53 +1200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <200305011508.LAA08061@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000e01c31024$58f8e700$4e9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Friday, 2 May 2003 3:09 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The player who won a trick is to lead to the next trick. > > > > If he does so before all cards have been turned face down; > what is the > > problem? > > Come on, Sven. Having cards of two tricks face up on the table can > only lead to confusion. Also (a mere technical matter), L66B makes no > sense. > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Don't forget then however to consider the next problem: is it an > > infraction, by this new law, for the person who has won the > previous > > trick, to lead to the next one while one card is still open on the > > table? > > The Preface gives at least two reasonable possibilities: just > state the > correct procedure, or make it a "should" statement, which is a bit > stronger. What is wrong with one of these? Usually there will be no > penalty, but if leading prematurely creates a problem, the NOS are > protected. > > Look at it this way: if there is a card from trick N still face up on > the table, does anyone think it is a _good idea_ to lead to the next > trick? Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to deliberately delay the game by keeping a card face up? When I win a trick I would like to use my mental energy to determine and play the best card to the next trick not to observe whether or not my opponent has turned a card face down. I think the normal procedure is clearly defined: When four cards have been played the players turn down their tricks; After a player has won a trick then that player can lead to the next trick; A player that has not turned a card face down can request to see the previous trick (with some constraints). Normally this means that only cards from one trick are face up on the table at a time. If not the problem is usually caused by a player being tardy in turning down a trick. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 1 21:59:22 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:59:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <8195679.1051803430818.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030501165207.01f61c60@pop.starpower.net> At 11:37 AM 5/1/03, dalburn wrote: >It is a complete nonsense that cards from two different tricks can be >face up on the table at the same time. Not only should the Laws >establish that they cannot as a matter of correct procedure, they >should establish that a card played to trick n 1 before all cards to >trick n are face down is a card prematurely exposed. There should be a >procedural penalty, and if a defender does it, the card should beconme >a major penalty card. That seems silly. The normal case is one in which the winner of the trick faces his lead to the next trick. If it becomes a major penalty card, it must remain face up on the table until the faced cards from the current trick are turned, and then led. That's exactly what happens now, except now we don't have to call the TD! And if it becomes a minor penalty card, then after the faced cards from the current trick are turned the "offender" may legally lead something else, which he currently cannot. 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 Thu May 1 22:05:19 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 09:05:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <000001c30ff8$cb410d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c31025$64706df0$4e9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Friday, 2 May 2003 3:46 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > Steve Willner > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > The player who won a trick is to lead to the next trick. > > > > > > If he does so before all cards have been turned face > down; what is the > > > problem? > > > > Come on, Sven. Having cards of two tricks face up on the table can > > only lead to confusion. Also (a mere technical matter), > L66B makes no > > sense. > > Come on? I see no problem with the following scenario: One of > my opponents > has won the current trick and leads to the next trick while I > still have the > card I played to the current trick face up in front of me > because I have not > yet completely digested the situation. > Then I request to see all cards played to that last trick > once again. The > player who led to the next trick while being unaware or > ignorant to the fact > that I still had my last played card face up will have to be > a bit careful > about his own cards; but problem or confusion? No. This is what the laws allow. > Herman wrote: > > Look at it this way: if there is a card from trick N still > face up on > > the table, does anyone think it is a _good idea_ to lead to the next > > trick? > IMO it is very impolite. I don't see this is a matter of manners. Having won a trick I am entitled to play in my normal tempo. I think this includes leading to the next trick. I do not believe that the intention of allowing a player with a face up card to see the trick is to give that player the power to control the tempo of the play. Wayne > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Thu May 1 22:29:09 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:29:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 May 2003 08:57:53 +1200." <000e01c31024$58f8e700$4e9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <200305012129.OAA14565@mailhub.irvine.com> Wayne wrote: > Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to deliberately > delay the game by keeping a card face up? Yes. > When I win a trick I would like to use my mental energy to determine and > play the best card to the next trick not to observe whether or not my > opponent has turned a card face down. No problem. Use your mental energy to decide what to lead to the next trick. When you've decided, then look and see whether everyone else has turned their trick before you lead. -- Adam From twm@cix.co.uk Fri May 2 00:13:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 00:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? Message-ID: Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. None vul, Dealer South. S W N E 1D 2S 3D P 3NT 2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? Thanks, Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 2 01:23:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:23:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? Message-ID: >Is there any guidance on how one considers >the "standard of player" for could have known >situations. I came across this one tonight. > >None vul, Dealer South. > >S W N E >1D 2S 3D P >3NT > >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was >after much hesitation and dithering. Could >East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that >his behaviour would mislead south (particularly >as to his spade holding)? > >Thanks, > >Tim In the latest issue of the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin, senior Aussie TD Matthew McManus wrote: "I believe that directors should be reluctant to accept claims of deception from so-called innocent parties except in extreme circumstances." I concur. Therefore, in Tim's case, if I were TD I would rule no infraction. South's 3NT is "at own risk", if South based the 3NT call upon the assumption that East would not dither when East held spade length & strength. Best wishes Richard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri May 2 01:32:47 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 01:32:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <000e01c31024$58f8e700$4e9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <99312B96-7C35-11D7-A5A0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to > deliberately > delay the game by keeping a card face up? I would have phrased is as "allow a player to keep a card face up in order to avoid being rushed by the opponents", but however you phrase it my answer is "yes". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri May 2 01:43:54 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 12:43:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <200305012129.OAA14565@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c31043$ebda9590$159737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: Friday, 2 May 2003 9:29 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > Wayne wrote: > > > Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to > deliberately > > delay the game by keeping a card face up? > > Yes. Why? Deliberately delaying the game seems to violate he correct procedure given in L74C7. It certainly is disconcerting when it is my turn to play to have to wait on someone else to fulfil their obligation to turn a trick down when that player could have done that when the trick had been played to. > > > When I win a trick I would like to use my mental energy to > determine and > > play the best card to the next trick not to observe whether > or not my > > opponent has turned a card face down. > > No problem. Use your mental energy to decide what to lead to the next > trick. When you've decided, then look and see whether everyone else > has turned their trick before you lead. I don't think I should need to do this when the other players have an obligation to quit their tricks. Wayne > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Fri May 2 01:50:59 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 17:50:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 May 2003 12:43:54 +1200." <000001c31043$ebda9590$159737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <200305020050.RAA17238@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Wayne wrote: > > > > > Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to > > deliberately > > > delay the game by keeping a card face up? > > > > Yes. > > Why? Between tricks is a much better time to think and plan ahead than in the middle of a trick, since it provides much less UI (and much less free information for one's opponent). > Deliberately delaying the game seems to violate he correct procedure > given in L74C7. Only if you do it "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". If your purpose is to take time to think, there's no violation, even if an impatient opponent gets disconcerted as a result. > It certainly is disconcerting when it is my turn to play to have to > wait on someone else to fulfil their obligation to turn a trick down > when that player could have done that when the trick had been played > to. Again, it doesn't matter whether you're disconcerted. It only matters whether the player who delayed the game was deliberately trying to disconcert you, rather than delaying the game for some legitimate reason. > > > When I win a trick I would like to use my mental energy to > > determine and > > > play the best card to the next trick not to observe whether > > or not my > > > opponent has turned a card face down. > > > > No problem. Use your mental energy to decide what to lead to the next > > trick. When you've decided, then look and see whether everyone else > > has turned their trick before you lead. > > I don't think I should need to do this when the other players have an > obligation to quit their tricks. There is no such obligation. Can you find a Law that so obliges the other players? (And don't say L74C7 because I already dealt with that one.) -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 2 02:12:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:12:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote: >>Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to >>deliberately delay the game by keeping a card face up? Gordon Rainsford wrote: >I would have phrased is as "allow a player to keep a card >face up in order to avoid being rushed by the opponents", but >however you phrase it my answer is "yes". Richard Hills wrote: I agree with the positions of both Gordon and Wayne. I agree with Gordon that a defender or declarer should not be rushed, when checking the pip of a defender's (or declarer's) card played to the current trick. I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an infraction of Law 73D2. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri May 2 02:24:43 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:24:43 +1200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <200305020050.RAA17238@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000501c31049$a010d2e0$159737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: Friday, 2 May 2003 12:51 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > > > > Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to > > > deliberately > > > > delay the game by keeping a card face up? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Why? > > Between tricks is a much better time to think and plan ahead than in > the middle of a trick, since it provides much less UI (and much less > free information for one's opponent). ... and it takes away the leaders lawful right to continue in tempo. > > > Deliberately delaying the game seems to violate he correct procedure > > given in L74C7. > > Only if you do it "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". If > your purpose is to take time to think, there's no violation, even if > an impatient opponent gets disconcerted as a result. > > > It certainly is disconcerting when it is my turn to play to have to > > wait on someone else to fulfil their obligation to turn a trick down > > when that player could have done that when the trick had been played > > to. > > Again, it doesn't matter whether you're disconcerted. It only matters > whether the player who delayed the game was deliberately trying to > disconcert you, rather than delaying the game for some legitimate > reason. I agree. However if you are going to complain when a player whose turn it is to lead to the next trick then I think you there is evidence that you are deliberately trying to disconcert that player. > > > > > When I win a trick I would like to use my mental energy to > > > determine and > > > > play the best card to the next trick not to observe whether > > > or not my > > > > opponent has turned a card face down. > > > > > > No problem. Use your mental energy to decide what to > lead to the next > > > trick. When you've decided, then look and see whether > everyone else > > > has turned their trick before you lead. > > > > I don't think I should need to do this when the other > players have an > > obligation to quit their tricks. > > There is no such obligation. Can you find a Law that so obliges the > other players? (And don't say L74C7 because I already dealt with that > one.) I too have dealt with this somewhere else... L65A "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table." My dictionary says that 'when' in this type of context means 'as soon as' and not 'some time later at each individual's discretion'. 'after which, and then, but just then' is another quote from my dictionary. Wayne > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri May 2 02:26:34 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:26:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c31049$e18bfa10$159737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 2 May 2003 1:13 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >>Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to > >>deliberately delay the game by keeping a card face up? > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > >I would have phrased is as "allow a player to keep a card > >face up in order to avoid being rushed by the opponents", but > >however you phrase it my answer is "yes". > > Richard Hills wrote: > > I agree with the positions of both Gordon and Wayne. > > I agree with Gordon that a defender or declarer should not be > rushed, when checking the pip of a defender's (or declarer's) > card played to the current trick. > I agree too. I believe the purpose of the law is to allow you to check the pips played. Wayne > I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > infraction of Law 73D2. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Fri May 2 02:33:29 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 18:33:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 May 2003 11:12:43 +1000." Message-ID: <200305020125.SAA17708@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > infraction of Law 73D2. Uh, how??? Law 73D2 says: 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. If a trick is finished and you hesitate before turning the trick (that's what we're still talking about, right?), just which provision of 73D2 are you violating? It's certainly not "haste or hesitancy of a call or play", or "the manner in which a call or play is made", since turning your card over after a trick is completed is not a play (and is certainly not a call). It's not a remark or gesture either. And in any case, if you keep your card face up so that you can plan ahead, just whom are you misleading and how? If your hesitancy leads someone else to believe that you're taking time to plan ahead, that's not misleading because that's exactly what you're doing, right? But what other possible mistaken conclusion could someone draw from your delay in turning the trick? That you had a sudden spasm that left you unable to move your fingers, perhaps? -- Adam From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" <002a01c30dbd$d8aa3800$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <001401c3106b$cfa75160$6d4e28c4@john> From: "Robert E. Harris" | I need my memory refreshed. | If partner leads Q of spades out of turn, and the lead is not | accepted, then the Q becomes a major penalty card. OK. | | Now declairer says, "Lead anything." 50D1 says the knowledge that | the Q must be played is AI, but other information arising from the | facing of the card is UI. What other information is meant? | 1. That partner thought it a good idea to lead the Q? | 2. The fact that partner has at least one spade, namely the Q? | 3. The chance that partner has the J of spades, assuming it is not in view? | Or the chance that partner's spade is a singleton, if the J is in view? | 4. Some other possibility that I have not yet thought of? | | Now suppose Declairer says, "Don't lead a spade." So the Q is | picked up. Now it looks to me like the lead is a withdrawn action in | the sense of 16C2 and all information is UI to me. | | But if the lead of the spade Q is out of turn and not accepted, is | that in itself a withdrawn action in the sense of 16C2? Then the | fact that the Q is now a major penalty card and must be played at the | first legal opportunity is still AI according to 50D1. Or is it? | | I'm pretty confused by this whole subject. | | REH | >From what Ton and others have said, the only AI that may occur is when the Q is a major penalty card. If so, the offender's partner is permitted to know that if they lead that suit then their partner must play the Q. All else is UI. John From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu May 1 12:04:07 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:04:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Supreme idiocy (was When is a trick finished) References: Message-ID: <000201c31076$ccf21b70$ec3df0c3@LNV> > David Burn's philippic: > > >No. L74A2 makes it illegal for me to wear a > >shirt that my opponent does not like, because > >his dear departed father was wearing a shirt > >of the same colour when he was run over by a > >bus. It is the second stupidest Law in the > >book, and is yet another example of the > >supreme idiocy that was involved in turning > >the Proprieties into Laws. It is the eye of the observer and the translation of his observation into a meaning somewhere in his brains, that makes a law stupid or not. And being preoccupied by the command that rulings should be mechanical since that same eye only sees stupid TD's, such reaction about L 74A2 is predictable (mechanical we could say). For those of us who keep confidence in the ability of TD's to raise above the level of chickens this law doesn't cause much problems, and indeed might be helpful to control uncivilized behaviour from players using the word 'stupid' or similar expressions in almost every sentence spoken. ton > > In my opinion, Law 74A2 - or a replacement > 2005 Law with similar meaning - is necessary. > Otherwise, the TD is powerless to promptly > regulate many anti-social behaviours which > might happen during a session. > > A post-session hearing by a C&E committee is > not a sufficiently prompt rectification of > anti-social behaviours. And the TD's ultimate > power under Law 91, to suspend or disqualify, > may be an excessive punishment which does not > fit a particular anti-social crime. > > Anti-social behaviour was, in my experience, > more common before the 1987 conversion of the > Proprieties into enforcable Laws. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri May 2 08:12:54 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 09:12:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? References: Message-ID: <00d101c3108b$7dffcac0$ec3df0c3@LNV> > Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for > could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > > None vul, Dealer South. > > S W N E > 1D 2S 3D P > 3NT > > 2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and > dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his > behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? > > Thanks, > > Tim There is no described guidance,but in practice the level of the players has to be taken into account. Don't forget that besides the 'could have known' condition you also need to establish the fact that the player didn't have a bridge reason for this hesiation. Which also depends on the level of the player. Impossible all those judgements. There is only one solution, described by Adam Wildavsky: allow cheating as we define it at the moment. But even with the present laws I don't see any reason to consider any adjusted score in tis case. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri May 2 11:12:05 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 12:12:05 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for=20 could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. None vul, Dealer South. S W N E 1D 2S 3D P 3NT 2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and=20 dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his=20 behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? ------- What's the problem here? East obviously must be allowed time to decide what to bid. Whether he has any problem, depends upon their style (how weak 2S could be). If anything, easts hesitation could only help south. You might concider banning a spade lead from west due to UI. (It's difficult to see east thinking of anything but supporting spades.) Regards, Harald ------- Thanks, Tim _______________________________________________ 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 Fri May 2 13:14:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 14:14:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502141321.01d3b350@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:31 1/05/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >But, the WBF LC has issued a binding (albeit >apparently unjustifiable) interpretation of Law >15C, stating a call with no demonstrable bridge >reason is deemed an infraction of Law 74A2. AG : very well. Remains to determine whether attempting to get 60% is a valuable bridge reason. You will get pros as well as contras. From twm@cix.co.uk Fri May 2 13:09:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: <00d101c3108b$7dffcac0$ec3df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > > Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" > > for could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > > > > None vul, Dealer South. > > > > S W N E > > 1D 2S 3D P > > 3NT > > > > 2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and > > dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his > > behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? > > There is no described guidance,but in practice the level of the players > has to be taken into account. > Don't forget that besides the 'could have known' condition you also > need to establish the fact that the player didn't have a bridge reason > for this hesiation. Which also depends on the level of the player. Agreed. I admit I was surprised that a good player found this hand a "20 second problem" - but that's not an easy judgement I admit. > Impossible all those judgements. There is only one solution, described > by Adam Wildavsky: allow cheating as we define it at the moment. > > But even with the present laws I don't see any reason to consider any > adjusted score in tis case. I think you are probably right (on both counts). However I'd just like to turn the question around a little. What behaviour should East adopt in order to entice South into trying 3N if South's spade holding is a not unlikely Qxx? Are we putting South in a position whereby he must accuse East of deliberate coffee-housing if he wishes to receive an adjustment? I thought that was the situation that "could have known" was trying to avoid. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri May 2 13:41:34 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 14:41:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502143424.01d42790@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:13 2/05/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > >None vul, Dealer South. > >S W N E >1D 2S 3D P >3NT > >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? AG : I'm not sure the tempo was misleading. Two possibilities are open :=20 either East has some form of spade fit, but is wary of something (partner's= =20 wild style, a sterile pattern, telling South not to play NT, ...) or he has= =20 a diamond stack.Other interpretations are less plausible, but not to be=20 excluded, eg he has a long heart suit and was unsure about whether to=20 introduce it and/or of how partner would take the 3H bid (FNJ ?). South=20 might try his guess as to the reason, but why should he claim to have been= =20 decieved ? If you're telling me that East has an obvious 3S bid, you don't know my=20 WJOs. If you're telling me East has an obvious pass, you don't know= J=E9r=F4me's. To cut it short, East's hand is borderline for a 3S bid, which means that=20 his tempo had some "bridge reason" - at any level. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 2 13:25:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 08:25:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030502080744.022e0c60@pop.starpower.net> At 07:13 PM 5/1/03, twm wrote: >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for >could have known situations. One doesn't. "Class of player involved" is relevant to L69-71. "Could have known" is relevant to L73. They are not related, and do not interact. L73F2 refers to "an opponent". The TD must judge whether the particular opponent in question "could have known"; what other (hypothetical) players of his presumptive "class" would know, or do, needn't be considered (although the TD may take it into consideration it if he chooses to, which he will presumably do only if he is confident he knows what it is). >I came across this one tonight. > >None vul, Dealer South. > >S W N E >1D 2S 3D P >3NT > >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? I don't know, nor does anyone else reading the bare facts of the case. That's why we pay TDs and ACs (well, we don't, but you know what I mean) to make such judgments based on their interactions with the players. In the case at hand, if the player were relatively inexperienced, it wouldn't shock me if the TD or AC decided that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for his huddle, rendering what he "could have known" about its potential to deceive S irrelevant. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From john@asimere.com Fri May 2 13:28:18 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:28:18 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: In article <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbu ndet.no>, Skjaran, Harald writes >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > >None vul, Dealer South. > >S W N E >1D 2S 3D P >3NT > >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? > >------- >What's the problem here? As one does, we Brits phone each other in the middle of the night. So I got this hand from the a much peeved horse's mouth. I know who the ditherer was - he's a pro (incompetent pro, it must be said, as I've never lost a match to him yet) playing with a weakish player who will have 6 spades and a tolerable suit. How he couldn't bid 3S in complete tempo, knowing it's the correct action is beyond me. He can count 8 tricks and a TT of 17. I'm known here for being quite hard on hesitators, so I'm going to rule that the hesitator definitely "could have known". Whether I adjust depends precisely how far out of the boat Tim was leaning when he called 3NT. IIRC he was hanging from skyhooks. >East obviously must be allowed time to decide what to bid. >Whether he has any problem, depends upon their style (how weak 2S could be). >If anything, easts hesitation could only help south. >You might concider banning a spade lead from west due to UI. >(It's difficult to see east thinking of anything but supporting spades.) > >Regards, >Harald >------- > >Thanks, > >Tim > >_______________________________________________ >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 > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri May 2 13:59:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 14:59:55 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502145216.01d3a6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:28 2/05/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbu >ndet.no>, Skjaran, Harald writes > >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for > >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > > > >None vul, Dealer South. > > > >S W N E > >1D 2S 3D P > >3NT > > > >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and > >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his > >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? > > > >------- > >What's the problem here? > >As one does, we Brits phone each other in the middle of the night. So I >got this hand from the a much peeved horse's mouth. I know who the >ditherer was - he's a pro (incompetent pro, it must be said, as I've >never lost a match to him yet) playing with a weakish player who will >have 6 spades and a tolerable suit. AG : okay, that's an important information. >How he couldn't bid 3S in complete tempo, knowing it's the correct >action is beyond me. He can count 8 tricks and a TT of 17. > >I'm known here for being quite hard on hesitators, so I'm going to rule >that the hesitator definitely "could have known". AG : I'm known for not being, so I will try arguing the other way. East's hesitation may be based on several problems specific to the situation : a) assume the final contract is 3SX. The client will have to play the contract. How likely is it that he will go more than one down ? b) is it possible that NS's diamond "fit" is only 43, therefore making the TNT only 16 ? What would he bid over 2S on x - Kxx - Qxx - K10xxxx ? And, of course, partner could have AQJ10xx - xxx - x - xxx and opener H KQ and DA (2 down anyway if spades aren't 2-2). Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 2 14:34:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 09:34:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: <200305021334.JAA28150@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >>Does anyone think it is a good idea to allow an opponent to > >>deliberately delay the game by keeping a card face up? Add one more 'yes'. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > infraction of Law 73D2. I'm with Adam: L73D2 seems bizarre. We are assuming that the purpose of the delay is to have time to think, not an attempt to mislead. Of course if someone delays with no "demonstrable bridge reason," L73F2 may be invoked, but that will be very rare. From john@asimere.com Fri May 2 15:41:26 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:41:26 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502145216.01d3a6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20030502145216.01d3a6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030502145216.01d3a6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 13:28 2/05/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbu >>ndet.no>, Skjaran, Harald writes >> >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for >> >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. >> > >> >None vul, Dealer South. >> > >> >S W N E >> >1D 2S 3D P >> >3NT >> > >> >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and >> >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his >> >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? >> > >> >------- >> >What's the problem here? >> >>As one does, we Brits phone each other in the middle of the night. So I >>got this hand from the a much peeved horse's mouth. I know who the >>ditherer was - he's a pro (incompetent pro, it must be said, as I've >>never lost a match to him yet) playing with a weakish player who will >>have 6 spades and a tolerable suit. > >AG : okay, that's an important information. > > >>How he couldn't bid 3S in complete tempo, knowing it's the correct >>action is beyond me. He can count 8 tricks and a TT of 17. >> >>I'm known here for being quite hard on hesitators, so I'm going to rule >>that the hesitator definitely "could have known". > >AG : I'm known for not being, so I will try arguing the other way. ok, one may well have a hesitation if one holds Jxx in spades, in which case QTx is a sure stop for 3N. Our incompetent pro could certainly have known that this hesitation might suggest this holding. We'd adjust during play if he misled declarer with this holding compared to Kxx; why not in the auction? I accept your other points, but the holding he has denied by hesitating is Kxx IMO. >East's hesitation may be based on several problems specific to the situation : >a) assume the final contract is 3SX. The client will have to play the >contract. How likely is it that he will go more than one down ? unlikely, even I can see 8 probable tricks, and despite your later point the opponents have to be rasor sharp to double with 3 small trump. >b) is it possible that NS's diamond "fit" is only 43, therefore making the >TNT only 16 ? What would he bid over 2S on x - Kxx - Qxx - K10xxxx ? In practice it's not likely in the UK. > >And, of course, partner could have AQJ10xx - xxx - x - xxx and opener H KQ >and DA (2 down anyway if spades aren't 2-2). > >Best regards, > > Alain. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From HauffHJ@aol.com Thu May 1 10:25:38 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 05:25:38 EDT Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole Message-ID: <140.107bef8a.2be24212@aol.com> --part1_140.107bef8a.2be24212_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <"Everybody knows ??"> Sven Prans observation is correct (quote): "But if you count everybody who does not bother to object then of course you have a huge majority". For me, this is not the point. I propose to use a defined expression for a given fact: (the word "coscore"). I dont go for majority. No one is forced to use this expression, but I am quite sure that the ones who have to deal with this fact, will be happy to use it. And surely I hope to atract the members of the "LAWS drafting comittee". "Everybody" should better read "everybody who ever operated a matchpoint scoring system" at the end of a tournament. There are some BLML-users who care very much for bidding and play, but never operated a MP-system, they only know the team-of-four procedure, those are not "everybody" The problem behind the Coscore is, that there is more than o n e type. Actually used is the "reciprok type", seldom used is the "zero type" and there are other to be discussed or used. Adam Beneschan proposes in his contribution 29.04 (quote): "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" Now:+420/-420 is a score/reciprok coscore and I hope Adams uses "coscore" next time. Observation: Unfortunately, any reciprok Coscore includes "gifts". The zero coscore is free of gifts. You can see more to this under www.bridgeassitant.com/ web_b6. best wishes Paul --part1_140.107bef8a.2be24212_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <"Everybody knows ??">
Sven Prans observation is correct (quote): "But if you count everybody who <= BR> does not bother to object then of course you have a huge majority".

For me, this is not the point. I propose to use a defined expression for a g= iven fact:
(the word "coscore"). I dont go for majority.
No one is forced to use this expression, but I am quite sure that the ones w= ho
have to deal with this fact, will be happy to use it.
And surely I hope to atract the members of the "LAWS drafting comittee".

"Everybody" should better read "everybody who ever operated a matchpoint scoring system" at the end of a tournament. There are some BLML-users who care very much for bidding and play, but never operated a MP-system, they&nb= sp;
only know the team-of-four procedure, those are not "everybody"

The problem behind the Coscore is, that there is more than  o n e =   type. Actually
used is the "reciprok  type", seldom used is the "zero type" and there=20= are
other to be discussed or used.

Adam Beneschan proposes in his contribution 29.04 (quote): "The format of La= w 77
appears to be a fossilised relic from rubber bridge laws. Therefore, the 200= 5 Law 77 should
perhaps make a specific statement about a NS +420 carrying a consequence of=20= an EW -420"

Now:+420/-420 is a score/reciprok coscore and I hope Adams uses "coscore" ne= xt time.

Observation: Unfortunately, any reciprok Coscore includes "gifts".
The zero coscore is free of gifts.
You can see more to this under www.bridgeassitant.com/ web_b6.

best wishes
Paul
--part1_140.107bef8a.2be24212_boundary-- From hermandw@skynet.be Fri May 2 16:03:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 17:03:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole References: <140.107bef8a.2be24212@aol.com> Message-ID: <3EB288B8.1010701@skynet.be> Sorry Paul, but this is simply not true: HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: > > For me, this is not the point. I propose to use a defined expression for > a given fact: > (the word "coscore"). I dont go for majority. > No one is forced to use this expression, but I am quite sure that the > ones who > have to deal with this fact, will be happy to use it. > And surely I hope to atract the members of the "LAWS drafting comittee". > If this concept had any validity - the word is well chosen. > "Everybody" should better read "everybody who ever operated a matchpoint > scoring system" at the end of a tournament. There are some BLML-users who > care very much for bidding and play, but never operated a MP-system, they > only know the team-of-four procedure, those are not "everybody" > I'm sure many a director has operated a program before. I have even written one. > The problem behind the Coscore is, that there is more than o n e > type. Actually > used is the "reciprok type", seldom used is the "zero type" and there are > other to be discussed or used. > Still others ? And you are the only one to propose the zero type. > Adam Beneschan proposes in his contribution 29.04 (quote): "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" > Maybe it should. But I doubt if this is the most urgent addition to the laws. > Now:+420/-420 is a score/reciprok coscore and I hope Adams uses > "coscore" next time. > > Observation: Unfortunately, any reciprok Coscore includes "gifts". Indeed. So? > The zero coscore is free of gifts. NO it is not. When I bid 4Sp, I expect to get a "score" of +420. If my opponents bid 5Cl over that, my expectation will be a "co-score", either of +50,+100 or +150. If I double, I can make that +100,+300 or +500. If these are zero-coscores, they all turn out as 0, and I can well stop playing. There's nothing I can do anymore. or how do you define zero-coscores? And even if I get a co-score of +500, how do you mean this cannot include a "gift". Really Paul, you need to think this one far better through before going on with this thread. > You can see more to this under www.bridgeassitant.com/ web_b6. > > best wishes > Paul -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Fri May 2 16:26:31 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 16:26:31 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? Message-ID: [edited for brevity] [The hand] > >> >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for > >> >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > >> > > >> >None vul, Dealer South. > >> > > >> >S W N E > >> >1D 2S 3D P > >> >3NT > >> > > >> >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and > >> >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his > >> >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? [John Probst] > >>How he couldn't bid 3S in complete tempo, knowing it's the correct > >>action is beyond me. He can count 8 tricks and a TT of 17. > >> > >>I'm known here for being quite hard on hesitators, so I'm going to rule > >>that the hesitator definitely "could have known". [Alain] > >AG : I'm known for not being, so I will try arguing the other way. [John again] > ok, one may well have a hesitation if one holds Jxx in spades, in which > case QTx is a sure stop for 3N. Our incompetent pro could certainly have > known that this hesitation might suggest this holding. We'd adjust > during play if he misled declarer with this holding compared to Kxx; why > not in the auction? > > I accept your other points, but the holding he has denied by hesitating > is Kxx IMO. It seems just the sort of hand (thinking of bidding 3S) that I'd expect him to have. L73D1 seems to apply to me: inferences from a variation in tempo like this are drawn by an opponent at his own risk. To argue that this hesition suggests *particular honour holdings* in spades seems bizarre to me. He might consider bidding 3S with any 3 card support hand and some high cards outside surely? As Alain argues, he has a bridge reason for thinking. The situation would be entirely different if he held say: x Qxxx xxx Qxxxx, when he "could have known" a hesitation might dissuade South from trying 3NT with a partial stopper. --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From adam@tameware.com Fri May 2 16:30:01 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:30:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: <00d101c3108b$7dffcac0$ec3df0c3@LNV> References: <00d101c3108b$7dffcac0$ec3df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: At 9:12 AM +0200 5/2/03, Ton Kooijman wrote: >There is only one solution, described by Adam Wildavsky: allow >cheating as we define it at the moment. I can't fathom what you mean by that, but I see I shall have to reopen the "treatment of questions" thread. My proposal could not be relevant to the case Tim described, because no questions were asked. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Fri May 2 16:46:04 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:46:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:36 AM +0200 4/28/03, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Adam 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? >> >> 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. > >We don't. Good! >The idea is that only when a player asks such question where the >purpose to deceive opponents becomes a real option, or where without tha= t >almost sure intention the opponent still has no way to escape from such >wrong conclusion, there will be redress. Please give me an example. I am suggesting that not knowing the=20 answer and wanting to know in order to follow the auction is=20 sufficient reason to ask, absent UI concerns. >And in my long years of experience such situation has never occurred=20 >during the auction when questions where asked. So your example will have to be hypothetical. >What happens is that partner receives UI and has a LA. Redress. No argument. >But such questions or manners occur quite a lot during play. I am addressing only questions. >We had a case this weekend where declarer plays the J towards K1098x=20 >in dummy and LHO starts thinking for a while and plays low. Why is this relevant to our discussion? No question has been asked.=20 There's no possibility that declarer has gained an advantage through=20 his unexpected use of a Jack. >If you suggest that opponents should be allowed to ask any question, als= o >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. I suggest that not knowing the answer and wanting to know in order to=20 follow the auction is sufficient reason to ask. Are you suggesting that an auxiliary benefit of playing an unusual=20 system is that one will be able to guess the hands better? "He asked=20 a question, so I know he must hold at least 8 HCP." "With as much as=20 10 HCP surely he'd have asked what our bids mean -- the odds favor=20 playing him for less." --=20 Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri May 2 17:14:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:14:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Test : Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502145216.01d3a6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD222@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20030502145216.01d3a6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502180018.01d4fa20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Trying to solve the problem posed in the "could have known or at own risk" thread, I gave my partner Gilles, whom I consider an expert on competitive bidding evaluation, the hand, bidding and situation and asked him two questions. Here are (translated) the two questions and the answers. a) Is it advisable to support spades ? If needed, specify which parameters will influence the decision. Gilles : it depends on partner's style. If he is classical, it is quite normal to bid 3S. If he is aggressive, like us, it's borderline ; table feel, my mood at the moment, and perhaps partner's, will sway me one way or the other. b) did you need some time before making your mind up ? Gilles : such borderline decisions always need some time to be made. Therefore, I still consider that East had some "bridge reason" to hesitate. One more argument (and last from me) : to know that it could help him, East should have had reasons to guess that South was about to bid 3NT on dubious values, dubious spade stopper, and not very long diamonds (all of which may be inferred from his hand). Why should it be the case ? Best regards, Alain. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri May 2 17:29:14 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 17:29:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole In-Reply-To: <140.107bef8a.2be24212@aol.com> Message-ID: <3696557E-7CBB-11D7-A6E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 10:25 AM, HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: > You can see more to this under www.bridgeassitant.com/ web_b6. Unfortunately not: even with the obvious typo corrected, none of the links on the page work. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri May 2 20:26:59 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:26:59 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole In-Reply-To: <140.107bef8a.2be24212@aol.com> Message-ID: Let me suggest there is not, in fact, a hole at all. The law tells you what score to give one pair. It goes on to tell you how to matchpoint a list of scores, how to convert to imps, and then there is 78D, which says sponsoring organizations can score their games however they like (provided it doesn't conflict with L77.) It happens that most of the world has opted to give reciprocal scores, and to give pairs with negative reciprocal scores fewer matchpoints than pairs scoring 0. There's nothing stopping you from scoring it another way if you want to. See, for instance, team games, where we normally *don't* give reciprocal scores (adding up only imps won and not imps lost), and depending where you live, the result of a 3-way match might be determined by total imps won/lost or by the difference between them, according to the regulation in force. A nonstandard method that appeals to me is to award a matchpoint for each pair *beaten or tied*, instead of just half a point for ties-- the theory is that two tables of perfect bridge players ought to be tying boards all the time, while sloppy players are going to have a string of semirandom tops and bottoms. Why not leave the law as it is, accept that reciprocal scores for the nonscoring side are a popular supplemental regulation, and concentrate your efforts on persuading a few clubs or tournaments to try it your way instead? GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat May 3 02:40:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 21:40:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <000301c309bf$ba537120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 4/23/03, Sven Pran wrote: >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. I used to carry a law book with me. I began to get the feeling folks were thinking of me as a "bridge lawyer". So I stopped. Maybe I'll start again, and to Hell with what people think. 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 Sat May 3 03:07:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 22:07:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424163358.0245aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 4/24/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >The court fined the Federation heavily because they didn't "prove" >their allegations with *absolute* certainty. "The Law is an ass." - Some Brit. :) 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 Sat May 3 02:59:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 21:59:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: On 4/24/03, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >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. The Hell it's not. 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 Sat May 3 02:53:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 21:53:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/24/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >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? Pfui. Law 75A refers to Law 40, which discusses agreements regarding the meaning of calls and plays. Therefore, by inference, Law 75A deals also with agreements regarding the meaning of calls and plays. The tempo in which such calls and plays are made has nothing to do with the meaning (at least, it had better not). 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 Sat May 3 02:59:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 21:59:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT Message-ID: On 4/23/03, Gordon Bower wrote: >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. The fact people are doing that doesn't make it legal. 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 Sat May 3 03:32:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 22:32:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000001c30e1d$cf9f2620$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 4/29/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Really what law is that? The one that *should* say that the lead to subsequent tricks can only be made after the current trick is quitted. 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 Sat May 3 04:01:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 23:01:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 5/2/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to >enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an >infraction of Law 73D2. "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." Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to mislead an opponent". 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat May 3 07:07:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 23:07:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <001801c3113a$3a3da640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > On 4/23/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >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. > Which says third hand can ask for the explanation of a particular call, in violation of L20F2, which only permits a defender to request "an explanation of opposing auction." Since L41B references L20, can we assume that L20's words take precedence over what appears to be a mistake in L41B? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat May 3 07:28:59 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 23:28:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole References: Message-ID: <001d01c3113d$49f55d00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" > Why not leave the law as it is, accept that reciprocal scores for the > nonscoring side are a popular supplemental regulation, and concentrate > your efforts on persuading a few clubs or tournaments to try it your way > instead? > Reciprocal scores are not accepted in social (rubber) bridge circles, at least here in San Diego. Players insist that points scored by opponents are not to be deducted from their points. They argue, "We scored those points, why should they be reduced?" I suppose in a money game they would expect everyone to be a winner. Checking, I see that the rubber bridge laws require reciprocal scoring, since the winner of a rubber gets net score (usually negative for one side), not gross score. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat May 3 09:25:53 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:25:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <004301c3114e$989fb2f0$63c0f1c3@LNV> > On 4/24/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >The court fined the Federation heavily because they didn't "prove" > >their allegations with *absolute* certainty. > > "The Law is an ass." - Some Brit. :) > > Regards, > > Ed Judges don't play bridge and don't know anything about mathematics, alpha oriented people as they are. The accused bridge player in Belgium rented a mathematical professor himself and either that guy was real Belgium (sorry Alain) or he lied. I myself wrote a letter to the Belgium Federation to support their accusations, showing that the chance to shuffle those boards (ignoring the small cards) was much less than winning the national lottery three times in a row. But how to explain the meaning of 10 to the power 23 (Avogadro, isn't it?) to a judge? It is not the law being an ass, but those who have to apply it (where did I say that before?) ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat May 3 09:30:29 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:30:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001801c3113a$3a3da640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004401c3114e$98dce300$63c0f1c3@LNV> > > On 4/23/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >Next time you see this opponent you can open your law book and turn to > > >the last part of Law 41B; the text that begins with the words: > > > > > >"Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, > > >require a review of the auction; ....." and read from there on to the > > >end of Law 41B. > > > Which says third hand can ask for the explanation of a particular call, in > violation of L20F2, which only permits a defender to request "an > explanation of opposing auction." Since L41B references L20, can we assume > that L20's words take precedence over what appears to be a mistake in > L41B? > No. The WBF LC has said that though L 20 speaks about questioning the auction, it will not be considered an infraction to ask about a specific call, though L 16 might apply. ton > Marv From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat May 3 09:34:34 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:34:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <000201c30fc8$c7b9e330$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3EB1239B.3010708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004f01c3114e$d6c594a0$63c0f1c3@LNV> > > > To me the remarks (both by East and by declarer) and the knowledge or > > lacking knowledge of the revoke etc. have no significance at all. And the > > fact that the revoke card H-J is the highest outstanding trump at the time > > of the claim and as such cannot avoid taking a trick makes this a very > > simple case of a two tricks revoke. > > > But assume that the revoke card had been a small trump or some other card > > that not necessarily would win a subsequent trick but which could do so. Let > > us further assume that the claim again is for the remaining tricks less two > > and that there are several possible lines of play all of which will secure > > opponents the last two tricks: > > A: Offender wins one trick with his revoke card > > B: His partner wins both tricks. > > > > I shall tend to rule (supported in my opinion by Law 12C2) alternative A: > > One of the tricks would be won with the revoke card; making it a two trick > > revoke whenever such a line of play would not be directly irrational > > (regardless of the class of player!) > > > > > We agree yet again! Interesting suject, not new but still not really solved either. One of the problems being that we use different definitions of acquiescense in 63A3 and 69. My solution has been and still is to change 63A3 giving the offending side the rights as described in 69. One reason being that it shouldn't pay off to claim after a revoke by an opponent with the purpose to make it established, another that I don't see why the right to discover such revoke should be limited (though just a little bit) by the claim from an opponent. I am planning an article for the Australian TD Bulletin also describing the case we had to solve as AC in the NBB. A claim after opponents revoke where it is uncertain whether opponents will make the second-trick-penalty-trick. In the case Marvin describes this is a certainty. So 11 tricks there. Keep in mind what happens if east discovers his revoke when the third spade is played and ruffs that trick. Now the adjusted score will give south only 9 tricks, No penalty tricks anymore. Another example of the advantage not to disclose a revoke yourself. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat May 3 09:34:49 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:34:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <005501c3114e$de24a290$63c0f1c3@LNV> Adam: >> Why, then, do we allow a player to base inferences on his opponents' >> questions? It is this sentence I reacted on when I said that forbidding to base inferences, would create cheating ( according to our present laws). If we make questions information free for the opponents per definition, you introduce 'no bridge reason' / 'could have known' questions becoming harmless, since the opponent should not draw any conclusion. I don't consider that to be an improvement. >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. >Please give me an example. I am suggesting that not knowing the >answer and wanting to know in order to follow the auction is >sufficient reason to ask, absent UI concerns. You seem to think that my position in this issue differs from yours. But it doesn't. Ask Grattan. >And in my long years of experience such situation has never occurred >during the auction when questions where asked. So your example will have to be hypothetical. Hypothetical examples are poor and disputable, but they might illustrate the idea. N/S bid 1C - 2C (inverted minor) - 3C and now East with some surprise in his voice asks to south: can he (N) bid 3C with only 4 clubs? South answers: 'I don't think so', but having 4 clubs himself his mind inevitably comes to the conclusion that east himself has 4, probably 5 clubs, how is it otherwise possible to ask such strange and specific question? NS don't reach the cold slam and east shows 2 clubs. Time to call the TD who should consider an adjusted score. In blackwood the answer on 4NT is 5C and now an opponent asks: you still play 5C to show just zero aces? Don't you think that such question can only be asked when you have aces yourself? (I know that both questions are illegal anyway, but they are also part of bridge life). >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 café's) for which I am not ready yet. >I suggest that not knowing the answer and wanting to know in order to >follow the auction is sufficient reason to ask. We agree. >Are you suggesting that an auxiliary benefit of playing an unusual >system is that one will be able to guess the hands better? "He asked >a question, so I know he must hold at least 8 HCP." "With as much as >10 HCP surely he'd have asked what our bids mean -- the odds favor >playing him for less." Not me, but Grattan tells us that the WBF AC has expressed an opinion in that direction. I tried to convince him that this idea must be based on a mistaken interpretation. But then he tells me not to enter the AC field of authority. Not so easy to solve then. ton From twm@cix.co.uk Sat May 3 19:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 19:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > [edited for brevity] > > [The hand] > > >> >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of > > > player" for > > >> >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > > >> > > > >> >None vul, Dealer South. > > >> > > > >> >S W N E > > >> >1D 2S 3D P > > >> >3NT > > >> > > > >> >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation > > > and > > >> >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that > > > his > > >> >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade > > > holding)? > > > [John Probst] > > >>How he couldn't bid 3S in complete tempo, knowing it's the correct > > >>action is beyond me. He can count 8 tricks and a TT of 17. > > >> > > >>I'm known here for being quite hard on hesitators, so I'm going to > > rule > > >>that the hesitator definitely "could have known". > > [Alain] > > >AG : I'm known for not being, so I will try arguing the other way. > > [John again] > > ok, one may well have a hesitation if one holds Jxx in spades, in > > which > > case QTx is a sure stop for 3N. Our incompetent pro could certainly > > have > > known that this hesitation might suggest this holding. We'd adjust > > during play if he misled declarer with this holding compared to Kxx; > > why > > not in the auction? > > > > I accept your other points, but the holding he has denied by > > hesitating > > is Kxx IMO. > > It seems just the sort of hand (thinking of bidding 3S) that I'd > expect him to have. L73D1 seems to apply to me: inferences from > a variation in tempo like this are drawn by an opponent at his own risk. > To argue that this hesition suggests *particular honour holdings* in > spades seems bizarre to me. He might consider bidding 3S with any > 3 card support hand and some high cards outside surely? As South you can place East with about 8-11 hcp and 2/3 spades (East is good enough to know this). > As Alain argues, he has a bridge reason for thinking. Is "a bridge reason for thinking" the same as saying "a bridge reason for taking some 20-25 seconds whilst twice reaching for/touching the "active" part of the bidding box before finally passing". Had he taken 6-8 seconds of thought and then passed I wouldn't have considered the case at all interesting. However perhaps I am on a different planet and those two scenarios don't actually suggest anything different about his hand. Tim From HauffHJ@aol.com Sat May 3 07:16:57 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 02:16:57 EDT Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole Message-ID: <99.371f6e0b.2be4b8d9@aol.com> --part1_99.371f6e0b.2be4b8d9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: the big hole / Coscores and their application Herman DE WAEL adds his personell opinion to the topic and finishes:(quote) "Really,Paul, you need to think this one far better through before going on with this tread." This remark is not very helpfull. If a BLML-member opposes to a certain idea, he should cite facts to prove his opposition. I know by experience, that telling someone the fact, that he uses a deficient method, causes a shock, especially when this "way of doing" was practicised for many, many years. There are two ways to see the light: in theory or "in praxis" As to the theory I recommend to read " a complete analysis of scoring methods" to be found under bridgeassistant.com/web_b0e. As to "praxis", I created a software to try the effect of different scoring methods. You can download this Scorer#1 from URL: http://www.scorer123.com/scorer/software/scorer1.exe and you need not pay license, if you use this software for you as person (and keep this email as proof). Paul --part1_99.371f6e0b.2be4b8d9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: the big hole / Coscores and their application
Herman DE WAEL adds his personell opinion to the topic and finishes:(quote)<= BR> "Really,Paul, you need to think this one far better through before going on=20= with this tread."

This remark is not very helpfull. If a BLML-member opposes to  a certai= n idea,
he should cite facts to prove his opposition.

I know by experience, that telling someone the fact, that he uses a deficien= t method,
causes a shock, especially when this "way of doing" was practicised for many= ,
many years.

There are two ways to see the light: in theory or "in praxis"

As to the theory I recommend to read " a complete analysis of scoring method= s"
to be found under bridgeassistant.com/web_b0e.
As to "praxis", I created a software to try the effect of different scoring=20= methods.
You can download this  Scorer#1 from URL:
http://www.scorer123.com/scorer/software/scorer1.exe
and you need not pay license, if you use this software for you
as person (and keep this email as proof).

Paul
--part1_99.371f6e0b.2be4b8d9_boundary-- From HauffHJ@aol.com Sat May 3 08:50:25 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 03:50:25 EDT Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole Message-ID: <75.102627e7.2be4cec1@aol.com> --part1_75.102627e7.2be4cec1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gordon Rainsfords observation that the webpage "bridgeassistant.com/web_b6e does not work properly is correct and was due to an tecnical problem. The site is now open. "t o s e e m o r e " go to bridgeassistant.com/web_b0e and then click "evaluation" or/and "a complete analysis of scoring methods" and/or history and future (Precision bridge). Paul --part1_75.102627e7.2be4cec1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gordon Rainsfords observation that the webpage "bridgeassistant.com/web_b6e=20=
does not work properly is correct and was due to an tecnical problem.
The site is now open.
"t o   s e e   m o r e "  go to bridgeassistant.com= /web_b0e and then click "evaluation"
or/and "a complete analysis of scoring methods"
and/or history and future (Precision bridge).
Paul
--part1_75.102627e7.2be4cec1_boundary-- From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat May 3 22:55:16 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 17:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: <200305032155.RAA02471@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Ton Kooijman" > Interesting suject, not new but still not really solved either. One of the > problems being that we use different definitions of acquiescense in 63A3 and > 69. Thanks to all who commented. Ton, as usual, homes right in on both questions of interest. I gather the consensus _for now_ is that once players initially acquiesce to a claim, a revoke by their side is established and remains so, even if the acquiescence is later withdrawn. > Keep in mind what happens if east discovers his revoke when the third spade > is played and ruffs that trick. Now the adjusted score will give south only > 9 tricks, No penalty tricks anymore. Another example of the advantage not to > disclose a revoke yourself. This was the other question, but I don't think the bridge analysis is quite right. If East ruffs the third spade (in a hypothetical "play it out" scenario), declarer will finish with six tricks and gain two from the penalty for the first revoke. However, _after the first revoke_, equity is ten tricks: nine won plus one penalty trick. (Just imagine that East revokes the first time but follows suit on the next round of trumps.) Thus if you were to rule under L64C _for the second revoke_, you would give declarer ten tricks. Notice that East could have had this result if he had produced the H-J when declarer asked. No one but Ton addressed this, but I gather that the effect of the WBFLC minute is that the timing of the play of the H-J is a doubtful point, and we rule such doubtful points against the revoker. We have discussed both points before, but I thought a real case might be of interest. By the way, Herman gave the ruling I expected, but I thought Sven might be a little tougher on the claimer and rule 10 tricks. However, he is obviously aware of the WBFLC minute and ruled accordingly. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun May 4 06:42:50 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:42:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c31200$06af5640$4a2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Saturday, 3 May 2003 2:33 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > On 4/29/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Really what law is that? > > The one that *should* say that the lead to subsequent tricks > can only be > made after the current trick is quitted. In other words, it is not a law and therefore is not required. Wayne > > Regards, > > Ed > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun May 4 11:00:04 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:00:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <200305032155.RAA02471@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001001c31223$f1fb9d20$49c7f1c3@LNV> > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > Interesting subject, not new but still not really solved either. One of the > > problems being that we use different definitions of acquiescense in 63A3 and > > 69. > > Thanks to all who commented. Ton, as usual, homes right in on both > questions of interest. > > I gather the consensus _for now_ is that once players initially > acquiesce to a claim, a revoke by their side is established and > remains so, even if the acquiescence is later withdrawn. > > > Keep in mind what happens if east discovers his revoke when the third spade > > is played and ruffs that trick. Now the adjusted score will give south only > > 9 tricks, No penalty tricks anymore. Another example of the advantage not to > > disclose a revoke yourself. > > This was the other question, but I don't think the bridge analysis is > quite right. I think that yours is as right as mine, but you use other criteria. We have tried to come to a general approach when using L64C, which is that we adjust to the score reached when there hadn't been any revoke. So in this case east follows hearts and south makes 5 heart and 4 spade tricks. Nothing more. It is this interpreation that makes it worth to revoke a second time. Another example is the following: Dummy (North) has AKQ1098 and no side entry, declarer has 2 small. He plays the A and K on which West doesn't follow suit. He wins the next trick with the Q and abandons the suit. West possessed Jx and had he played the J under the Q declarer would have made 6 tricks plus a penalty trick. Now we have to use 64C and declarer gets only 6 tricks. ton If East ruffs the third spade (in a hypothetical "play it > out" scenario), declarer will finish with six tricks and gain two from > the penalty for the first revoke. However, _after the first revoke_, > equity is ten tricks: nine won plus one penalty trick. (Just imagine > that East revokes the first time but follows suit on the next round of > trumps.) Thus if you were to rule under L64C _for the second revoke_, > you would give declarer ten tricks. Notice that East could have had > this result if he had produced the H-J when declarer asked. > > No one but Ton addressed this, but I gather that the effect of the > WBFLC minute is that the timing of the play of the H-J is a doubtful > point, and we rule such doubtful points against the revoker. > > We have discussed both points before, but I thought a real case might be > of interest. By the way, Herman gave the ruling I expected, but I > thought Sven might be a little tougher on the claimer and rule 10 > tricks. However, he is obviously aware of the WBFLC minute and ruled > accordingly. From svenpran@online.no Sun May 4 21:00:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 22:00:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <200305032155.RAA02471@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001301c31277$df7ee770$6900a8c0@WINXP> ........... > I gather the consensus _for now_ is that once players initially > acquiesce to a claim, a revoke by their side is established and > remains so, even if the acquiescence is later withdrawn. Of course it is. Has there ever been any serious doubt on this? .......... > We have discussed both points before, but I thought a real case might be > of interest. By the way, Herman gave the ruling I expected, but I > thought Sven might be a little tougher on the claimer and rule 10 > tricks. However, he is obviously aware of the WBFLC minute and ruled > accordingly. I didn't need any WBFLC minutes to form my opinion. But I am surprised that there can be so much doubt around with the application of the revoke rules; these rules are really among the simplest ones in the law book: There is a precise definition on what events establish a revoke (generally speaking any action by offending side). There are clear-cut rules on the automatic penalty for a revoke (zero, one or two tricks depending upon certain conditions which are easily tested). And there is the safety-feature that an offender shall never gain on his revoke as compared to what would have happened had the revoke not occurred. Are we alone in Norway training our directors effectively on such items? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun May 4 21:18:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 22:18:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <001001c31223$f1fb9d20$49c7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001401c3127a$431eade0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ....... > Another example is the following: Dummy (North) has AKQ1098=20 > and no side entry, declarer has 2 small. He plays the A and > K on which West doesn't follow suit. He wins the next trick > with the Q and abandons the suit. West possessed Jx and had > he played the J under the Q declarer would have made 6 tricks > plus a penalty trick. Now we have to use 64C and declarer=20 > gets only 6 tricks. >=20 > ton Do you have any problem with these rulings? I don't. When we train directors in Norway we tell them to answer any complaint = that "shall I not have any advantage from opponent's revoke" with the answer: = No, you shall have your damage compensated, and because of the mechanical = rules (for simplicity in the majority of cases) it may happen that you get over-compensation, but if we end up using Law 64C you get the best = result that you could expect absent the revoke and nothing more. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Sun May 4 22:15:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 17:15:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424163358.0245aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030504171456.02671ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:07 PM 5/2/03, Ed wrote: >"The Law is an ass." - Some Brit. :) Charles Dickens. 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 Sun May 4 23:55:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 08:55:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? Message-ID: Tim asked: >What behaviour should East adopt in >order to entice South into trying 3N if >South's spade holding is a not unlikely >Qxx? In my opinion, the behaviour most likely to get South to punt 3NT on Qxx is *not* a break in tempo (which, in my opinion, is an anti-enticement - actually implying spade strength), but rather by behaving in accordance with Law 73E: "...It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 5 06:58:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:58:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: Sven wrote: >But I am surprised that there can be so much >doubt around with the application of the revoke >rules; these rules are really among the simplest >ones in the law book: [snip] >And there is the safety-feature that an offender >shall never gain on his revoke as compared to >what would have happened had the revoke not >occurred. [snip] There is some doubt on how to apply Law 64C after *two* revokes have been made by the same player, but neither revoke is discovered until after play of the deal is concluded. (a) One school of thought is that Law 64C is applied as if *neither* of the two revokes had occurred. (b) The other school of thought is that Law 64C can be applied with the following adjusted score - the first revoke and revoke penalty is awarded, but the second revoke and revoke penalty is not awarded, - if that adjustment would be more beneficial to the NOS under Law 64C than simply cancelling both revokes under Law 64C. It is not clear from the text of Law 64C which school of thought is correct when fixing multiple revokes. However, if I have read Ton correctly, it seems that the WBF LC may tend towards school (a) as the correct interpretation. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 5 07:05:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 16:05:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: >>I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to >>enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an >>infraction of Law 73D2. Law 73D2 states: "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." Ed Reppert asked: >Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to >mislead an opponent". Richard Hills replied: In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in tempo. In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 5 07:13:37 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 08:13:37 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? References: Message-ID: <004c01c312cd$787d9e80$0fb54351@noos.fr> Ian: As Alain argues, he has a bridge reason for thinking. The situation would be entirely different if he held say: x Qxxx xxx Qxxxx, when he "could have known" a hesitation might dissuade South from trying 3NT with a partial stopper. This is the 'only' sensible argument in this thread so far. Thinking after 3D is very often about bidding 3S or not (or maybe x or maybe 3H but you will 'always' have some sort of S support when considering bidding). There are thousands of reasons why you do or don't bid 3S. Whether this takes 10 or 100 secs is irrelevant, once you break tempo there is info. You know once you break tempo opps will try to take advantage of that and partner might have UI problems. Great. But please don't overdo this 'could have known' nonsense. If south gambles 3NT and goes down he claims damage because east CHK it was wrong to bid 3NT. If south decides not to bid 3NT when it makes he claims east CHK it was right to bid 3NT. Come on. Besides, with the actual east hand I would think it is about a D-S partscore battle and I would be surprised that south still had the values for considering 3NT. The east guy has something real to think about so whatever south makes of that is at his own risk. Or to put it more clear, CHK rulings should be used only for extreme cases like the one Ian gave. Thinking with x Qxxx xxx Qxxxx in this situation is (close to) cheating or coffeehousing or whatever you call it. We can rule against it using our 'innocent' CHK phrase so we don't have to use ugly words like cheating. Great. But we should not use 'anti-cheating' laws in normal bridge situations. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian D Crorie" To: Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? > > [edited for brevity] > > [The hand] > > >> >Is there any guidance on how one considers the "standard of player" for > > >> >could have known situations. I came across this one tonight. > > >> > > > >> >None vul, Dealer South. > > >> > > > >> >S W N E > > >> >1D 2S 3D P > > >> >3NT > > >> > > > >> >2S was a weak jump overcall, the pass was after much hesitation and > > >> >dithering. Could East holding Kxx,AJT,KTxx,xxx have known that his > > >> >behaviour would mislead south (particularly as to his spade holding)? > > > [John Probst] > > >>How he couldn't bid 3S in complete tempo, knowing it's the correct > > >>action is beyond me. He can count 8 tricks and a TT of 17. > > >> > > >>I'm known here for being quite hard on hesitators, so I'm going to rule > > >>that the hesitator definitely "could have known". > > [Alain] > > >AG : I'm known for not being, so I will try arguing the other way. > > [John again] > > ok, one may well have a hesitation if one holds Jxx in spades, in which > > case QTx is a sure stop for 3N. Our incompetent pro could certainly have > > known that this hesitation might suggest this holding. We'd adjust > > during play if he misled declarer with this holding compared to Kxx; why > > not in the auction? > > > > I accept your other points, but the holding he has denied by hesitating > > is Kxx IMO. > > It seems just the sort of hand (thinking of bidding 3S) that I'd > expect him to have. L73D1 seems to apply to me: inferences from > a variation in tempo like this are drawn by an opponent at his own risk. > To argue that this hesition suggests *particular honour holdings* in > spades seems bizarre to me. He might consider bidding 3S with any > 3 card support hand and some high cards outside surely? > > As Alain argues, he has a bridge reason for thinking. The situation > would be entirely different if he held say: x Qxxx xxx Qxxxx, when he > "could have known" a hesitation might dissuade South from trying 3NT > with a partial stopper. > > > > --- > Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, > one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even > vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 5 07:33:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 08:33:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502141321.01d3b350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00ee01c312d0$3d5e65c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> > AG : very well. Remains to determine whether attempting to get 60% is a > valuable bridge reason. You will get pros as well as contras. Seems a very good bridge reason to me. Anyway this kind of laws create too much problems. In a competetion environment (at the local beer drinking club who cares) it is much better just to cancel the board. If someone wants that 60% he will get it unless you dream up another 10 laws to stop him from trying for that 60%. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: RE: [blml] not wishing to play the board > At 10:31 1/05/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >But, the WBF LC has issued a binding (albeit > >apparently unjustifiable) interpretation of Law > >15C, stating a call with no demonstrable bridge > >reason is deemed an infraction of Law 74A2. > > AG : very well. Remains to determine whether attempting to get 60% is a > valuable bridge reason. You will get pros as well as contras. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 5 08:08:06 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:08:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: Message-ID: <015001c312d5$164ec1a0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard: > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > tempo. Richard, I don't buy this. 1. You cannot accuse this visitor of "an attempt to mislead an opponent" (73D2). For an 'attempt' someone needs some form of intent or knowledge about what he is doing. And leaving your card face up to take some time for thought (normal behaviour all over the world) cannot be called an attempt to mislead an opponent. 2. Anyway, please tell me, how are those members of your local club actually misled. I don't see it. If this is unknown behaviour in your club they will probably think 'what is this weirdo doing, not turning his trick like we all do'. But they cannot be misled as to the meaning of this behaviour (leaving the card face up) because if it never happens in your local club this behaviour has no meaning to them as yet. 3. Forget about those local members. I Jaap play against you Richard declarer. At trick 6 I leave my card face up and think for 2 minutes about my defence. Question 1. How can this possibly be an 'attempt' to mislead you. Question 2. How can this possible mislead you whether or not you have ever seen a defender doing this before. For both questions you can assume I have a good bridge reason to think (let's say in this trick something disproved my original trick 1 plan so I need to make another one). And yes I agree you might make a wrong guess about what I am thinking about but that kind of guess is at your own risk. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > Richard Hills wrote: > > >>I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > >>enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > >>infraction of Law 73D2. > > Law 73D2 states: > > "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." > > Ed Reppert asked: > > >Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to > >mislead an opponent". > > Richard Hills replied: > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > tempo. > > In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card > face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 08:51:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:51:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c312db$35511570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven wrote: > > >But I am surprised that there can be so much > >doubt around with the application of the revoke > >rules; these rules are really among the simplest > >ones in the law book: > > [snip] > > >And there is the safety-feature that an offender > >shall never gain on his revoke as compared to > >what would have happened had the revoke not > >occurred. > > [snip] > > There is some doubt on how to apply Law 64C after > *two* revokes have been made by the same player, > but neither revoke is discovered until after play > of the deal is concluded. > > (a) One school of thought is that Law 64C is applied > as if *neither* of the two revokes had occurred. > > (b) The other school of thought is that Law 64C can > be applied with the following adjusted score - > > the first revoke and revoke penalty is awarded, but > the second revoke and revoke penalty is not awarded, > > - if that adjustment would be more beneficial to the > NOS under Law 64C than simply cancelling both > revokes under Law 64C. > > It is not clear from the text of Law 64C which school > of thought is correct when fixing multiple revokes. > However, if I have read Ton correctly, it seems that > the WBF LC may tend towards school (a) as the correct > interpretation. > > Best wishes > > Richard Really ! ? ! >From Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, included those not subject to penalty, ....... If the "mechanical" penalty does not fully compensate for the damage to non-offending side then the Director is responsible for restoring equity as if none of the revokes had occurred, period. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 5 09:32:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:32:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030430130439.02461650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003501c30f7b$1d71d7e0$759927d9@pbncomputer> <003201c30fb7$2fe3dcc0$f936e150@endicott> Message-ID: <01bb01c312e3$76fd6520$0fb54351@noos.fr> Thanks to all for the reactions on the 'when is a trick finished' thread. I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face up on the table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful purpose, and should be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other reasons it is a good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. The only logical rule is to state that trick n is only finished when all cards are turned face down. Because if it is ok to lead the first card of trick n+1 when there are cards still up of trick n you get all kind of silly problems. Some laws hardly make sense any more. And as I said before, if leading the first card of trick n+1 is ok why not leading a second, a third and a fourth and why not even the first card of trick n+2, etc. Either there is a moment the cards of trick n have to be turned over or there is no such moment. The later is completely ridiculous (you might end play with 52 cards face up), so we have to go by the former. Anybody has a better idea than: 'a trick is finished/quited/whatever when all four cards are turned face down' 'a trick starts when the first card of that trick is played' (1st trick might be special) 'you cannot/shouldnot start trick n+1 before trick n is finshed' In all kind of articles it says 'until someone/some side/partner has played a card in the next trick'. All this probably should be changed to 'until the current trick is finished (all cards face down)'. It is easier and so it avoids all kind of complications. 66A actually asumes that two different tricks can be in progress at the same time and should be changed to 'as long as your card is face up you have the right to see the current trick'. 66B can and should be scraped. By the way, the above does not pretend to be complete. For me you don't have to invoke automatic penalties to enforce this. In real life this is not a real problem. I have never seen anybody doing this on purpose (should be an infraction with a serious penalty) and if this happens unintentionally (which should be 'breaking normal procedure' or however you call it) there is unlikely to be any damage so a general protection of the NOS just in case is good enough for me. Although I can live with an automatic penalty, it is not that different from a bid/lead/play out of turn. For me this was a common sense no problem issue. But if people like Grattan, Wayne and others think it is quite normal to play two tricks (they don't say so but that is actually the logical consequence of their point of view) at the same time we badly need some measures. Bridge is a trick based game. The law needs to be crystal clear when a trick is finished and when the next one starts. To allow two or more at the same time is just plain crazy. Jaap From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 5 09:55:39 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:55:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. References: <015001c312d5$164ec1a0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <01bc01c312e4$1b88cee0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Ok, a defender leaves his card face up to create some time to think. Other than declarer a defender has to take UI problems into account so when to think is way more tricky in defence than for declarer. We will have to decide if this is ok or not. It is common practice and I have never heard of any problem arising from it. Until Wayne started some opposition against this concept. A lot of noise and some support but I have yet to see any serious argument against this concept. Come on boys, you have to do better than quoting 73D2 because this is about an attempt to mislead. We assume the guy has something to think about (if not there are plenty of laws to deal with that) and then it is plain crazy to even think of 'an attempt to mislead'. Which attempt? How mislead? Thinking because you need to think doesn't come even close. Question 1. Is it ok to delay the turning a little bit to slow down an overly quick opponent (almost always a speedy declarer). I see yes, I think most say yes because all you do is forcing the opponent back to normal tempo (whatever that is, without definition it has no real meaning). Question 2. Is it ok to leave your card face up to take time to think. Normally you are counting hands, dreaming up down variants, etc, often because something just happened that disproved your current plan or current count of the hand. That kind of thinking takes time. I think it is ok. I think it is normal, I and my opps do it all the time (not too often fortunately, most boards are easy and time is limited). I know nobody (until recently Wayne) who has any problems with this. If you disagree I have two more questions Queation 2a. Why do you disagree. What is the problem. We play bridge not speedcard or poker. Sometimes you need some time to think. If you have a bridge reason to think misleading opps is hardly an issue. You might create UI but we have laws to handle that. Question 2a. If not at this moment, then at what other moment the player should do his thinking. Or do you feel that serious thinking (counting the hand and such) should be illegal. I know casino owners think so about Black Jack clients but I thought bridge was another game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: ; Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > Richard: > > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > > tempo. > > Richard, > > I don't buy this. > > 1. You cannot accuse this visitor of "an attempt to mislead an opponent" > (73D2). For an 'attempt' someone needs some form of intent or knowledge > about what he is doing. And leaving your card face up to take some time for > thought (normal behaviour all over the world) cannot be called an attempt to > mislead an opponent. > > 2. Anyway, please tell me, how are those members of your local club actually > misled. I don't see it. If this is unknown behaviour in your club they will > probably think 'what is this weirdo doing, not turning his trick like we all > do'. But they cannot be misled as to the meaning of this behaviour (leaving > the card face up) because if it never happens in your local club this > behaviour has no meaning to them as yet. > > 3. Forget about those local members. I Jaap play against you Richard > declarer. At trick 6 I leave my card face up and think for 2 minutes about > my defence. Question 1. How can this possibly be an 'attempt' to mislead > you. Question 2. How can this possible mislead you whether or not you have > ever seen a defender doing this before. For both questions you can assume I > have a good bridge reason to think (let's say in this trick something > disproved my original trick 1 plan so I need to make another one). And yes I > agree you might make a wrong guess about what I am thinking about but that > kind of guess is at your own risk. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > >>I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > > >>enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > > >>infraction of Law 73D2. > > > > Law 73D2 states: > > > > "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." > > > > Ed Reppert asked: > > > > >Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to > > >mislead an opponent". > > > > Richard Hills replied: > > > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > > tempo. > > > > In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card > > face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. > > > > 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 svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 09:58:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:58:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole Message-ID: <000101c312e4$8081cea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I don't know what happened to my comment, I never received any message = of a problem and it hasn't made it to blml so I take the liberty posting it again: The cat is out of the bag: The alleged problem is related to match-point scoring. And that makes me claim that someone tries to invent a problem where = none exists.=20 Because what on earth could the need for any kind of reciprocal scoring = be when dealing with MP? Example:=20 Two tables have obtained the score 420 N-S One table has obtained 170 N-S One table has an all-pass game (no points either way)=20 Three tables have obtained 50 E-W And one table has obtained 100 E-W=20 The match-points assigned to N-S respectively E-W will be: 420 N-S gives 13-1 (or as we usually get the result in Scandinavia: +6 / = -6) 170 N-S gives 10-4 (or +3 / -3) All pass gives 8-6 (or +1 / -1) 50 E-W gives 4-10 (or -3 / +3) 100 E-W gives 0-14 (or -7 / +7)=20 How would reciprocal scores have any mission?=20 Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 10:20:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:20:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <01bb01c312e3$76fd6520$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000201c312e7$987f97f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut=20 > Thanks to all for the reactions on the 'when is a trick finished' = thread. >=20 > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face up on the > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful purpose, and should > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other reasons it is = a > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. .......... Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I do not agree. A trick is completed as soon as each of the four players has played = their card to that trick. Any player retains the right to see all four cards = to a trick until he has turned his own card face down (except if his partner = has already lead or played to the following trick).=20 During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) I have = more than once found myself facing the situation where a player leads to the = next trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their play = to the next trick until the last previously played card is finally turned = face down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. I have said it before and I say it again: Please avoid inventing = problems where none exists. And please do not ask for changes of laws which = function as intended with no problem. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 10:36:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:36:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c312e9$dbd623f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Gordon Bower > On Mon, 5 May 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Because what on earth could the need for any kind of reciprocal scoring > be > > when dealing with MP? > > > > Example: > > > > Two tables have obtained the score 420 N-S > > One table has obtained 170 N-S > > One table has an all-pass game (no points either way) > > Three tables have obtained 50 E-W > > And one table has obtained 100 E-W > > > According to our new correspondent, the matchpoints for NS are > > 2 x +420 = 13MP > 1 x +170 = 10MP > 5 x 0 = 4MP > > and for EW > > 4 x 0 = 3MP > 3 x +50 = 10MP > 1 x +100 = 14MP > > which I frankly think is crazy. But I can sort of see his point, that the > Laws don't explicitly assign a score to you when your opponents receive a > score. I just think it is fine to trust people in most places to choose > not to do it his way :)) > > GRGB Yes this is crazy, and I am astonished that you understood me (or the laws) this way. The match-point rules state that you receive 2 points for each table where your result is better than the other result and 1 point where you have a tie. According to this (and under the current laws!) this results in the following match-points for NS when NS obtains "no score": All pass = 8 MP 3 x 50 = 4 MP 1 x 100 = 0 MP. (And similarly for EW) *That* was what I wrote, and that is how MP is calculated in every case I know of. What is your problem? Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon May 5 11:02:05 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 12:02:05 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505114935.01d45720@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:01 3/05/2003 +0100, you wrote: > >Is "a bridge reason for thinking" the same as saying "a bridge reason for >taking some 20-25 seconds whilst twice reaching for/touching the "active" >part of the bidding box before finally passing". Had he taken 6-8 seconds >of thought and then passed I wouldn't have considered the case at all >interesting. However perhaps I am on a different planet and those two >scenarios don't actually suggest anything different about his hand. AG : the "reason for thinking" principle doesn't mention how long you're allowed to think when you indeed have got a problem. In my view, the answer is "as long as you wish provided it doesn't make the round longer than it should be". (subject to penalties for slow play, but none other) But my biggest problem is that you seem to pretend that the tempo-then-pass suggests Jxx - AKxx - xxx - xxx rather than Kx - Axxx - xxx - Jxxx. I can't buy that one. I would prefer to bid 3S on the former than on the latter. If partner holds the perfectly normal AQ10xxx and out, it is easy to understand why. I would say that the tempo-then-pass could well suggest a high honor in spades (subject to UI restrictions as lead is concerned, of course), rather than Jxx. Anyway, the fact that the matter is so much disputed proves that the tempo-then-pass doesn't suggest anything *specific* - thus placing you in the standard "your own guess" position. FWIW, East could have a penalty double of diamonds. Best regards, Alain From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon May 5 11:09:26 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 12:09:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000201c312e7$987f97f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <01bb01c312e3$76fd6520$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505120624.01d46e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:20 5/05/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Jaap van der Neut > > Thanks to all for the reactions on the 'when is a trick finished' thread. > > > > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face up on the > > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful purpose, and should > > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other reasons it is a > > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. >.......... > >Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I do not agree. >A trick is completed as soon as each of the four players has played their >card to that trick. Any player retains the right to see all four cards to a >trick until he has turned his own card face down (except if his partner has >already lead or played to the following trick). >During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) I have more >than once found myself facing the situation where a player leads to the next >trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. >That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their play to >the next trick until the last previously played card is finally turned face >down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. > >I have said it before and I say it again: Please avoid inventing problems >where none exists. AG : there could be some problem, though. If the person playing before the cards are face down is a defender, it could carry UI, as it is "not the normal procedure". And in some outrageous cases it may violate L74C7. From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 11:08:34 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:08:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505120624.01d46e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c312ee$4a0d06f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner ........... > >I have said it before and I say it again: Please avoid inventing = problems > >where none exists. >=20 > AG : there could be some problem, though. If the person playing before = the > cards are face down is a defender, it could carry UI, as it is "not = the > normal procedure". And in some outrageous cases it may violate L74C7. And so what? There is no need for an additional definition of UI in = addition to the existing definitions. Law 16 specifies how to deal with UI cases = and Law 74C7 is perfect for dealing with L74C7 cases. What is the problem with the laws applicable to tricks? Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon May 5 11:20:14 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:20:14 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Leaving your card face up. Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD2E0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Jaap wrote: Ok, a defender leaves his card face up to create some time to think. Other than declarer a defender has to take UI problems into account so when to think is way more tricky in defence than for declarer. We will have to decide if this is ok or not. It is common practice and I have never heard of any problem arising from it. Until Wayne started some opposition against this concept. A lot of noise and some support but I have yet to see any serious argument against this concept. Come on boys, you have to do better than quoting 73D2 because this is about an attempt to mislead. We assume the guy has something to think about (if not there are plenty of laws to deal with that) and then it is plain crazy to even think of 'an attempt to mislead'. Which attempt? How mislead? Thinking because you need to think doesn't come even close. Question 1. Is it ok to delay the turning a little bit to slow down an overly quick opponent (almost always a speedy declarer). I see yes, I think most say yes because all you do is forcing the opponent back to normal tempo (whatever that is, without definition it has no real meaning). ----- To me, this is obviously OK. ----- Question 2. Is it ok to leave your card face up to take time to think. Normally you are counting hands, dreaming up down variants, etc, often because something just happened that disproved your current plan or current count of the hand. That kind of thinking takes time. I think it is ok. I think it is normal, I and my opps do it all the time (not too often fortunately, most boards are easy and time is limited). I know nobody (until recently Wayne) who has any problems with this. If you disagree I have two more questions ----- As I proposed the same procedure as Jaap early on in the original thread, I= 'm of the opinion that this is OK aslo. As Jaap, I haven't seen anyone arguing the opposite point of view in a way that would change my mind. Far from it. ----- Queation 2a. Why do you disagree. What is the problem. We play bridge not speedcard or poker. Sometimes you need some time to think. If you have a bridge reason to think misleading opps is hardly an issue. You might create UI but we have laws to handle that. Question 2a. If not at this moment, then at what other moment the player should do his thinking. Or do you feel that serious thinking (counting the hand and such) should be illegal. I know casino owners think so about Black Jack clients but I thought bridge was another game. ----- Harald ----- Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: ; Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > Richard: > > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > > tempo. > > Richard, > > I don't buy this. > > 1. You cannot accuse this visitor of "an attempt to mislead an opponent" > (73D2). For an 'attempt' someone needs some form of intent or knowledge > about what he is doing. And leaving your card face up to take some time for > thought (normal behaviour all over the world) cannot be called an attempt to > mislead an opponent. > > 2. Anyway, please tell me, how are those members of your local club actually > misled. I don't see it. If this is unknown behaviour in your club they will > probably think 'what is this weirdo doing, not turning his trick like we all > do'. But they cannot be misled as to the meaning of this behaviour (leaving > the card face up) because if it never happens in your local club this > behaviour has no meaning to them as yet. > > 3. Forget about those local members. I Jaap play against you Richard > declarer. At trick 6 I leave my card face up and think for 2 minutes about > my defence. Question 1. How can this possibly be an 'attempt' to mislead > you. Question 2. How can this possible mislead you whether or not you have > ever seen a defender doing this before. For both questions you can assume I > have a good bridge reason to think (let's say in this trick something > disproved my original trick 1 plan so I need to make another one). And yes I > agree you might make a wrong guess about what I am thinking about but that > kind of guess is at your own risk. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > >>I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > > >>enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > > >>infraction of Law 73D2. > > > > Law 73D2 states: > > > > "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." > > > > Ed Reppert asked: > > > > >Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to > > >mislead an opponent". > > > > Richard Hills replied: > > > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > > tempo. > > > > In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card > > face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 11:37:25 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 22:37:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <01bc01c312e4$1b88cee0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000801c312f2$5582b1c0$5b2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Monday, 5 May 2003 8:56 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > > > Ok, a defender leaves his card face up to create some time to > think. Other > than declarer a defender has to take UI problems into account > so when to > think is way more tricky in defence than for declarer. > > We will have to decide if this is ok or not. It is common > practice and I > have never heard of any problem arising from it. Until Wayne > started some > opposition against this concept. A lot of noise and some > support but I have > yet to see any serious argument against this concept. Come on > boys, you have > to do better than quoting 73D2 because this is about an > attempt to mislead. > We assume the guy has something to think about (if not there > are plenty of > laws to deal with that) and then it is plain crazy to even > think of 'an > attempt to mislead'. Which attempt? How mislead? Thinking > because you need > to think doesn't come even close. There is more to it than that. We had a claim that a director told a player that had played without delay at trick one that that player had caused the problem. When in fact that player is lawfully entitled to play in 'unvarying tempo'. And that is unvarying from trick to trick - 'all ... plays in unvarying tempo' L73E We had another director or directors stating that they would rule as if the SO had imposed a L73A2 regulation when that SO for its own reasons had chosen not to impose such a regulation. > > Question 1. Is it ok to delay the turning a little bit to slow down an > overly quick opponent (almost always a speedy declarer). I > see yes, I think > most say yes because all you do is forcing the opponent back > to normal tempo > (whatever that is, without definition it has no real meaning). Rubbish. What you are doing is altering your tempo in order to attempt to change another player's tempo. I think this is a violation of L74C7. The speedy declarer is entitled to play speedily if that is the normal tempo for that player (L73E) and you are not entitled to vary your tempo as a counter measure (L74C7 and L74B4). > > Question 2. Is it ok to leave your card face up to take time to think. > Normally you are counting hands, dreaming up down variants, etc, often > because something just happened that disproved your current > plan or current > count of the hand. That kind of thinking takes time. I think > it is ok. I > think it is normal, I and my opps do it all the time (not too often > fortunately, most boards are easy and time is limited). I > know nobody (until > recently Wayne) who has any problems with this. If you > disagree I have two > more questions Since this thread began I have observed both my trick one tempo and the trick one tempo of others and I have noticed many players of assorted ability from World Class to palooka who regularly play in no different tempo at trick one from what they play at other tricks. Once I had an International opponent who paused and said she needed more time to think at trick one after I had played from the dummy. No problem resulted but I would have expected a favourable ruling if that comment had transmitted UI to her partner and that information had been acted on. > > Queation 2a. Why do you disagree. What is the problem. We > play bridge not > speedcard or poker. Sometimes you need some time to think. If > you have a > bridge reason to think misleading opps is hardly an issue. > You might create > UI but we have laws to handle that. > > Question 2a. If not at this moment, then at what other moment > the player > should do his thinking. Or do you feel that serious thinking > (counting the > hand and such) should be illegal. I know casino owners think > so about Black > Jack clients but I thought bridge was another game. This has not been my argument at all. Thinking is fine but if you cause a problem then that problem is yours. My point is simply that the laws do not automatically allow you 10 sec or 15 sec or 40 sec to think at trick one or trick two or trick six. Further if the sponsoring organization do not regulate that tempo break then it is not the TD's nor the individual player's place to argue that tempo breaks should be allowed as if there was SO regulation. The regulators made no regulation for a reason. It seems to me that thinking at trick one when you have a trick three problem is akin to thinking in the pass out seat when your problem is with the opening lead. Neither is sanctioned by the laws IMO. Wayne > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 9:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > Richard: > > > > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > > > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > > > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > > > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > > > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > > > tempo. > > > > Richard, > > > > I don't buy this. > > > > 1. You cannot accuse this visitor of "an attempt to mislead > an opponent" > > (73D2). For an 'attempt' someone needs some form of intent > or knowledge > > about what he is doing. And leaving your card face up to > take some time > for > > thought (normal behaviour all over the world) cannot be > called an attempt > to > > mislead an opponent. > > > > 2. Anyway, please tell me, how are those members of your local club > actually > > misled. I don't see it. If this is unknown behaviour in > your club they > will > > probably think 'what is this weirdo doing, not turning his > trick like we > all > > do'. But they cannot be misled as to the meaning of this behaviour > (leaving > > the card face up) because if it never happens in your local > club this > > behaviour has no meaning to them as yet. > > > > 3. Forget about those local members. I Jaap play against you Richard > > declarer. At trick 6 I leave my card face up and think for > 2 minutes about > > my defence. Question 1. How can this possibly be an > 'attempt' to mislead > > you. Question 2. How can this possible mislead you whether > or not you have > > ever seen a defender doing this before. For both questions > you can assume > I > > have a good bridge reason to think (let's say in this trick > something > > disproved my original trick 1 plan so I need to make > another one). And yes > I > > agree you might make a wrong guess about what I am thinking > about but that > > kind of guess is at your own risk. > > > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:05 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > > > > > > > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > > >>I agree with Wayne that keeping a card face up merely to > > > >>enable a player to gain time to plan subsequent play, is an > > > >>infraction of Law 73D2. > > > > > > Law 73D2 states: > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > Ed Reppert asked: > > > > > > >Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to > > > >mislead an opponent". > > > > > > Richard Hills replied: > > > > > > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > > > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > > > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > > > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > > > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > > > tempo. > > > > > > In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card > > > face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. > > > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 11:40:50 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 22:40:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505120624.01d46e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c312f2$cf1ce9b0$5b2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Monday, 5 May 2003 10:09 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > At 11:20 5/05/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >Jaap van der Neut > > > Thanks to all for the reactions on the 'when is a trick > finished' thread. > > > > > > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face > up on the > > > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful > purpose, and should > > > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other > reasons it is a > > > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. > >.......... > > > >Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I > do not agree. > >A trick is completed as soon as each of the four players has > played their > >card to that trick. Any player retains the right to see all > four cards to a > >trick until he has turned his own card face down (except if > his partner has > >already lead or played to the following trick). > >During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > player) I have more > >than once found myself facing the situation where a player > leads to the next > >trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. > >That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds > their play to > >the next trick until the last previously played card is > finally turned face > >down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. > > > >I have said it before and I say it again: Please avoid > inventing problems > >where none exists. > > AG : there could be some problem, though. If the person > playing before the > cards are face down is a defender, it could carry UI, as it > is "not the > normal procedure". And in some outrageous cases it may violate L74C7. Really? A card is led and it is my turn to play and I am varying the tempo when I play in my normal tempo to the trick. I think not. The player who is attempting to delay play by holding a card face up is the one in violation of L74C7. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 11:49:12 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 22:49:12 +1200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000201c312e7$987f97f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c312f3$fa7ee940$5b2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > player) I have more > than once found myself facing the situation where a player > leads to the next > trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds > their play to > the next trick until the last previously played card is > finally turned face > down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. On what basis is that player entitled to ask for a delay to the game. I can think of nothing more proper than the winner of the previous trick leading in tempo to the trick and the next hand playing in tempo etc. Of course tempo breaks occur but that is what they are tempo breaks and they do not come free of risk. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 12:12:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:12:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000b01c312f3$fa7ee940$5b2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000501c312f7$32cb4430$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows .......... > > During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > > player) I have more > > than once found myself facing the situation where a player > > leads to the next > > trick while some other player still has his last played card face = up. > > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds > > their play to > > the next trick until the last previously played card is > > finally turned face > > down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. >=20 > On what basis is that player entitled to ask for a delay to the game. Nobody says he is asking for a delay of the game. He is asking for his opportunity to sort out the information he is entitled to by seeing the = four cards played to that trick. >=20 > I can think of nothing more proper than the winner of the previous > trick leading in tempo to the trick and the next hand playing in tempo > etc. I certainly now am aware that you cannot imagine other people at times needing some time to sort out cases. Luckily, most directors and other players can; and will allow them that time. >=20 > Of course tempo breaks occur but that is what they are tempo breaks > and they do not come free of risk. I have no problem with that. As director I consider the complete case if = a complaint is made, and if I find that the "plaintiff" seems to have = tried to deprive another player of his option to plan his play and then summons = me for a "tempo break" ruling; he will discover that he is very close to instead receiving a Law 74A2 ruling against himself. Remember that "tempo break" in itself is no punishable violation of any = law. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon May 5 13:14:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:14:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000901c312f2$cf1ce9b0$5b2e37d2@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505120624.01d46e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505141243.01d3d3b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:40 5/05/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > Sent: Monday, 5 May 2003 10:09 p.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > > > > At 11:20 5/05/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Jaap van der Neut > > > > Thanks to all for the reactions on the 'when is a trick > > finished' thread. > > > > > > > > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face > > up on the > > > > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful > > purpose, and should > > > > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other > > reasons it is a > > > > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. > > >.......... > > > > > >Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I > > do not agree. > > >A trick is completed as soon as each of the four players has > > played their > > >card to that trick. Any player retains the right to see all > > four cards to a > > >trick until he has turned his own card face down (except if > > his partner has > > >already lead or played to the following trick). > > >During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > > player) I have more > > >than once found myself facing the situation where a player > > leads to the next > > >trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. > > >That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds > > their play to > > >the next trick until the last previously played card is > > finally turned face > > >down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. > > > > > >I have said it before and I say it again: Please avoid > > inventing problems > > >where none exists. > > > > AG : there could be some problem, though. If the person > > playing before the > > cards are face down is a defender, it could carry UI, as it > > is "not the > > normal procedure". And in some outrageous cases it may violate L74C7. > >Really? > >A card is led and it is my turn to play and I am varying the tempo when >I play in my normal tempo to the trick. I think not. > >The player who is attempting to delay play by holding a card face up is >the one in violation of L74C7. AG : except that some players will play super-fast to the next trick, either because they don't want to let you see the present one (violates L74 if done on purpose) or because they "know what to play next" (may in extreme cases create UI). From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon May 5 13:17:59 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:17:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <000801c312f2$5582b1c0$5b2e37d2@Desktop> References: <01bc01c312e4$1b88cee0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505141521.01d48160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:37 5/05/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >The speedy declarer is entitled to play speedily if that is the normal >tempo for that player (L73E) and you are not entitled to vary your tempo >as a counter measure (L74C7 and L74B4). AG : not true. L74C7 deals with variations attempting to trouble the opposing side, L74B4 with cases with no justification. You are always allowed to vary the tempo if you have good reasons to do it, ie you need the time to think. You are advised to avoid it but no more (L73D1). From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 5 13:20:20 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:20:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 07:05 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up > until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor > to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent > play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players > would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in > tempo. Misled into thinking the reason for the upturned card was....what? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 5 13:23:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:23:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole References: <99.371f6e0b.2be4b8d9@aol.com> Message-ID: <3EB657DF.30103@skynet.be> HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: > Re: the big hole / Coscores and their application > Herman DE WAEL adds his personell opinion to the topic and finishes:(quote) > "Really,Paul, you need to think this one far better through before going > on with this tread." > > This remark is not very helpfull. If a BLML-member opposes to a certain > idea, > he should cite facts to prove his opposition. > Those facts were in the rest of the e-mail you conveniently snipped. I believe I said more than enough on this matter. I don't think it makes sense. Sorry. > Paul -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 5 13:28:02 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:28:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000201c312e7$987f97f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <03DB0430-7EF5-11D7-85F9-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I do not > agree. > A trick is completed as soon as each of the four players has played > their > card to that trick. Any player retains the right to see all four cards > to a > trick until he has turned his own card face down (except if his > partner has > already lead or played to the following trick). > During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) I have > more > than once found myself facing the situation where a player leads to > the next > trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their > play to > the next trick until the last previously played card is finally turned > face > down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. If there really is no problem, I wonder why you need to halt play and wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon May 5 08:55:16 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:55:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <001401c3127a$431eade0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004301c31305$1c8f1850$1afef1c3@LNV> Ton Kooijman ....... > Another example is the following: Dummy (North) has AKQ1098 > and no side entry, declarer has 2 small. He plays the A and > K on which West doesn't follow suit. He wins the next trick > with the Q and abandons the suit. West possessed Jx and had > he played the J under the Q declarer would have made 6 tricks > plus a penalty trick. Now we have to use 64C and declarer > gets only 6 tricks. > > ton Do you have any problem with these rulings? I don't. ****Do you ask me, ton, this question? If you want to know whether I am able to make this ruling the answer is 'yes', so no problem. If you want to know whether I like this consequence of applying the laws the answer is 'no', since I don't want the laws to encourage people to commit infractions. Law 72B4 tells a player not to revoke for the second time knowingly, but it pays off to do so. We shouldn't put people in such a position. And if your question has a more general meaning I must tell you that I got the feeling that not all of us are solving these problems the same way. But hurray for Norway, doing things the way I think the LC does agree with (or should agree with, let me be careful). ton When we train directors in Norway we tell them to answer any complaint that "shall I not have any advantage from opponent's revoke" with the answer: No, you shall have your damage compensated, and because of the mechanical rules (for simplicity in the majority of cases) it may happen that you get over-compensation, but if we end up using Law 64C you get the best result that you could expect absent the revoke and nothing more. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 13:52:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:52:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <03DB0430-7EF5-11D7-85F9-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000701c31305$2d3b6fa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: ........... > > During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) > > I have more than once found myself facing the situation where a > > player leads to the next trick while some other player still has > > his last played card face up. > > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their > > play to the next trick until the last previously played card is > > finally turned face down; and that is that.=20 > > No problem and no confusion. >=20 > If there really is no problem, I wonder why you need to halt play and > wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? >=20 > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK I assume that you have a better knowledge of the English language than I have. Could you please elaborate your question? As far as I can understand you ask: "If there really is no problem (in waiting for the card from the previous trick to be turned over) you = wonder why wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? A question like that just doesn't make any sense to me. (But then = English is not my native language). Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon May 5 14:19:56 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:19:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <000001c312db$35511570$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007901c31309$59a784d0$1afef1c3@LNV> > > (a) One school of thought is that Law 64C is applied > > as if *neither* of the two revokes had occurred. > > It is not clear from the text of Law 64C which school > > of thought is correct when fixing multiple revokes. > > However, if I have read Ton correctly, it seems that > > the WBF LC may tend towards school (a) as the correct > > interpretation. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > Really ! ? ! > > From Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, included those not > subject to penalty, ....... > > If the "mechanical" penalty does not fully compensate for the damage to > non-offending side then the Director is responsible for restoring equity as > if none of the revokes had occurred, period. > > Sven May I ask you to explain the difference you see in your approach, period and school (a) which Richard rightly thinks is the approach the WBFLC promotes? ton From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon May 5 14:31:15 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:31:15 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799000AD35E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> > > (a) One school of thought is that Law 64C is applied > > as if *neither* of the two revokes had occurred. > > It is not clear from the text of Law 64C which school > > of thought is correct when fixing multiple revokes. > > However, if I have read Ton correctly, it seems that > > the WBF LC may tend towards school (a) as the correct > > interpretation. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > Really ! ? ! > > From Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, included those not > subject to penalty, ....... > > If the "mechanical" penalty does not fully compensate for the damage to > non-offending side then the Director is responsible for restoring equity as > if none of the revokes had occurred, period. > > Sven May I ask you to explain the difference you see in your approach, period and school (a) which Richard rightly thinks is the approach the WBFLC promotes? ----- I don't see what you mean here Ton, as Sven (and other norwegians) belong to Richard's school (a). We read law 64C in the same way you do yourself, as f= ar as I can see. There's no difference in approach and so on. 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 svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 14:39:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:39:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <007901c31309$59a784d0$1afef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000901c3130b$d0ce12c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > Sent: 5. mai 2003 15:20 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] revoke and claim, real case >=20 > > > (a) One school of thought is that Law 64C is applied > > > as if *neither* of the two revokes had occurred. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > It is not clear from the text of Law 64C which school > > > of thought is correct when fixing multiple revokes. > > > However, if I have read Ton correctly, it seems that > > > the WBF LC may tend towards school (a) as the correct > > > interpretation. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Richard >=20 >=20 > > Really ! ? ! > > > > From Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, included those = not > > subject to penalty, ....... > > > > If the "mechanical" penalty does not fully compensate for the damage = to > > non-offending side then the Director is responsible for restoring = equity > as > > if none of the revokes had occurred, period. > > > > Sven >=20 >=20 > May I ask you to explain the difference you see in your approach, = period > and > school (a) which Richard rightly thinks is the approach the WBFLC > promotes? >=20 > ton I see no difference at all, but there was also a school (b): When there is one or more revokes we handle each revoke individually and determines from Law 64A&B what the "mechanical" penalty (if any) will = be. Then we (well at least I) ask the non-offending side if they think they might have made more tricks absent the revoke(s), and if they answer affirmative we adjudicate the board to the best of our abilities. The same procedure is followed if there should happen to be revokes on = both sides on the same board, but of course (?) adjudication under Law 64C = could in such cases easily become quite complicated. However, that is to me = mainly theory; I cannot remember ever having had any such case resulting in a serious problem. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 5 14:46:12 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:46:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000701c31305$2d3b6fa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 01:52 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > ........... >>> During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) >>> I have more than once found myself facing the situation where a >>> player leads to the next trick while some other player still has >>> his last played card face up. >>> That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their >>> play to the next trick until the last previously played card is >>> finally turned face down; and that is that. >>> No problem and no confusion. >> >> If there really is no problem, I wonder why you need to halt play and >> wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? >> >> -- >> Gordon Rainsford >> London UK > > I assume that you have a better knowledge of the English language than > I > have. Could you please elaborate your question? > > As far as I can understand you ask: "If there really is no problem (in > waiting for the card from the previous trick to be turned over) you > wonder > why wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? > > A question like that just doesn't make any sense to me. (But then > English is > not my native language). Jaap wrote: > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face up on the > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful purpose, and should > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other reasons it is a > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. You (Sven) wrote: Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I do not agree. Which I (Gordon) interpreted (together with your earlier posts) as meaning that you do not see there being a problem with having cards of more than one trick allowed to be face-up on the table at the same time. If that is the case, my question stands as written - ie if there is no problem with having cards of more than one trick face-up on the table at the same time, why, when it actually occurs, do you need to stop play until one of the tricks is turned over? *I* can see why it's necessary, but I'm not arguing that there's no problem with having cards from two tricks face up at the same time. From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 15:23:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 16:23:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c31311$e07a0250$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > >> On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > ........... > >>> During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) > >>> I have more than once found myself facing the situation where a > >>> player leads to the next trick while some other player still has > >>> his last played card face up. > >>> That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their > >>> play to the next trick until the last previously played card is > >>> finally turned face down; and that is that. > >>> No problem and no confusion. > >> > >> If there really is no problem, I wonder why you need to halt play = and > >> wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? > >> > >> -- > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> London UK > > > > I assume that you have a better knowledge of the English language = than > > I > > have. Could you please elaborate your question? > > > > As far as I can understand you ask: "If there really is no problem = (in > > waiting for the card from the previous trick to be turned over) you > > wonder > > why wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? > > > > A question like that just doesn't make any sense to me. (But then > > English is > > not my native language). >=20 > Jaap wrote: > > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face up on the > > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful purpose, and = should > > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other reasons it = is a > > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. >=20 > You (Sven) wrote: > Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I do not = agree. >=20 > Which I (Gordon) interpreted (together with your earlier posts) as > meaning that you do not see there being a problem with having cards of > more than one trick allowed to be face-up on the table at the same = time. >=20 > If that is the case, my question stands as written - ie if there is no > problem with having cards of more than one trick face-up on the table > at the same time, why, when it actually occurs, do you need to stop > play until one of the tricks is turned over? >=20 > *I* can see why it's necessary, but I'm not arguing that there's no > problem with having cards from two tricks face up at the same time. I thought I knew what this discussion concerned, but now I am completely confused. I do not (and never have) argued that the same player (except dummy) = should be allowed more than one card left face up on the table at the same = time. When a player ignores the fact that another player is still considering = what happened to the just completed trick (indicating so by not turning his played card face down) and leads a card to the next trick I consider = this a violation of Law 74A2. Where I see no problem is if the player who has not turned his card face down requests the other cards belonging to that same trick being = re-exposed for his inspection even after the first card to the next trick has been = led. One player will have to take care of both his last card played and his = newly led card; if he is unable to manage that himself I have every confidence = in his fellow players at the table helping him keep the cards apart. After = all that player is the only one responsible for any possible confusion = arising from him leading to the next trick while another player still had the = right to request all cards from the previous trick being re-exposed. And I still do not understand Gordon's question. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 5 15:28:10 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:28:10 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: <004c01c312cd$787d9e80$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505102311.026c3ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:13 AM 5/5/03, Jaap wrote: >Thinking after 3D is very often about bidding 3S or not (or maybe x or >maybe >3H but you will 'always' have some sort of S support when considering >bidding). Although it really doesn't affect Jaap's line of reasoning, this is clearly not true. (It's literally true ("bidding"), but I don't think that's what Jaap meant.) If East is thinking of doubling, he will normally *not* have spade support. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 5 15:36:41 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:36:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <000001c312db$35511570$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505103156.026cb4c0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:51 AM 5/5/03, Sven wrote: > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > > There is some doubt on how to apply Law 64C after > > *two* revokes have been made by the same player, > > but neither revoke is discovered until after play > > of the deal is concluded. > > > > (a) One school of thought is that Law 64C is applied > > as if *neither* of the two revokes had occurred. > > > > (b) The other school of thought is that Law 64C can > > be applied with the following adjusted score - > > > > the first revoke and revoke penalty is awarded, but > > the second revoke and revoke penalty is not awarded, > > > > - if that adjustment would be more beneficial to the > > NOS under Law 64C than simply cancelling both > > revokes under Law 64C. > > > > It is not clear from the text of Law 64C which school > > of thought is correct when fixing multiple revokes. > > However, if I have read Ton correctly, it seems that > > the WBF LC may tend towards school (a) as the correct > > interpretation. > >Really ! ? ! > > From Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, included those not >subject to penalty, ....... > >If the "mechanical" penalty does not fully compensate for the damage to >non-offending side then the Director is responsible for restoring >equity as >if none of the revokes had occurred, period. Yes, really. "Any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty" explicitly includes second revokes in the same suit. L64C refers only to "damage caused". If the result of the second revoke is to eliminate or reduce the penalty that would otherwise have been assessed for the first revoke, one might easily interpret that as "damage caused" by the second revoke. 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 May 5 15:45:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: <200305051445.KAA04350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" >From Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, included those not > subject to penalty, ....... > > If the "mechanical" penalty does not fully compensate for the damage to > non-offending side then the Director is responsible for restoring equity as > if none of the revokes had occurred, period. I would be astonished at this if we had not seen it before. What is it in the language of L64C that even remotely suggest that multiple revokes should be considered as a group rather than each one separately? I would have thought -- based on the language alone -- that considering each one separately is completely clear. The CoP indicates the same in jurisdictions where it is in effect. > From: "Ton Kooijman" > If you want to know > whether I like this consequence of applying the laws the answer is 'no', > since I don't want the laws to encourage people to commit infractions. Law > 72B4 tells a player not to revoke for the second time knowingly, but it pays > off to do so. We shouldn't put people in such a position. Indeed. And given the text of L64C, why do so? Of course in some cases, the NOS won't gain from a revoke penalty. Nothing special or wrong with that. What I fail to see is why a player who commits two revokes should do _better_ than a player who commits only one. Doing no worse might be OK, but better?! From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 5 15:53:29 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:53:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <01bb01c312e3$76fd6520$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030430130439.02461650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003501c30f7b$1d71d7e0$759927d9@pbncomputer> <003201c30fb7$2fe3dcc0$f936e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505104616.026b3ac0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:32 AM 5/5/03, Jaap wrote: >The only logical rule is to state that trick n is only finished when all >cards are turned face down. Because if it is ok to lead the first card of >trick n+1 when there are cards still up of trick n you get all kind of >silly >problems. Some laws hardly make sense any more. And as I said before, if >leading the first card of trick n+1 is ok why not leading a second, a >third >and a fourth and why not even the first card of trick n+2, etc. Either >there >is a moment the cards of trick n have to be turned over or there is no >such >moment. The later is completely ridiculous (you might end play with 52 >cards >face up), so we have to go by the former. That may be logical, but in real life no player has ever demanded the right to leave his card from trick n face up past his own play to trick n+1. In the worst case, when the next trick catches up to him, he will complete his tank, then turn his card from the last trick face down, then play. It would be just as "logical", and a smaller change in the Law, to explicitly require him to turn his card once his side has played to trick n+1 (at the point where he would lose his current L66A right to see trick n), but it ain't broke, so I'm not too worried about fixing it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 5 15:57:58 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:57:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000b01c31311$e07a0250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 03:23 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I do not (and never have) argued that the same player (except dummy) > should > be allowed more than one card left face up on the table at the same > time. > > When a player ignores the fact that another player is still > considering what > happened to the just completed trick (indicating so by not turning his > played card face down) and leads a card to the next trick I consider > this a > violation of Law 74A2. > > Where I see no problem is if the player who has not turned his card > face > down requests the other cards belonging to that same trick being > re-exposed > for his inspection even after the first card to the next trick has > been led. Then we don't disagree, and I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 5 16:02:28 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 11:02:28 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505110150.026ef8c0@pop.starpower.net> Missent and forwarded. Apologies to Richard for the double post. >Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:21:41 -0400 >To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > >At 02:05 AM 5/5/03, richard.hills wrote: > >>In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up >>until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor >>to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent >>play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players >>would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in >>tempo. > >Misled how? Into believing what? The visitor, having kept his card >face up longer than needed to check the spots, can't be thinking about >what to play to the current trick -- he has already played to it -- so >what could he possibly be doing *except* "plan[ning] subsequent play"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon May 5 19:22:22 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:22:22 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole In-Reply-To: <000301c312e9$dbd623f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 May 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > Yes this is crazy, and I am astonished that you understood me (or the laws) > this way. I understood you to ask "what the hell is HauffHJ going on about?" and just tried to clarify what he seemed to be saying. I certainly don't think it is the RIGHT way to matchpoint. > The match-point rules state that you receive 2 points for each table where > your result is better than the other result and 1 point where you have a > tie. > > What is your problem? I have none. *He* has a problem with saying "your result" is better or worse than at other tables where only the other side gets a score. GRB From twm@cix.co.uk Mon May 5 20:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 20:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <000801c312f2$5582b1c0$5b2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > There is more to it than that. We had a claim that a director told a > player that had played without delay at trick one that that player had > caused the problem. When in fact that player is lawfully entitled to > play in 'unvarying tempo'. And that is unvarying from trick to trick > - 'all ... plays in unvarying tempo' L73E While I have encountered declarers who sometimes play quickly from dummy to trick one I have never met one who invariably does so. Indeed if one wants to play decent bridge with unvarying tempo then I think it is necessary to always take a few seconds at trick one. Tim From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 21:11:46 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:11:46 +1200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000501c312f7$32cb4430$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c31342$917e5210$bf9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 5 May 2003 11:12 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > > Wayne Burrows > .......... > > > During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > > > player) I have more > > > than once found myself facing the situation where a player > > > leads to the next > > > trick while some other player still has his last played > card face up. > > > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds > > > their play to > > > the next trick until the last previously played card is > > > finally turned face > > > down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. > > > > On what basis is that player entitled to ask for a delay to > the game. > > Nobody says he is asking for a delay of the game. He is asking for his > opportunity to sort out the information he is entitled to by > seeing the four > cards played to that trick. > > > > > I can think of nothing more proper than the winner of the previous > > trick leading in tempo to the trick and the next hand > playing in tempo > > etc. > > I certainly now am aware that you cannot imagine other people at times > needing some time to sort out cases. Luckily, most directors and other > players can; and will allow them that time. > > > > > Of course tempo breaks occur but that is what they are tempo breaks > > and they do not come free of risk. > > I have no problem with that. As director I consider the > complete case if a > complaint is made, and if I find that the "plaintiff" seems > to have tried to > deprive another player of his option to plan his play and > then summons me > for a "tempo break" ruling; he will discover that he is very close to > instead receiving a Law 74A2 ruling against himself. IMO that is absurd. One player plays in an inconsistent tempo and you try to rule against his opponents. In my mind delaying the game or attempting to delay the game when it is not your turn to play by keeping your card face up is a violation of L65A. I have not seen anyone argue against this: the law says "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table" and not "Some time after four cards have been played to a trick at the discretion of each player, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table". > > Remember that "tempo break" in itself is no punishable > violation of any law. Agree. However delaying turning ones card is a violation. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 21:14:01 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:14:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505141243.01d3d3b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01c31342$e198c280$bf9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:14 a.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > At 22:40 5/05/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > > Sent: Monday, 5 May 2003 10:09 p.m. > > > To: blml > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > > > > > > > At 11:20 5/05/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >Jaap van der Neut > > > > > Thanks to all for the reactions on the 'when is a trick > > > finished' thread. > > > > > > > > > > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face > > > up on the > > > > > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful > > > purpose, and should > > > > > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other > > > reasons it is a > > > > > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. > > > >.......... > > > > > > > >Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I > > > do not agree. > > > >A trick is completed as soon as each of the four players has > > > played their > > > >card to that trick. Any player retains the right to see all > > > four cards to a > > > >trick until he has turned his own card face down (except if > > > his partner has > > > >already lead or played to the following trick). > > > >During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > > > player) I have more > > > >than once found myself facing the situation where a player > > > leads to the next > > > >trick while some other player still has his last played > card face up. > > > >That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds > > > their play to > > > >the next trick until the last previously played card is > > > finally turned face > > > >down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion. > > > > > > > >I have said it before and I say it again: Please avoid > > > inventing problems > > > >where none exists. > > > > > > AG : there could be some problem, though. If the person > > > playing before the > > > cards are face down is a defender, it could carry UI, as it > > > is "not the > > > normal procedure". And in some outrageous cases it may > violate L74C7. > > > >Really? > > > >A card is led and it is my turn to play and I am varying the > tempo when > >I play in my normal tempo to the trick. I think not. > > > >The player who is attempting to delay play by holding a card > face up is > >the one in violation of L74C7. > > AG : except that some players will play super-fast to the next trick, > either because they don't want to let you see the present one > (violates L74 > if done on purpose) or because they "know what to play next" (may in > extreme cases create UI). This is crazy Alain I am not talking about super fast plays I am talking about in tempo plays did you not read what you were responding too. I said "I play in my normal tempo". Wayne > > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 21:21:58 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:21:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030505141521.01d48160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c31343$fe416120$bf9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:18 a.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Jaap van der Neut'; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > > > At 22:37 5/05/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >The speedy declarer is entitled to play speedily if that is > the normal > >tempo for that player (L73E) and you are not entitled to > vary your tempo > >as a counter measure (L74C7 and L74B4). > > AG : not true. L74C7 deals with variations attempting to trouble the > opposing side, L74B4 with cases with no justification. > You are always allowed to vary the tempo if you have good > reasons to do it, > ie you need the time to think. > You are advised to avoid it but no more (L73D1). Perhaps if you quote what Jaap said and therefore what I responded to you would see my point: Japp: Is it ok to delay the turning a little bit to slow down an overly quick opponent (almost always a speedy declarer). I see yes, I think most say yes because all you do is forcing the opponent back to normal tempo (whatever that is, without definition it has no real meaning). Wayne: Rubbish. What you are doing is altering your tempo in order to attempt to change another player's tempo. I think this is a violation of L74C7. The speedy declarer is entitled to play speedily if that is the normal tempo for that player (L73E) and you are not entitled to vary your tempo as a counter measure (L74C7 and L74B4). ------- Jaap is contending that it is okay to attempt to delay proceedings just because you think that the opponent plays to fast. The laws allow a fast player to play quickly and a slow player to play slowly. The laws do not allow a fast player to speed up his play nor a slow player to slow down his play just because he does not like the tempo of the opponents. Jaap is saying that it is okay to delay the game merely because of an opponents tempo I think this is a clear violation of L74C7 and is only designed to disconcert that fast player. Wayne > > > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 21:32:35 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:32:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000b01c31311$e07a0250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c31345$798953a0$bf9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 2:23 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > >> On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > ........... > > >>> During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) > > >>> I have more than once found myself facing the situation where a > > >>> player leads to the next trick while some other player still has > > >>> his last played card face up. > > >>> That player then simply points out the fact, everybody > holds their > > >>> play to the next trick until the last previously played card is > > >>> finally turned face down; and that is that. > > >>> No problem and no confusion. > > >> > > >> If there really is no problem, I wonder why you need to > halt play and > > >> wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Gordon Rainsford > > >> London UK > > > > > > I assume that you have a better knowledge of the English > language than > > > I > > > have. Could you please elaborate your question? > > > > > > As far as I can understand you ask: "If there really is > no problem (in > > > waiting for the card from the previous trick to be turned > over) you > > > wonder > > > why wait for the card from the previous trick to be turned over? > > > > > > A question like that just doesn't make any sense to me. (But then > > > English is > > > not my native language). > > > > Jaap wrote: > > > I guess we all agree that having cards of two tricks face > up on the > > > table can only lead to confusion, serves no useful > purpose, and should > > > be avoided ('at all costs'). Also for all kind of other > reasons it is a > > > good idea to 'finish' trick n before starting on trick n+1. > > > > You (Sven) wrote: > > Please do not count me as a member of the "all" society, I > do not agree. > > > > Which I (Gordon) interpreted (together with your earlier posts) as > > meaning that you do not see there being a problem with > having cards of > > more than one trick allowed to be face-up on the table at > the same time. > > > > If that is the case, my question stands as written - ie if > there is no > > problem with having cards of more than one trick face-up on > the table > > at the same time, why, when it actually occurs, do you need to stop > > play until one of the tricks is turned over? > > > > *I* can see why it's necessary, but I'm not arguing that there's no > > problem with having cards from two tricks face up at the same time. > > I thought I knew what this discussion concerned, but now I am > completely > confused. > > I do not (and never have) argued that the same player (except > dummy) should > be allowed more than one card left face up on the table at > the same time. > > When a player ignores the fact that another player is still > considering what > happened to the just completed trick (indicating so by not turning his > played card face down) and leads a card to the next trick I > consider this a > violation of Law 74A2. This is clearly contradictory to the leaders absolute right to play in normal tempo. L73E states that playing in normal tempo is 'entirely appropriate'. Also the player with a card face up is in violation of his responsibility to quit the trick L65A. There would be some exceptions to this when the led to the next trick was unusually hasty but I would imagine from my experience at the table and from what I have read in this and similar threads that the normal reason is because there has been a delay in turning down the card. There is no law that gives a player the right to delay turning down a card and there is a law that allows the leader the right to continue in normal tempo therefore it is clear to see who has caused the problem. Wayne > > Where I see no problem is if the player who has not turned > his card face > down requests the other cards belonging to that same trick > being re-exposed > for his inspection even after the first card to the next > trick has been led. > > > One player will have to take care of both his last card > played and his newly > led card; if he is unable to manage that himself I have every > confidence in > his fellow players at the table helping him keep the cards > apart. After all > that player is the only one responsible for any possible > confusion arising > from him leading to the next trick while another player still > had the right > to request all cards from the previous trick being re-exposed. > > And I still do not understand Gordon's question. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 5 21:36:15 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:36:15 +1200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c31345$fdff8b40$bf9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 7:50 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > > > Wayne wrote: > > > There is more to it than that. We had a claim that a > director told a > > player that had played without delay at trick one that that > player had > > caused the problem. When in fact that player is lawfully > entitled to > > play in 'unvarying tempo'. And that is unvarying from > trick to trick > > - 'all ... plays in unvarying tempo' L73E > > While I have encountered declarers who sometimes play quickly > from dummy > to trick one I have never met one who invariably does so. > Indeed if one > wants to play decent bridge with unvarying tempo then I think it is > necessary to always take a few seconds at trick one. I agree. It is when that player plays slowly at trick one that normal tempo for that player is broken. That player is entitled to play more hastily 'in tempo' on other occasions. The laws unconditionally protect that right (L73E). Wayne > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 5 22:54:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 07:54:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Allegro Message-ID: In the "Finishing a trick" thread, Sven wrote: [big snip] >Remember that "tempo break" in itself is no punishable >violation of any law. Correct. However, such a statement is almost always irrelevant to the facts of a particular dispute when the TD is called. In almost any tempo case, the TD is entitled to award a PP for infraction of proper procedure, even if score adjustment is not required. Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." Law 73A2: "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste....." Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made,....." Law 73D1: ".....However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side....." Law 73D2: "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....." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 5 23:34:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:34:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: >Misled how? Into believing what? The visitor, having >kept his card face up longer than needed to check the >spots, [snip] Richard Hills replies: In my opinion, that is begging the question. I am, instead, postulating that: a) the visitor keeps the card face up a long time, b) the locals think that the visitor is carefully checking a pip signalled on the current trick, c) the visitor is actually planning the play five tricks down the track, and d) the locals are therefore misled into believing that the visitor thinks that the signal on this trick is of especial significance. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon May 5 23:53:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 00:53:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Allegro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c31359$27aa86d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> All your comments below are relevant - provided you show that the player = had no bridge reason for examining the trick as he did. (And that will most times be rather difficult!) Bridge is a game where you are supposed to use your brain. My experience tells me that in the real (!) world when a player executes = his right to digest the information he can collect from the cards played to = a trick the only ruling a competent director will make on any such = complaint from another player is to give the complaining player a warning for violating Laws 74A2 and 74B5. Sven=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 5. mai 2003 23:54 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Allegro >=20 >=20 > In the "Finishing a trick" thread, Sven wrote: >=20 > [big snip] >=20 > >Remember that "tempo break" in itself is no punishable > >violation of any law. >=20 > Correct. However, such a statement is almost always > irrelevant to the facts of a particular dispute when the > TD is called. In almost any tempo case, the TD is > entitled to award a PP for infraction of proper > procedure, even if score adjustment is not required. >=20 > Law 73A1: > "Communication between partners during the auction and > play shall be effected only by means of the calls and > plays themselves." >=20 > Law 73A2: > "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, > mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or > haste....." >=20 > Law 73B1: > "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in > which calls or plays are made,....." >=20 > Law 73D1: > ".....However, players should be particularly careful in > positions in which variations may work to the benefit of > their side....." >=20 > Law 73D2: > "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....." >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 00:07:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:07:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Supposed to (was Allegro) Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >Bridge is a game where you are supposed to use your brain. [snip] I disagree. To adapt an Indian chess proverb: "Bridge is a game where a gnat can swim, and an elephant can bathe." Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Tue May 6 00:22:03 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 16:22:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 May 2003 08:34:35 +1000." Message-ID: <200305052321.QAA10545@mailhub.irvine.com> > Eric Landau wrote: > > >Misled how? Into believing what? The visitor, having > >kept his card face up longer than needed to check the > >spots, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills replies: > > In my opinion, that is begging the question. I am, > instead, postulating that: > > a) the visitor keeps the card face up a long time, > b) the locals think that the visitor is carefully > checking a pip signalled on the current trick, > c) the visitor is actually planning the play five > tricks down the track, and > d) the locals are therefore misled into believing > that the visitor thinks that the signal on this > trick is of especial significance. So the locals think that if a player signals with a five-spot and his partner holds a card up for 30 seconds before turning down the trick, this means it takes the partner that long to count up to five? Or, perhaps, it takes him that long to remember that the "5" symbol on the card means "five" and not "four" or "seven"---something my four-year-old takes much less time to figure out? If the locals around your area can be misled to believe that, I'm going to quit my job, move down there, and start selling oceanfront vacation condos in Uzbekistan . . . -- Adam From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue May 6 00:42:48 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:42:48 +1200 Subject: [blml] Allegro In-Reply-To: <000d01c31359$27aa86d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002201c31360$0d8bcdc0$bf9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 10:54 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Allegro > > > All your comments below are relevant - provided you show that > the player had > no bridge reason for examining the trick as he did. (And that > will most > times be rather difficult!) > > Bridge is a game where you are supposed to use your brain. > > My experience tells me that in the real (!) world when a > player executes his > right to digest the information he can collect from the cards > played to a > trick the only ruling a competent director will make on any > such complaint > from another player is to give the complaining player a warning for > violating Laws 74A2 and 74B5. Why can't said player execute his right at his turn to play instead of delaying or attempting to delay another player's lead. I will repeat since noone seems to give a good argument against it but said player is required to quit his trick "When four cards have been played". I see nothing in this law or another allowing for a delayed quitting of the trick nor have I seen any lawful argument that is at all convincing that this is what the law says. All I have seen is that 'many players do this so it must be ok'. If a player is merely digesting the information from this trick then he has lawful grounds for examining the cards if the player is planning his play to subsequent tricks based upon information that he has already digested then it is proper to allow play to proceed. Wayne > > Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sent: 5. mai 2003 23:54 > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: RE: [blml] Allegro > > > > > > In the "Finishing a trick" thread, Sven wrote: > > > > [big snip] > > > > >Remember that "tempo break" in itself is no punishable > > >violation of any law. > > > > Correct. However, such a statement is almost always > > irrelevant to the facts of a particular dispute when the > > TD is called. In almost any tempo case, the TD is > > entitled to award a PP for infraction of proper > > procedure, even if score adjustment is not required. > > > > Law 73A1: > > "Communication between partners during the auction and > > play shall be effected only by means of the calls and > > plays themselves." > > > > Law 73A2: > > "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, > > mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or > > haste....." > > > > Law 73B1: > > "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in > > which calls or plays are made,....." > > > > Law 73D1: > > ".....However, players should be particularly careful in > > positions in which variations may work to the benefit of > > their side....." > > > > Law 73D2: > > "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....." > > > > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 00:57:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:57:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: [snip] >The same procedure is followed if there should >happen to be revokes on both sides on the same >board, but of course (?) adjudication under Law >64C could in such cases easily become quite >complicated. However, that is to me mainly >theory; I cannot remember ever having had any >such case resulting in a serious problem. > >Regards Sven Not just theory. In the Paris Bermuda Bowl, there was a revoke by both sides on the same *trick*. The WBF LC decided that when both sides revoked on the same trick, both revokes would be cancelled, and Law 64C would automatically and equitably apply to both sides. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 01:10:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:10:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: >What is it in the language of L64C that even remotely >suggest that multiple revokes should be considered as >a group rather than each one separately? I would have >thought -- based on the language alone -- that >considering each one separately is completely clear. >The CoP indicates the same in jurisdictions where it >is in effect. WBF Code of Practice, page 5: "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." Unfortunately, this quote does not unambiguously support Steve's postion. A standard rule of jurisprudential interpretation is that the singular tense implies the plural tense. Therefore, it is possible to argue that "prior to the infraction" could be interpreted - in the case of multiple revokes by the same player in the same suit - as equivalent to "prior to the revoke infractions". Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 02:31:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:31:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: Jaap wrote: >1. You cannot accuse this visitor of "an attempt to >mislead an opponent" (73D2). For an 'attempt' someone >needs some form of intent or knowledge about what he >is doing. Richard replied: No, I would argue for an "attempt" to occur, a lesser requirement of a deliberate act is all that the TD has to determine. Contrast with the parallel Law 73D1, which refers to "inadvertently to vary". Using the Aristotelian rule of the excluded middle, variations in tempo which are not covered by Law 73D1 seem instead to be covered by Law 73D2. (No doubt Edgar Kaplan could have phrased both these Laws in a less recondite manner.) Jaap continued: >And leaving your card face up to take some time for >thought (normal behaviour all over the world) cannot be >called an attempt to mislead an opponent. Richard riposted: Normal in a blmler's bridge circle is not ipso facto normal behaviour all over the world. See the post Peter Gill sent many moons ago, revealing radical differences in bridge culture between clubs in the same city of Sydney. [big snip] Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 6 02:55:03 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 21:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: <200305060155.VAA00875@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > A standard rule of jurisprudential > interpretation is that the singular tense implies the > plural tense. I'm obviously no lawyer; this is the first I have heard of such a rule. If it exists, and applies to bridge, no doubt it explains Sven's and Ton's views. Does anyone else think this principle should apply? Can anyone give examples in a bridge context where the principle is necessary or useful? From adam@irvine.com Tue May 6 03:14:29 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 19:14:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 May 2003 11:31:40 +1000." Message-ID: <200305060214.TAA12877@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > No, I would argue for an "attempt" to occur, a lesser > requirement of a deliberate act is all that the TD has > to determine. Contrast with the parallel Law 73D1, > which refers to "inadvertently to vary". Using the > Aristotelian rule of the excluded middle, variations > in tempo which are not covered by Law 73D1 seem instead > to be covered by Law 73D2. This line of argument has really gotten bizarre. First it depended on players in some part of the world apparently believing that a long pause before turning one's trick down indicates that it takes that long to count the pips on his partner's signal. Now we have a theory that "attempt to deceive" means "anything that isn't inadvertent", based upon the notion that Aristotle's "Law of Excluded Middle", i.e. "Either A is B or A is not-B", somehow implies that when two paragraphs are adjacent to each other in the Laws then either one applies or the other does. I don't think I'm going to follow this thread any more. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 03:44:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:44:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bizarre (was When is a trick finished) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: >This line of argument has really gotten bizarre. [snip] >Now we have a theory that "attempt to deceive" means >"anything that isn't inadvertent", based upon the notion >that Aristotle's "Law of Excluded Middle", i.e. "Either A >is B or A is not-B", somehow implies that when two >paragraphs are adjacent to each other in the Laws then >either one applies or the other does. > >I don't think I'm going to follow this thread any more. Au revoir. I know that headings are not part of the Laws, but is it bizarre to state this syllogism? - a) The heading of Law 73D1 is "Inadvertent Variations", and b) The heading of Law 73D2 is "Intentional Variations", and c) The overall heading of Law 73D is "Variations in Tempo or Manner", so c) There is just a vague possibility that the WBF LC intended that either Law 73D1 or alternatively Law 73D2 should apply to _all_ variations in tempo and manner. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 03:56:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:56:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Allegro Message-ID: Sven wrote: >All your comments below are relevant - provided you >show that the player had no bridge reason for examining >the trick as he did. [snip] Apologies for largely repetitive reply. Best wishes Richard Whether or not a bridge reason exists is irrelevant in determining whether Law 73A1 has been infracted. Whether or not a bridge reason exists is irrelevant in determining whether Law 73A2 has been infracted. Whether or not a bridge reason exists is irrelevant in determining whether Law 73B1 has been infracted. Whether or not a bridge reason exists is irrelevant in determining whether Law 73B2 has been infracted. Whether or not a bridge reason exists is irrelevant in determining whether Law 73D1 has been infracted. Whether or not a bridge reason exists is irrelevant in determining whether Law 73D2 has been infracted. Whether or not a bridge reason exists is *relevant* in determining whether Law 73F2 has been infracted. From svenpran@online.no Tue May 6 09:19:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:19:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <200305060214.TAA12877@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c313a8$3ab6ae30$6900a8c0@WINXP> As so many posters seem to have a problem seeing why some players at = times need some time to "digest" the information from a trick let me just give = one example: In the environments I frequently play most players use the small cards = for signals that for instance Ely Culbertson would never have understood: It = is significant whether a small-spot card played is the lowest or second = lowest from the suit, so if your partner plays the seven-spot and you can = locate all the lower-ranked cards from that suit except say the three-spot as belonging to other hands (including your own) you may need first of all = to realize that you are "missing" the three-spot only, and then you have to figure out for yourself whether the missing three-spot is likely to be = with your partner or maybe can be "concealed" by declarer in an attempt to = upset your signaling methods.=20 Because this often involves figuring out the various holdings possible = in the suit and whether the different possible holdings are consistent with = the auction and the plays to the previous tricks it may easily take some = seconds during which you will normally need to have all cards from that trick visible.=20 Taking this time to digest the information from the trick should never = be considered illegal (except possibly by players who do not give a .... = for advanced defense methods). In such cases the alleged "tempo break" is not used for illegal communication with partner, it is not used for deceiving an opponent, it = is not used to embarrass an opponent. In short: It is perfectly legal. However, what remains is that partner must of course not use possible extraneous information he may have received from such incidents in any = way that violates Law 16, but that obvious fact has never been questioned in this thread and is indeed irrelevant for this discussion. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 6 13:28:27 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 08:28:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030506081752.01fe5c40@pop.starpower.net> At 06:34 PM 5/5/03, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >Misled how? Into believing what? The visitor, having > >kept his card face up longer than needed to check the > >spots, > >[snip] > >Richard Hills replies: > >In my opinion, that is begging the question. I am, >instead, postulating that: > >a) the visitor keeps the card face up a long time, >b) the locals think that the visitor is carefully > checking a pip signalled on the current trick, >c) the visitor is actually planning the play five > tricks down the track, and >d) the locals are therefore misled into believing > that the visitor thinks that the signal on this > trick is of especial significance. Any local who made such a claim would get little sympathy -- and possibly a penalty, if they were experienced -- from me. To keep a played card face up because the signal on the trick was of particular significance would be a direct and flagrant violation of L74C4, so this would be accusing the visitor of cheating. I'm not about to apply L73F2 for a player who claims that his opponent's "remark, manner, tempo, or the like" misled him into mis-assuming that his opponent deliberately did something blatantly illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue May 6 16:30:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:30:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <003401c31200$06af5640$4a2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 5/4/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >In other words, it is not a law and therefore is not required. This assertion is invalid, as the conclusion does not follow from the premise. 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 Tue May 6 16:21:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:21:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <004301c3114e$989fb2f0$63c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On 5/3/03, Ton Kooijman wrote: >Judges don't play bridge and don't know anything about mathematics, >alpha oriented people as they are. Amalya Kearse might disagree with you. :-) >The accused bridge player in Belgium rented a mathematical professor >himself and either that guy was real Belgium (sorry Alain) or he lied. >I myself wrote a letter to the Belgium Federation to support their >accusations, showing that the chance to shuffle those boards (ignoring >the small cards) was much less than winning the national lottery three >times in a row. But how to explain the meaning of 10 to the power 23 >(Avogadro, isn't it?) to a judge? It is not the law being an ass, but >those who have to apply it (where did I say that before?) >From memory, Avogadro's number is 6.023x10E23, yes. And perhaps you're about about who's the ass, but it seems to me that "a difference which makes no difference *is* no difference". 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 Tue May 6 16:56:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:56:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <000e01c31342$917e5210$bf9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 5/6/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Agree. However delaying turning ones card is a violation. So what? "A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... dummy spreads his hand in front of him ...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." 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 Tue May 6 16:36:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:36:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 5/5/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Law 73D2 states: > >"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." > >Ed Reppert asked: > >>Please explain to me how doing as you say above is "an attempt to >>mislead an opponent". > >Richard Hills replied: > >In my local bridge culture, players only keep cards face up >until they have checked the spots played. Therefore, a visitor >to my local club, who kept a card face up to plan subsequent >play instead, would be infracting Law 73D2, as other players >would be misled as to the meaning of their deliberate break in >tempo. > >In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card >face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. I disagree. Law 73D2 does not say that opponents shall not be misled. It says that a player may not *attempt to mislead* (my emphasis) an opponent. If it was not the player's intent to mislead, then there is no infraction. And there's no "could have known" in this law, so we can't invoke that, thank Ghu. 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 Tue May 6 16:48:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:48:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <000801c312f2$5582b1c0$5b2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 5/5/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Since this thread began I have observed both my trick one tempo and the >trick one tempo of others and I have noticed many players of assorted >ability from World Class to palooka who regularly play in no different >tempo at trick one from what they play at other tricks. > >Once I had an International opponent who paused and said she needed >more time to think at trick one after I had played from the dummy. > >No problem resulted but I would have expected a favourable ruling if >that comment had transmitted UI to her partner and that information >had been acted on. I have a question for you, Wayne. Are players allowed to take the time needed to decide what line of play to adopt? 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 Tue May 6 17:59:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 18:59:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c31342$917e5210$bf9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030506185600.02472db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:56 6/05/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 5/6/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Agree. However delaying turning ones card is a violation. > >So what? "A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... >dummy spreads his hand in front of him ...") establishes correct >procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." AG : agree with the principles behind the use of different modes. However, I bet you that if some dummy refuses to spread his hand, you'll penalize him according to L74A2, L74B4, L74B6, L90B8 (your pick). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 6 18:07:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:07:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030506190115.02489470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:36 6/05/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >In other bridge cultures, where it is routine to keep a card > >face up to plan the play, Law 73D2 would not be infracted. > >I disagree. Law 73D2 does not say that opponents shall not be misled. It >says that a player may not *attempt to mislead* (my emphasis) an >opponent. If it was not the player's intent to mislead, then there is no >infraction. And there's no "could have known" in this law, so we can't >invoke that, thank Ghu. AG : an interesting thing is that the wording of L73D2 does not suggest that there might be other cases, eg a player may not be penalized for having whistled on seeing dummy, with the intent to let him think he was surprised, nor for making a normal gesture in an abnomal manner, like playing a card with emphasis. We'd better use a generic form "by any action". Best regards, Alain. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue May 6 21:13:14 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:13:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030506185600.02472db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2AC20EDD-7FFF-11D7-BF7E-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 05:59 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 11:56 6/05/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >> On 5/6/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> >Agree. However delaying turning ones card is a violation. >> >> So what? "A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... >> dummy spreads his hand in front of him ...") establishes correct >> procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." > > AG : agree with the principles behind the use of different modes. > However, I bet you that if some dummy refuses to spread his hand, > you'll penalize him according to L74A2, L74B4, L74B6, L90B8 (your > pick). But you wouldn't penalise according to 41C. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue May 6 21:47:27 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:47:27 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c31410$b89fab90$a22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2003 3:30 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > On 5/4/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >In other words, it is not a law and therefore is not required. > > This assertion is invalid, as the conclusion does not follow from the > premise. Poppycock! The game is only defined by its laws. How are you supposed to know what is required if the law makers do not take the courtesy of informing you Ed? 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 ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 6 21:49:07 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:49:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030506190115.02489470@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030506163956.01fb7c00@pop.starpower.net> At 01:07 PM 5/6/03, Alain wrote: >AG : an interesting thing is that the wording of L73D2 does not >suggest that there might be other cases, What other cases? >eg a player may not be penalized for having whistled on seeing dummy, >with the intent to let him think he was surprised, L73D2 explicitly applies to a "remark". "Remark n.: 2. A casual or brief expression of opinion" [AHD]. I have no problem interpreting a whistle on seeing dummy as a "remark". >nor for making a normal gesture in an abnomal manner, like playing a >card with emphasis. L73D2 explicitly applies to "the manner in which the call or play is made". I have no problem interpreting playing a card with emphasis as "the manner in which the... play is made". >We'd better use a generic form "by any action". If it ain't broke... 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 May 6 21:52:42 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:52:42 +1200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c31411$739b1a10$a22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2003 3:56 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] Finishing a trick. > > > On 5/6/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Agree. However delaying turning ones card is a violation. > > So what? "A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... > dummy spreads his hand in front of him ...") establishes correct > procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." So let it be clear that the player that does not do something that has been established as correct procedure is the one causing the problem and not some other innocent party. The laws require the card to be turned down. The laws do not require another player to delay a lead to the next trick until the card has been turned down. Others here have labeled this lawful lead as 'impolite' and improper. These conclusions can not be established from the laws of the game. So let the blame for any problem be put on the player who is not conforming to correct procedure and not on the player who is trying to get on with the game and who has not violated correct procedure. 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 Tue May 6 22:03:25 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 09:03:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c31412$f47bd970$a22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2003 3:48 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > > > On 5/5/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Since this thread began I have observed both my trick one > tempo and the > >trick one tempo of others and I have noticed many players of > assorted > >ability from World Class to palooka who regularly play in no > different > >tempo at trick one from what they play at other tricks. > > > >Once I had an International opponent who paused and said she needed > >more time to think at trick one after I had played from the dummy. > > > >No problem resulted but I would have expected a favourable ruling if > >that comment had transmitted UI to her partner and that information > >had been acted on. > > I have a question for you, Wayne. Are players allowed to take the time > needed to decide what line of play to adopt? Of course. Leaving a card face up on the table is not a lawful mechanism to give one time to decide and the other players at the table have no lawful obligation to wait until you turn your card face down before they continue playing the game. In fact the laws describe the leaders 'entirely appropriate' behaviour of continueing to play in an 'unvarying tempo'. I have some question for anyone to answer: Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next trick before another player has quitted a completed trick? 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 svenpran@online.no Tue May 6 22:43:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:43:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <001201c31412$f47bd970$a22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000101c31418$968d5040$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows .........=20 > I have some question for anyone to answer: >=20 > Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next = trick >=20 > before another player has quitted a completed trick? >=20 >=20 > Wayne Are you satisfied with Law 74A2? In a separate post I have given an example which occurs quite frequently = in the environments where I use to play: From the cards played to a trick a player (for instance myself) tries to figure out what cards his partner holds in the suit just played in order to determine for instance whether = his card played was the lowest or the second lowest, or maybe an even higher card from that suit. The answer to this question will have a lot of = impact on interpreting what information he tried to give with his play. Sometimes this will take some time during which the player needs to see = all cards so that he does not have to load his brain with memorizing the = cards first and then thinking afterwards. So while "digesting" the information from the trick he keeps his own last played card face up; signaling to = the other players that he still has some thinking to do. This is one of the privileges of any participating player in the game! If another player ignores my need for such thinking and just leads his = card to the next trick I shall hold him in contempt unless his action was = purely unintentional, in which case I shall expect his excuse and that will be = it. If I were to be called to a table where an apparent conflict exists with = one player "digesting" information and another player complains I shall most likely rule a violation of Law 74B2 against the complaining player. So = far this has never happened to me as a director and I would be most = surprised if it ever happens. And just to make you happy (maybe?): Of course I am aware of the = possibility that a player may abuse his privileges. Let me assure you that I have = means to take care also of such cases. Sven PS.: The proper penalty against repeated or really severe violations of = Law 74B is expulsion, a penalty that can not be appealed, are you aware of = that? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 22:54:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 07:54:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Should Message-ID: In the thread When is a trick finished, Sven wrote: [big snip] >should never be considered illegal [big snip] >In short: It is perfectly legal. [big snip] Sven's conclusion is not necessarily a consequence of Sven's premise. Merely because it is sensible for the Laws to have a particular meaning, is not logically related to whether the 1997 Laws do have that particular meaning. Uniform application of Laws, in an appropriately "justice is blind" manner, will be impossible if TDs ignore particular Laws which they personally think "should" not apply. In my opinion, the only time the word "should" should be appropriately used in blml discussions on legality or illegality, is when blml is discussing what the 2005 Laws "should" be. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue May 6 22:26:59 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:26:59 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <001201c31412$f47bd970$a22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 May 2003, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next trick > > before another player has quitted a completed trick? Seems to be quite the opposite. 44B tells us what constitutes a trick, 44E/F tell us who wins a trick, 44G tells us who leads next, the definitions tells what a lead is. Law 44 appears to continue to operate even if all 4 people at the table violate Law 65A twelve times each and never turn anything over at all. In fact, we don't even have an explicit definition of "quitted trick", and we might have to resort to L40E instead of 66C to punish a table that choose to leave all played cards exposed throughout the deal. I don't see a need for a change to the laws in this area, except perhaps for slight clarification (for instance, changing "Thereafter, quitted tricks may not be inspected" to "Except as provided in 66A and 66B, no card played to a previous trick may be inspected.") As it is, we might have a situation where one partner plays to a new trick, while the other still has his card faced and says "I haven't quitted this trick so 66C doesn't apply to it yet, this is a situation not covered in the laws." GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 6 23:11:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:11:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 74B (was Leaving your card face up) Message-ID: [big snip] >Sven > >PS.: The proper penalty against repeated or >really severe violations of Law 74B is >expulsion, a penalty that can not be appealed, >are you aware of that? I am not aware of that, because Sven's assertion is not globally correct. Local Norwegian regulations about expulsion are not necessarily proper penalties in other NCBOs. The Laws themselves state that expulsion is a proper penalty only when there has been a cheating infraction of Law 73B2. Furthermore, the Laws themselves state that the only penalty which cannot be appealed is a disciplinary suspension for the current session (or any part thereof) under Law 91A. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue May 6 23:47:13 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:47:13 +1200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <000101c31418$968d5040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c31421$73059d90$a22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2003 9:44 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > > > > Wayne Burrows > ......... > > I have some question for anyone to answer: > > > > Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to > the next trick > > > > before another player has quitted a completed trick? > > > > > > Wayne > > Are you satisfied with Law 74A2? I am not satisfied with this. Applying this law in this manner creates a conflict with the leader's 'entirely appropriate' right to lead to the next trick in 'unvarying tempo'. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Tue May 6 23:55:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 00:55:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 74B (was Leaving your card face up) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c31422$a42f4230$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > >PS.: The proper penalty against repeated or > >really severe violations of Law 74B is > >expulsion, a penalty that can not be appealed, > >are you aware of that? >=20 > I am not aware of that, because Sven's assertion > is not globally correct. Local Norwegian > regulations about expulsion are not necessarily > proper penalties in other NCBOs. This is not a local Norwegian regulation and I accept it if other NCBOs = are more lenient with players violating L74B than we are. But we say that next to cheating we consider violations of L74A2 the = most severe, and it is up to the discretion of the director to assess which disciplinary penalty he will apply. Usually we recommend starting with a warning, but if the director deems that a person (participant or = spectator) behaves in such a way that his continued presence will destroy the = enjoyment of the game for the other participants we specifically suggest such person(s) to be expelled from the rooms for the remainder of the session = in progress, and that he (or they) shall be warned they will only be = admitted again if they behave properly thereafter. >=20 > The Laws themselves state that expulsion is a > proper penalty only when there has been a > cheating infraction of Law 73B2. >=20 > Furthermore, the Laws themselves state that the > only penalty which cannot be appealed is a > disciplinary suspension for the current session > (or any part thereof) under Law 91A. Law 91A specifically says that the director's disciplinary decisions = under that law are final. The commentaries to the 1985 laws make it clear that this applies to any decision taken under law 91A, not just suspensions (which is the word used in that law). Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed May 7 00:46:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:46:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030506185600.02472db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 5/6/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : agree with the principles behind the use of different modes. >However, I bet you that if some dummy refuses to spread his hand, >you'll penalize him according to L74A2, L74B4, L74B6, L90B8 (your >pick). If I am called to a table as director where dummy has refused to spread his hand, I'll ask him *why* he refused, and I will deal with that. In all likelihood, he won't have a good reason, and I will tell him so. Then I will tell him to spread his hand. If he refuses *again*, I'll penalize him under Law 90B8. Unless it seems to me that he was deliberately screwing around (eg, trying to disconcert opponents somehow), I don't see a reason for a penalty. My copy of the laws doesn't seem to have a 74B6. 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 May 7 00:49:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:49:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <001001c31410$b89fab90$a22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 5/7/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Poppycock! Right back atcha. Read what you said, and what I said. I'm right. :) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed May 7 01:03:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 20:03:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <001201c31412$f47bd970$a22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 5/7/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Of course. > >Leaving a card face up on the table is not a lawful mechanism to give >one time to decide and the other players at the table have no lawful >obligation to wait until you turn your card face down before they >continue playing the game. In fact the laws describe the leaders >'entirely appropriate' behaviour of continueing to play in an >'unvarying tempo'. Fine. I find myself in a somewhat awkward position. DWS has been fond of taking me to task for being "impractical" - in particular about the asking of questions about the auction. On that question, I disagree with him. And here I am trying to be practical instead of simply sticking to the letter of the law in this case. So be it. You are correct that the laws do not allow a player to leave a card face up in order to signify a need to think. Nor, for that matter, do they allow him to make any remark or gesture or whatever to so signify. So it would seem "proper procedure" requires him to turn his card and let the leader get on with leading to the next trick while he is thinking about whatever it is he needs to think about. Will you agree with that? And will you also agree that TDs need to be (a) very careful about attributing some nefarious intent to this "break in tempo" and (b) very sure that the player's partner did in fact violate Law 16, rather than just assuming it to be so? >Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next >trick before another player has quitted a completed trick? As far as I can tell, there is no such law. 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 May 7 05:17:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:17:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: Some blmlers participated in this booklet's panel discussion (including myself). The booklet can be dowloaded from: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? Swiss Pairs Board no 14 Dealer East None vulnerable J97643 KJT3 J2 J K5 Q2 Q92 765 K84 QT5 QT642 K9873 AT8 A84 A9763 A5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 15-16 (2) Hesitation The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their deposit back - which I would have retained - but the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! :-( Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: Barry Rigal's comments: "Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S have been invitational? We need to be told! Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm view is that this should be the score for both sides." Best wishes Richard= From jaapb@noos.fr Wed May 7 09:08:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:08:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. References: Message-ID: <004701c3146f$e831a980$0fb54351@noos.fr> Wayne: > >Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next > >trick before another player has quitted a completed trick? Ed: > As far as I can tell, there is no such law. And that is exactly the problem. We play a trick based game for the millions, we have WC's and such. We flirt with being Olympic. But our laws don't cover a basic issue as the 'correct procedue' of a trick. I 'agree' with Wayne that the laws do not say it is incorrect to lead for the next trick before the current trick is 'quitted'. But the laws don't say the opposite as well. The laws basically say nothing about the issue. As I pointed out at least two times, the laws do not say explicitly it is incorrect to play all 13 tricks before 'quitting' the first. Which of course is completely ridiculous. Law 66 is not very helpful. 66A suggests that it is 'normal' to have two tricks in progress at the same time, but 66B suggests exactly the opposite. So whoever wrote these laws needs his head examined. So we better forget about the current laws, they suck, and try to decide what the laws should be. As I said before a couple of times, normal procedure should be to 'quit' trick n before starting on trick 2 for all kind of obvious reasons. And this should be 'enforced' one way or another. And I really don't care about someone by accident leading premature. That happens in real life and as long as there is no damage you don't have to penalise it (although you might). And about the 'right' to leave your card face up to regulate the speed or to take some time for thinking. The current laws don't say anything about whether this is ok or not. So everybody can have a go at whatever interpretation he would like. Great. I myself would state something like 'a player turns his card when he is ready for the next trick' along with 'you can only lead to the next trick when all cards are turned' in the new law. This allows for thinking in between tricks. Seems a good idea to me (this is the way we play top level bridge all over the globe by the way) because players have to think from time to time, and in between tricks is the best moment to do it because it minimises the UI and mislead problems. And yes there should be some provision to stop some idiots from misusing this procedure (like any other), but idiots like that will always be able to fuck up the game. At some level you have to assume that bridge players want to play bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:03 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > On 5/7/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Of course. > > > >Leaving a card face up on the table is not a lawful mechanism to give > >one time to decide and the other players at the table have no lawful > >obligation to wait until you turn your card face down before they > >continue playing the game. In fact the laws describe the leaders > >'entirely appropriate' behaviour of continueing to play in an > >'unvarying tempo'. > > Fine. > > I find myself in a somewhat awkward position. DWS has been fond of > taking me to task for being "impractical" - in particular about the > asking of questions about the auction. On that question, I disagree with > him. And here I am trying to be practical instead of simply sticking to > the letter of the law in this case. So be it. > > You are correct that the laws do not allow a player to leave a card face > up in order to signify a need to think. Nor, for that matter, do they > allow him to make any remark or gesture or whatever to so signify. So it > would seem "proper procedure" requires him to turn his card and let the > leader get on with leading to the next trick while he is thinking about > whatever it is he needs to think about. Will you agree with that? And > will you also agree that TDs need to be (a) very careful about > attributing some nefarious intent to this "break in tempo" and (b) very > sure that the player's partner did in fact violate Law 16, rather than > just assuming it to be so? > > >Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next > >trick before another player has quitted a completed trick? > > As far as I can tell, there is no such law. > > 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 Wed May 7 00:53:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 09:53:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 74B (was Leaving your card face up) Message-ID: Sven wrote, inter alia: >.....we specifically suggest such person(s) to >be expelled from the rooms for the remainder >of the session..... There seems to be another Lawful problem with fine distinctions of English language as used in the overly terse Kaplaneque mode. Law 73B2 uses the word "expulsion", while Law 91A uses the subtly different word "suspend". In my opinion, the 2005 version of Law 73B2 should clarifyingly expand "expulsion" to "expulsion from membership in the sponsoring organisation". Similarly, in my opinion, the 2005 version of Law 91A ahould clarifyingly expand "suspend" to "eject from the playing area". Best wishes Richard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed May 7 09:51:30 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 09:51:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1879137D-8069-11D7-A091-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 05:17 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Some blmlers participated in this booklet's panel > discussion (including myself). The booklet can be > dowloaded from: > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm Co-incidentally, I spent yesterday evening looking at this publication. > > The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal > Number 8 Certainly I can see why this one was irritating, though the outstanding one for me was Appeal Number 10 in which, after a table result has been obtained, an artificial score was awarded of A+ to the *offenders* and A- to the *non-offenders*! The most noticeable feature of this group of appeals though, was how reluctant ACs are to keep the deposit. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 7 12:39:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 13:39:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <004701c3146f$e831a980$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030507133150.01d578e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:08 7/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Law 66 is not very helpful. 66A suggests that it is 'normal' to have two >tricks in progress at the same time, but 66B suggests exactly the opposite. AG : Please note that L66A uses the indicative mode, which means that *not* turning the card will never be penalized. And that, as Sven pointed out, any act (eg playing to the next trick) which is correct in itself may be considered, according to L74A2, to be incorrect if it is made in any way that spoils the other players' game. >So whoever wrote these laws needs his head examined. AG : this follows from the fact that one was a bridge player :-] SMOn, any Laws often represent a compromise, and as such include a juxtaposition of ideas from different persons -or perhaps one schizophrenic person- ; several Laws in TFLB make this apparent : L66, L73 and others. >And about the 'right' to leave your card face up to regulate the speed or to >take some time for thinking. The current laws don't say anything about >whether this is ok or not. So everybody can have a go at whatever >interpretation he would like. Great. I myself would state something like 'a >player turns his card when he is ready for the next trick' along with 'you >can only lead to the next trick when all cards are turned' in the new law. AG : count me as an aye. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 7 12:50:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 13:50:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finishing a trick. In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030506185600.02472db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030507134349.026d57d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:46 6/05/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 5/6/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >AG : agree with the principles behind the use of different modes. > >However, I bet you that if some dummy refuses to spread his hand, > >you'll penalize him according to L74A2, L74B4, L74B6, L90B8 (your > >pick). Ed : >My copy of the laws doesn't seem to have a 74B6. Alain : Sorry. 74C6. From jaapb@noos.fr Wed May 7 14:33:07 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:33:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet References: Message-ID: <000c01c3149d$375145c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> This ruling is completely ridiculous. Members of this AC should be dismissed and put on some kind of black list. But then it is more then 10 year ago that in Holland I suggested that there should be some kind of regulation about who can and cannot be appointed on an AC. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Some blmlers participated in this booklet's panel discussion (including myself). The booklet can be dowloaded from: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? Swiss Pairs Board no 14 Dealer East None vulnerable J97643 KJT3 J2 J K5 Q2 Q92 765 K84 QT5 QT642 K9873 AT8 A84 A9763 A5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 15-16 (2) Hesitation The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their deposit back - which I would have retained - but the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! :-( Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: Barry Rigal's comments: "Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S have been invitational? We need to be told! Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm view is that this should be the score for both sides." Best wishes Richard _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed May 7 14:40:37 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:40:37 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505102311.026c3ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004e01c3149e$3f378fa0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Eric, > If East is thinking of doubling, he will > normally *not* have spade support. I was thinking of double as copmpetitive. With modern weak jumps you might suggest playing partners second suit if you have a 2515 or so. But you can play this as penalty as well. Another good reason to think, how the heck partner would take a double. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 4:28 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? > At 02:13 AM 5/5/03, Jaap wrote: > > >Thinking after 3D is very often about bidding 3S or not (or maybe x or > >maybe > >3H but you will 'always' have some sort of S support when considering > >bidding). > > Although it really doesn't affect Jaap's line of reasoning, this is > clearly not true. (It's literally true ("bidding"), but I don't think > that's what Jaap meant.) If East is thinking of doubling, he will > normally *not* have spade support. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun May 4 20:45:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 21:45:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] (BLML) the big hole In-Reply-To: <140.107bef8a.2be24212@aol.com> Message-ID: <000e01c31275$a6a216e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C31286.6A2AE6E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The cat is out of the bag: The alleged problem is related to match-point scoring. =20 And that makes me claim that someone tries to invent a problem where = none exists. =20 Because what on earth could the need for any kind of reciprocal scoring = be when dealing with MP? =20 Two tables have obtained the score 420 N-S One table has obtained 170 N-S One table has an all-pass game (no points either way)=20 Three tables have obtained 50 E-W And one table has obtained 100 E-W =20 The match-points assigned to N-S respectively E-W will be: 420 N-S gives 13-1 (or as we usually get the result in Scandinavia: +6 / = -6) 170 N-S gives 10-4 (or +3 / -3) All pass gives 8-6 (or +1 / -1) 50 E-W gives 4-10 (or -3 / +3) 100 E-W gives 0-14 (or -7 / +7) =20 How would reciprocal scores have any mission? =20 Sven ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C31286.6A2AE6E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The cat is out = of the bag: The alleged problem is related to match-point = scoring.

 

And that makes me claim that = someone tries to invent a problem where none exists.

 

Because what on earth could the = need for any kind of reciprocal scoring be when dealing with MP?

 

Two tables have obtained the score = 420 N-S

One table has obtained 170 = N-S

One table has an all-pass game (no = points either way)

Three tables have obtained 50 = E-W

And one table has obtained 100 = E-W

 

The match-points assigned to N-S respectively E-W will be:

420 N-S gives 13-1 (or as we = usually get the result in Scandinavia: +6 / -6)

170 N-S gives 10-4 (or +3 / = -3)

All pass gives 8-6 (or +1 / = -1)

50 E-W gives 4-10 (or -3 / = +3)

100 E-W gives 0-14 (or -7 / = +7)

 

How would reciprocal scores have = any mission?

 

Sven

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C31286.6A2AE6E0-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 7 15:03:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 16:03:57 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? In-Reply-To: <004e01c3149e$3f378fa0$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505102311.026c3ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030507160247.01d5f740@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:40 7/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Eric, > > > If East is thinking of doubling, he will > > normally *not* have spade support. > >I was thinking of double as copmpetitive. With modern weak jumps you might >suggest playing partners second suit if you have a 2515 or so. But you can >play this as penalty as well. Another good reason to think, how the heck >partner would take a double. AG : indded. However, I didn't mention as a possibility, as it has been judged before that "I was trying to remember our agreements" was too self-serving to be counted as a valid reason. From svenpran@online.no Wed May 7 15:13:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 16:13:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030507133150.01d578e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c314a2$d83ab750$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > Jaap van der Neut wrote: ...... > > So whoever wrote these laws needs his head examined. > > AG : this follows from the fact that one was a bridge player :-] > SMOn, any Laws often represent a compromise, and as such include a > juxtaposition of ideas from different persons -or perhaps one > schizophrenic person- ....... > > And about the 'right' to leave your card face up to regulate > > the speed or to take some time for thinking. The current laws > > don't say anything about whether this is ok or not. So > > everybody can have a go at whatever interpretation he would like. > > Great. I myself would state something like 'a player turns his > > card when he is ready for the next trick' along with 'you can > > only lead to the next trick when all cards are turned' in the > > new law. > > AG : count me as an aye. Sven: Me too, this sounds sensible if we really need a formalization. But when criticizing the laws I think one should bear in mind that Bridge was played for many years before the laws of duplicate contract bridge were written the first time. It is only fair to assume that the initial laws omitted a lot of items which were considered common knowledge and as such did not need to be mentioned explicitly in the laws. (My oldest law-book dates from 1932 and is indeed interesting in that way). Too many of the "problems" brought forward for discussions on blml seems to be such items: "I know that everybody does it that way, but there is no law supporting it so it must be wrong". What if some of these critics could accept that much of Bridge is still based on tradition; we live in a world where the laws are incomplete particularly on the most trivial items on which common sense ought to be sufficient. Regards Sven From gillp@bigpond.com Wed May 7 16:29:43 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 01:29:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: <010401c314ad$81df5220$378d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: >The booklet can be dowloaded from: >http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm > >The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal >Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? > >Swiss Pairs >Board no 14 >Dealer East >None vulnerable > J97643 > KJT3 > J2 > J >K5 Q2 >Q92 765 >K84 QT5 >QT642 K9873 > AT8 > A84 > A9763 > A5 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D >Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) >Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S >Pass 4S Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) 15-16 >(2) Hesitation > >The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But >when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their >deposit back - which I would have retained - but >the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! > >Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I >believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: > >Barry Rigal's comments: >"Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S >have been invitational? We need to be told! >Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. >Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very >least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm >view is that this should be the score for both >sides." > >This ruling is completely ridiculous. Members of this AC should > be dismissed and put on some kind of black list. But then it is > more then 10 year ago that in Holland I suggested that there > should be some kind of regulation >about who can and cannot be appointed on an AC. IMO this ruling depends on whether a direct 2S response to 1D would have been weak. If so, then the 3S bid has to be acceptable; otherwise 3S is not acceptable in a jurisdiction with a restrictive definition of LA (e.g. ACBL) but perhaps as the TD said 3S is not far from being a LA in the EBU. Thus I think Jaap is overreacting. Peter Gill Australia. From adam@irvine.com Wed May 7 17:32:19 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 09:32:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 01:29:43 +1000." <010401c314ad$81df5220$378d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <200305071632.JAA06628@mailhub.irvine.com> > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Richard Hills wrote: > >The booklet can be dowloaded from: > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm > > > >The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal > >Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? > > > >Swiss Pairs > >Board no 14 > >Dealer East > >None vulnerable > > J97643 > > KJT3 > > J2 > > J > >K5 Q2 > >Q92 765 > >K84 QT5 > >QT642 K9873 > > AT8 > > A84 > > A9763 > > A5 > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass 1D > >Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) > >Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S > >Pass 4S Pass Pass > >Pass > > > >(1) 15-16 > >(2) Hesitation > > > >The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But > >when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their > >deposit back - which I would have retained - but > >the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! > > > > >Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I > >believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: > > > >Barry Rigal's comments: > >"Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S > >have been invitational? We need to be told! > >Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. > >Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very > >least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm > >view is that this should be the score for both > >sides." > > > >This ruling is completely ridiculous. Members of this AC should > > be dismissed and put on some kind of black list. But then it is > > more then 10 year ago that in Holland I suggested that there > > should be some kind of regulation > >about who can and cannot be appointed on an AC. > > IMO this ruling depends on whether a direct 2S response to 1D > would have been weak. If so, then the 3S bid has to be acceptable; > otherwise 3S is not acceptable in a jurisdiction with a restrictive > definition of LA (e.g. ACBL) but perhaps as the TD said 3S is not > far from being a LA in the EBU. Thus I think Jaap is overreacting. This is a bit misquoted: the text says "... South has a logical alternative to 3S of pass (in the TD's view only just) ...". The TD's view wasn't "3S is not far from being a LA", it was "Pass is not far from *not* being a LA". (I had trouble understanding Peter's wording, because it doesn't matter at all to the ruling whether 3S is a LA.) I agree that if 1D-2S is weak, and if 2S in the actual auction promises, say, the equivalent of 7-10 HCP, passing might not be a LA. (Actually, I think South's hand is too strong for the 1NT rebid, with four aces and good three-card support for partner's major. Unfortunately, there just isn't a good alternative. 3S is unappealing to those like me who prefer four-card trump support for a jump raise; I don't like 2NT because to me the hand is extra-strength only as a suit-oriented hand, and 2NT conveys a different message; and 2H is ... well, carrying the Bridge World Death Hand idea too far. IMHO, standard bidding systems don't deal well with balanced suit-oriented hands---they tend to assume all balanced hands are notrump-oriented.) In fact, after reading the text from the appeals book, I don't understand why this ruling should be so "irritating" or "completely ridiculous". Barry's comment that the ruling is "appalling" is out of step with the rest of the commentators, most of whom feel that it's very close whether pass is a LA or not. -- Adam From twm@cix.co.uk Wed May 7 20:10:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 20:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Wrote: > The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal > Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? > > Swiss Pairs > Board no 14 > Dealer East > None vulnerable > J97643 > KJT3 > J2 > J > K5 Q2 > Q92 765 > K84 QT5 > QT642 K9873 > AT8 > A84 > A9763 > A5 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D > Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) > Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S > Pass 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) 15-16 > (2) Hesitation I don't see why the appeal is irritating. The ruling is wholly dependent on what system is being played. Absent some form of artificial 2m bid or invitational 3S the hesitation does not seem to suggest extra strength. Indeed I'd think it as likely that the hesitation indicated a poor suit (discouraging) rather than extras. Playing no convention bridge with a strong NT the South hand is a completely automatic try after 1N-2S (wto) - and surely the actual sequence is no weaker. For LoTT users the hand is also an automatic 3S. Assuming North had bid 2C/2H (which don't promise any more values than 2S) 3S is again automatic by South. I assume that the AC took thoughts like these into consideration and decided that at least 70% of similar players would bid on as South - a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Had they determined that 2S was a "drop dead" bid they would have ruled differently. I have to say that playing it as "drop dead" would be unusual IMO. "Partner I haven't much in the way of extras but I do have six spades and a hand unsuitable for NT" would be normal. Tim From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 5 07:55:52 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 07:55:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424163358.0245aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030504171456.02671ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c314d9$fb37c220$02d9193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > At 10:07 PM 5/2/03, Ed wrote: > > >"The Law is an ass." - Some Brit. :) > > Charles Dickens. > > +=+ Mr. Bumble in 'Oliver Twist' actually said "In that case the law is a ass", when told that the law held him responsible for his wife's behaviour in certain circumstances. In some versions "....the law is a hass." +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 7 23:07:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:07:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: Adam asked: [big snip] >>In fact, after reading the text from the >>appeals book, I don't understand why this >>ruling should be so "irritating" [snip] I can understand Adam's incomprehension, since part of my irritation was due to the violation of basic bidding theory by NS and the AC. Along with the iron law, "Don't pre-empt, then freely rebid your pre-empt", there is another bronze law, "Don't rebid your previously limited hand after pard has made a drop-dead bid". However, if the AC assumes that NS always bid in the same idiotic way that the AC apparently always bids, then a violation of basic bidding theory is not a violation of Law. My panel comments were: >I disagree with the AC's judgement. Surely, >even in English fields, it was not an 80% >action to bid on over a drop-dead bid. > >South made a 15-16 limit rebid of 1NT. North >stated, "Okay, let's play in 2S." South did >not even hold a fourth spade for their push >to 3S. > >Admittedly, South was Walter the Walrus. Four >aces mean that the South hand was really >worth a 17-18 limit rebid of 2NT. But South >was not entitled to use UI to correct their >previously deficient hand evaluation. Best wishes Richard= From adam@irvine.com Wed May 7 23:47:06 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 15:47:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 08:07:10 +1000." Message-ID: <200305072246.PAA11879@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Adam asked: > > [big snip] > > >>In fact, after reading the text from the > >>appeals book, I don't understand why this > >>ruling should be so "irritating" > > [snip] > > I can understand Adam's incomprehension, > since part of my irritation was due to the > violation of basic bidding theory by NS and > the AC. If that really were basic bidding theory, I'd think most of the commentators would have figured that pass were the only logical call over 2S, and that 3S would be a clear error. In fact, though, most of the commentators thought pass was not even a logical alternative or was close to not being a logical alternative. So either you and Barry are the only ones around that understand basic bidding theory, or your [singular "you" here] understanding of bidding theory is a minority opinion. I think Tim got this one right, that 2S isn't exactly a drop-dead bid in this auction. I think it's more of a "I'm not quite dead ... I think I could pull through" bid . . . ;) But the ruling depends on whether 2S truly is a drop-dead bid in these players' system. > Along with the iron law, "Don't > pre-empt, then freely rebid your pre-empt", Just for amusement, I did have this auction some years ago: LHO Pard RHO Me 4H dbl pass 6S 7H dbl all pass LHO was a well-known expert who obviously didn't understand bidding theory. (OK, she was 0=10=1=2. Nobody knows how to bid those hands.) > there is another bronze law, "Don't rebid > your previously limited hand after pard has > made a drop-dead bid". > > However, if the AC assumes that NS always > bid in the same idiotic way that the AC > apparently always bids The "final summary" by the editor states: "There was much discussion at the time about this case, with a lot of good players of the view that no-one would ever pass 2S." I suppose you believe that a lot of good players are idiotic bidders. And probably that the editor must be an idiot as well, since no one who is so uninformed about basic bidding theory could possibly be called a "good player". Whatever. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 8 00:00:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:00:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fiddler on the roof Message-ID: In the thread "Leaving your card face up", Sven wrote, inter alia: ".....much of Bridge is still based on tradition; we live in a world where the laws are incomplete....." Tradition! The problem with unwritten Laws is that different people have different ideas as to what those unwritten Laws are. I have just had to resign from one of my bridge clubs, because of an unwritten Law that psyches are only permissable against opponents who have been playing the game for at least 12 months. I was deemed a cad and a bounder by the club President when I psyched against him last night, because the President's partner had only been playing for the game for 6 weeks. The club Secretary is also new to the game, but has taken my infraction of the unwritten Law in good spirit - especially when one of my psyches resulted in me losing an 800 penalty. One of the club bunnies infracted my own unwritten Law, when the bunny had the audacity to psyche against me. Worse, the bunny kept me out of a cold slam. What a cad and bounder that bunny was! Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 8 00:08:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:08:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: Adam proposes: >I suppose you believe that a lot of >good players are idiotic bidders. Richard disposes: Yes. Eric Kokish once wrote words similar to these: "If you shake a tree, a large number of good card players will fall out, squashing the one good bidder who was sitting under the tree studying bidding theory." Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu May 8 00:47:47 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:47:47 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <200305072246.PAA11879@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 May 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > The "final summary" by the editor states: "There was much discussion > at the time about this case, with a lot of good players of the view > that no-one would ever pass 2S." Perhaps a charitable way of summarizing Jaap's feelings (and mine, and a few other poster's) is that there are also some number of good players of the view that passing 2S is normal or even obvious. If you happen to get a committee where everyone feels bidding on is clear, then the committee will, of course, rule as it did. But it's always disturbing when the outcome of a hearing depends quite so much on who happens to get selected to sit. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 8 01:14:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:14:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] There are no stupid questions... Message-ID: ...only stupid answers. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 7C Pass Pass Pass Question: What Law of bridge makes this auction more likely to occur in Australia rather than in ACBL-land? Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Thu May 8 02:10:42 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:10:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 May 2003 15:47:47 -0800." Message-ID: <200305080110.SAA13675@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On Wed, 7 May 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > The "final summary" by the editor states: "There was much discussion > > at the time about this case, with a lot of good players of the view > > that no-one would ever pass 2S." > > Perhaps a charitable way of summarizing Jaap's feelings (and mine, and a > few other poster's) is that there are also some number of good players of > the view that passing 2S is normal or even obvious. > > If you happen to get a committee where everyone feels bidding on is clear, > then the committee will, of course, rule as it did. It shouldn't, since the standard is not "what would the members of the committee do at the table"---nor, for that matter, "what would a player who adheres to Basic Bidding Theory, or more likely such-and-such-a-player's opinion of what constitutes Basic Bidding Theory, do at the table---but, rather, "what would a certain percentage of the player's peers would do at the table". If the committee confused the two, substituting their own opinions about what they would do at the table for the correct legal definition of "logical alternative", they clearly made a mistake and may need to be educated as to what this definition is. However, even if one knows what the definition is, it's still hard to avoid one's own personal feelings about an auction when guessing at "what 80% (or whatever) of a player's peers would do". Certainly, someone who thinks 3S is clear is more likely to imagine that 80% of the peers would see things the same way, and someone who thinks pass is clear is more likely to imagine that 80% of the peers would think the same way. Perhaps the committee should be lambasted for not conducting a poll to get a more objective idea of what percentage of players would have done what. On the other hand, I don't know enough about the situation to know whether this was feasible. If an AC member is forced to guess what percentage of players would take a certain action, it's hard and maybe impossible for the member not to be influenced by his own feelings about what's clear and what isn't. (It should be clear that this applies not only to AC members but to those who comment on AC decisions; such people also need to be careful not to substitute their own judgment for the 80%-or-whatever rule when determining what is a LA. In fact, I haven't made any statement about whether the AC ruling was good or bad; my comment that you quoted above was part of an argument that commentators shouldn't judge AC decisions by their own notions of what constitutes sound bidding practices, as well as an attempt to question whether it's right to imply that a large number of successful players must be idiots if they don't bid the way you would.) > But it's always disturbing when the outcome of a hearing depends > quite so much on who happens to get selected to sit. Again, if the AC knows what the definition of LA is and applies this definition correctly, this shouldn't happen very often; and in the cases when it does, I wouldn't find it disturbing because to me there's nothing disturbing in the notion that humans are not omniscient. The thing that would disturb me is the possibility that the AC is applying the wrong standard due to ignorance. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 8 02:02:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 11:02:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fiddler on the roof Message-ID: I wrote: >Tradition! > >The problem with unwritten Laws is that >different people have different ideas as >to what those unwritten Laws are. But the point was demonstrated better and wittier by Monty Python (see attached). Best wishes Richard * * * Interviewer: Stig, I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor. Stig: No, no. Never, never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to give his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me. Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor. Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, well - he did that, yeah. Interviewer: Why? Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law. Interviewer: What had you done? Stig: Er... well he never told me that, but he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. There's nothing Dinsdale wouldn't do for you. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 8 02:57:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 11:57:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: Adam wrote: [snip] >my comment that you quoted above was part of an >argument that commentators shouldn't judge AC >decisions by their own notions of what >constitutes sound bidding practices, as well as >an attempt to question whether it's right to >imply that a large number of successful players >must be idiots if they don't bid the way you >would. [snip] I apologise if my vigorous comments on idiocy upset any blmlers or anyone else. I agree with Adam that the idiocy or otherwise of the NS bids, are irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of the AC's decision in this case. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 8 03:16:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 12:16:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: [big snip] Gordon wrote: >>But it's always disturbing when the outcome of a >>hearing depends quite so much on who happens to >>get selected to sit. Adam replied: >Again, if the AC knows what the definition of LA is >and applies this definition correctly, this >shouldn't happen very often; and in the cases when >it does, I wouldn't find it disturbing because to >me there's nothing disturbing in the notion that >humans are not omniscient. The thing that would >disturb me is the possibility that the AC is >applying the wrong standard due to ignorance. Perhaps a parallel case will reveal whether the EBU AC was applying the wrong standard. A similar case from the forthcoming Welsh Bridge Union Appeals 2002 booklet is attached below. Best wishes Richard * * * Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: David Harris (Chairman) Anne Jones Laura Woodruff Swiss Teams Board no 20 Dealer West All vulnerable J8763 953 2 AJ53 Q T95 AQJT K8642 QT9543 A86 K6 T9 AK42 7 KJ7 Q8742 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Dbl(1) 2H 2S 3H Pass(2) 4H 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Showing four spades and five clubs (2) Agreed hesitation Result at table: 4S+1 by North, NS +620, lead Hx Director first called: At end of auction Director's statement of facts: Recalled at end of hand. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 4H-1 by East, NS +100 Details of ruling: Pass was a logical alternative to 4S. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit forfeited Appeals Committee's comments: Pass was clearly a logical alternative, especially given North's first decision to only bid 2S knowing that N/S had a double- fit under their specific agreements. Deposit forfeited as it is understood that the Appeals Consultant advised against appealing. There is no merit in this appeal.= From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu May 8 07:11:37 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:11:37 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990017D985@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric, > If East is thinking of doubling, he will > normally *not* have spade support. I was thinking of double as copmpetitive. With modern weak jumps you might suggest playing partners second suit if you have a 2515 or so. But you can play this as penalty as well. Another good reason to think, how the heck partner would take a double. Jaap ----- And as long as east has a problem, this will only help south, as it points towards not chancing a far from obvious 3NT. 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu May 8 07:43:57 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:43:57 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990017D989@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard wrote: Perhaps a parallel case will reveal whether the EBU AC was applying the wrong standard. A similar case from the forthcoming Welsh Bridge Union Appeals 2002 booklet is attached below. Best wishes Richard * * * Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: David Harris (Chairman) Anne Jones Laura Woodruff Swiss Teams Board no 20 Dealer West All vulnerable J8763 953 2 AJ53 Q T95 AQJT K8642 QT9543 A86 K6 T9 AK42 7 KJ7 Q8742 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Dbl(1) 2H 2S 3H Pass(2) 4H 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Showing four spades and five clubs (2) Agreed hesitation Result at table: 4S+1 by North, NS +620, lead Hx Director first called: At end of auction Director's statement of facts: Recalled at end of hand. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 4H-1 by East, NS +100 Details of ruling: Pass was a logical alternative to 4S. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit forfeited Appeals Committee's comments: Pass was clearly a logical alternative, especially given North's first decision to only bid 2S knowing that N/S had a double- fit under their specific agreements. Deposit forfeited as it is understood that the Appeals Consultant advised against appealing. There is no merit in this appeal. ------ As I don't know the level of play, I'll not say anything of the correctness of the ruling here. And I agree that 2S was a peculiar underbid, as to me 3S stands out on the north hand. But, then again, I don't know north's level of play. But I'm sure Larry Cohen would have a good laugh at this one. North knows they have a 18-card double fit in the blacks and that EW have a 18-card double fit in the reds. Expecting no extremely bad breaks, he should normally expect a total of approximately 20 tricks for the two sides combined (or even 21). In which case 4S is clearly a winning bid. I know I would never even think of passing 4H. How I would have ruled, depends on knowing north's level of play. Not knowing that, it's impossilbe to judge if pass was a LA or not. I suppose the TD and AC had this knowledge. If so, their ruling is quite OK to me. 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu May 8 11:16:45 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 11:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2BAB97DC-813E-11D7-A780-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 03:16 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Perhaps a parallel case will reveal whether the EBU > AC was applying the wrong standard. A similar case > from the forthcoming Welsh Bridge Union Appeals 2002 > booklet is attached below. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > * * * > > Tournament Director: > Liz Stevenson > > Appeals Committee: > David Harris (Chairman) Anne Jones Laura Woodruff > > Swiss Teams > Board no 20 > Dealer West > All vulnerable > J8763 > 953 > 2 > AJ53 > Q T95 > AQJT K8642 > QT9543 A86 > K6 T9 > AK42 > 7 > KJ7 > Q8742 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D Pass 1H Dbl(1) > 2H 2S 3H Pass(2) > 4H 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Showing four spades and five clubs > (2) Agreed hesitation > > Result at table: > 4S+1 by North, NS +620, lead Hx > > Director first called: > At end of auction > > Director's statement of facts: > Recalled at end of hand. > > Director's ruling: > Score assigned for both sides: > 4H-1 by East, NS +100 > > Details of ruling: > Pass was a logical alternative to 4S. > > Appeal lodged by: > North-South > > Appeals Committee decision: > Director's ruling upheld > Deposit forfeited > > Appeals Committee's comments: > Pass was clearly a logical alternative, > especially given North's first decision to > only bid 2S knowing that N/S had a double- > fit under their specific agreements. Deposit > forfeited as it is understood that the > Appeals Consultant advised against > appealing. It's interesting to note that the Appeals Consultant's advice is considered to be relevant in this instance: EBU CoC's usually warn that an Appeal Consultant's advice will not be taken into account by ACs in making their decision, and that advice will not usually even be known by the AC. I understand this was a significant factor in Appeal No 3 in the EBU 2000 Appeals publication, when a deposit was forfeited in spite of an Appeals Consultant's advice recommending the appeal. Does the WBU have different regulations from the EBU about this, or is there some other reason why the Appeals Consultant's advice has been taken into account here? > There is no merit in this appeal. From jaapb@noos.fr Wed May 7 22:51:55 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 23:51:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet References: <010401c314ad$81df5220$378d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <001501c3154c$c519b540$0fb54351@noos.fr> > Thus I think Jaap is overreacting. I might, but > IMO this ruling depends on whether a direct 2S response to 1D > would have been weak. Nonsense, there is all kind of weak hands where you decide to play 2S rather than 1NT (that is the meaning of 2S in this seq.) which do not come close to a 2S bid.What about a weak 5134 or weak 55 black (because almost nobody can bid 2C natural in this sequence). If they cannot proof by written system notes that this seq. is invitational I don't buy it. Besides from the write-up it is clear that they don't play this kind of advanced stuff. A claim that this sequence was 'strong' should have made it to the write-up. > otherwise 3S is not acceptable in a jurisdiction with a restrictive > definition of LA (e.g. ACBL) but perhaps as the TD said 3S is not > far from being a LA in the EBU. I can understand 3S very well, it probably wins more often than it loses, but passing a SO is always a LA and should be even in the EBU. If this AC (or the EBU) fails to understand something that basic, something is seriously wrong with their judgement. By the way, even in liberal Holland (nowhere near as restrictive as the ACBL) they consider me as rather liberal about pauses and LA stuff. But thinking and then making a minimum bid is a kind of no-no to partner. If they don't have the tools to invite with this hand they should not solve it by tempo variations. And as someone pointed out, you can expect a guy to plan a little ahead, the moment he bid 1S you should have some idea what to do over the most likely rebids. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Richard Hills wrote: > >The booklet can be dowloaded from: > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm > > > >The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal > >Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? > > > >Swiss Pairs > >Board no 14 > >Dealer East > >None vulnerable > > J97643 > > KJT3 > > J2 > > J > >K5 Q2 > >Q92 765 > >K84 QT5 > >QT642 K9873 > > AT8 > > A84 > > A9763 > > A5 > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass 1D > >Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) > >Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S > >Pass 4S Pass Pass > >Pass > > > >(1) 15-16 > >(2) Hesitation > > > >The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But > >when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their > >deposit back - which I would have retained - but > >the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! > > > > >Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I > >believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: > > > >Barry Rigal's comments: > >"Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S > >have been invitational? We need to be told! > >Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. > >Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very > >least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm > >view is that this should be the score for both > >sides." > > > >This ruling is completely ridiculous. Members of this AC should > > be dismissed and put on some kind of black list. But then it is > > more then 10 year ago that in Holland I suggested that there > > should be some kind of regulation > >about who can and cannot be appointed on an AC. > > IMO this ruling depends on whether a direct 2S response to 1D > would have been weak. If so, then the 3S bid has to be acceptable; > otherwise 3S is not acceptable in a jurisdiction with a restrictive > definition of LA (e.g. ACBL) but perhaps as the TD said 3S is not > far from being a LA in the EBU. Thus I think Jaap is overreacting. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 11:19:37 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 12:19:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. References: <000b01c314a2$d83ab750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001601c3154c$c57542c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Sven: > But when criticizing the laws I think one should bear in mind that Bridge > was played for many years before the laws of duplicate contract bridge were > written the first time. It is only fair to assume that the initial laws > omitted a lot of items which were considered common knowledge and as such > did not need to be mentioned explicitly in the laws. Of course it started out like that. But that is no excuse not to upgrade the laws when the membership grew from a couple of thousands to a couple of millions. And in that proces a gentlemen's passtime became a 'serious' sport. > What if some of these critics could accept that much of Bridge is still > based on tradition; we live in a world where the laws are incomplete > particularly on the most trivial items on which common sense ought to be > sufficient. Bridge has become a serious sport with a lot of money at stake as well. Then you need good laws. Common sense has often multiple interpretations. Smart lawyers will do/defend anything wich is not explicitly forbidden. We (at least I) don't like that TD/AC decisions seem to be almost lotteries. Etc. > Too many of the "problems" brought forward for discussions on blml seems to > be such items: "I know that everybody does it that way, but there is no law > supporting it so it must be wrong". Now you turn it around. Something in 'universal use' like leaving a card up to get same time, gets attacked because there is no formal support in the laws. Look what Wayne comes up with. In a way he has a point. So the laws should change and be clear about whatever normal procedure is supposed to be. In the end I like the quote of David Burn; when the laws make no sense the players ignore it and go on with the game. But still this is no excuse for the lawmakers. They should work on better laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:13 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > ...... > > > So whoever wrote these laws needs his head examined. > > > > AG : this follows from the fact that one was a bridge player :-] > > SMOn, any Laws often represent a compromise, and as such include a > > juxtaposition of ideas from different persons -or perhaps one > > schizophrenic person- > ....... > > > And about the 'right' to leave your card face up to regulate > > > the speed or to take some time for thinking. The current laws > > > don't say anything about whether this is ok or not. So > > > everybody can have a go at whatever interpretation he would like. > > > Great. I myself would state something like 'a player turns his > > > card when he is ready for the next trick' along with 'you can > > > only lead to the next trick when all cards are turned' in the > > > new law. > > > > AG : count me as an aye. > > Sven: Me too, this sounds sensible if we really need a formalization. > > But when criticizing the laws I think one should bear in mind that Bridge > was played for many years before the laws of duplicate contract bridge were > written the first time. It is only fair to assume that the initial laws > omitted a lot of items which were considered common knowledge and as such > did not need to be mentioned explicitly in the laws. (My oldest law-book > dates from 1932 and is indeed interesting in that way). > > Too many of the "problems" brought forward for discussions on blml seems to > be such items: "I know that everybody does it that way, but there is no law > supporting it so it must be wrong". > > What if some of these critics could accept that much of Bridge is still > based on tradition; we live in a world where the laws are incomplete > particularly on the most trivial items on which common sense ought to be > sufficient. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 11:29:45 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 12:29:45 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505102311.026c3ec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030507160247.01d5f740@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c3154c$c5eac0e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> > AG : indded. However, I didn't mention as a possibility, as it has been > judged before that "I was trying to remember our agreements" was too > self-serving to be counted as a valid reason. Well yes, if it is a common situation I agree. But if there is no agreement, or it is a once in two years situation, then it is a fair argument. I would expect few partnerships have a 'solid' agreement on this one. Anyway all this discussion about this case worries me. It starts 1D-2S-3D and then number four goes into the tank. Whether or not he bids 3S or whatever it simply means he has enough values to consider a bid (and bids are seldom straightforward in these situations). This might lead to an UI problem when after a slow pass the spade lead is not obvious against 3NT. But what the 1D opener thinks about this pause is his problem. As long as the number four guy has some reasonable bridge reason good luck to all. But this nonsense that a quick 3S or a slow 3S might mislead the opener into bidding or not bidding 3NT is just plain crazy. Everybody could have known everything you know. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:03 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Could have known or at own risk? > At 15:40 7/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Eric, > > > > > If East is thinking of doubling, he will > > > normally *not* have spade support. > > > >I was thinking of double as copmpetitive. With modern weak jumps you might > >suggest playing partners second suit if you have a 2515 or so. But you can > >play this as penalty as well. Another good reason to think, how the heck > >partner would take a double. > > AG : indded. However, I didn't mention as a possibility, as it has been > judged before that "I was trying to remember our agreements" was too > self-serving to be counted as a valid reason. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 8 12:03:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 13:03:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <200305071632.JAA06628@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508125524.01d42260@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:32 7/05/2003 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > J97643 > > > KJT3 > > > J2 > > > J > > >K5 Q2 > > >Q92 765 > > >K84 QT5 > > >QT642 K9873 > > > AT8 > > > A84 > > > A9763 > > > A5 > > > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > > Pass 1D > > >Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) > > >Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S > > >Pass 4S Pass Pass > > >Pass > > > > > >(1) 15-16 > > >(2) Hesitation > > > > > >The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But > > >when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their > > >deposit back - which I would have retained - but > > >the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! > > > > > > > >Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I > > >believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: > > > > > >Barry Rigal's comments: > > >"Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S > > >have been invitational? We need to be told! > > >Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. > > >Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very > > >least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm > > >view is that this should be the score for both > > >sides." > > > > > >This ruling is completely ridiculous. Members of this AC should > > > be dismissed and put on some kind of black list. But then it is > > > more then 10 year ago that in Holland I suggested that there > > > should be some kind of regulation > > >about who can and cannot be appointed on an AC. > > > > IMO this ruling depends on whether a direct 2S response to 1D > > would have been weak. If so, then the 3S bid has to be acceptable; > > otherwise 3S is not acceptable in a jurisdiction with a restrictive > > definition of LA (e.g. ACBL) but perhaps as the TD said 3S is not > > far from being a LA in the EBU. Thus I think Jaap is overreacting. > >This is a bit misquoted: the text says "... South has a logical >alternative to 3S of pass (in the TD's view only just) ...". The TD's >view wasn't "3S is not far from being a LA", it was "Pass is not far >from *not* being a LA". (I had trouble understanding Peter's wording, >because it doesn't matter at all to the ruling whether 3S is a LA.) > >I agree that if 1D-2S is weak, and if 2S in the actual auction >promises, say, the equivalent of 7-10 HCP, passing might not be a LA. AG : it does not. How do you bid Qxxxx - x - Jxx - Qxxx ? >(Actually, I think South's hand is too strong for the 1NT rebid, with >four aces and good three-card support for partner's major. >Unfortunately, there just isn't a good alternative. AG : there is. People who play a weak notrump would gain much by adopting the following convention : 1m 1M 3M 54 and minimum values 1m 1M 2M more than a minimum opening ; often 3 cards with suit playability The bidding here would be 1D 1S 2S 3S 4S, with 3S guaranteeing 5+ cards and suggesting that partner bid 4 when holding top tricks. N/S are not allowed to replace good conventions by tempo conventions. End mark. >In fact, after reading the text from the appeals book, I don't >understand why this ruling should be so "irritating" or "completely >ridiculous". AG : it is very irritating, because the only way to decide in N/S's favor would be to decide that pass was not a LA, and this is clearly wrong. South's hand is a maximum in terms of playability, but the principle with tempo bidding is that *even maximum* hands may not bid more if partner's bidding suggests the contrary, except for the tempo. The dissertaion about 1NT being an imperfect rebid is quite interesting, but irrelevant. Best regards, Alain. From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 12:05:57 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 13:05:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: Message-ID: <007b01c31551$ce533640$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard: > A similar case > from the forthcoming Welsh Bridge Union Appeals 2002 > booklet is attached below. This case is not 'similar' at all. You can not compare competitive bidding with non-competitive bidding at all. Once again I think this committee is bonkers. 1. The slow pass of south means he doesn't know whether or not it is a good idea to bid 3S over 3H. That kind of tactical decisions is very hard to judge. You often like to play 3S rather than to defend 3H but you might push them to 4H. If you want to put some clear meaning or suggestion into this pause, don't make me laugh. Specially because the way this sequence started (NF 2S, NF 3H) it seemed to end at the three level so it is quite a big position to read a suggestion to bid at the four level in the pause. 2. The 4S bid is completely automatic after the 4H bid which indicated extra shape after a just competitive 3H. > Pass was clearly a logical alternative 1. Help! 'Clearly a LA' means this AC is incapable of hand evaluation. You just found some members of the 'if it thinks shoot it brigade'. 2. I don't really care about LA because I don't see information or a suggestion in the pause over 3H that partner should bid something over 4H. 3. To me pass is 'clearly' NOT a LA but this might depend on the level of play. > especially given North's first decision to > only bid 2S knowing that N/S had a double- > fit under their specific agreements. Complete nonsense. With the north hand it is very difficult to judge what works better, 2S, 3S or 4S. I would try to play the hand in 4S (doubled if possible) rather than in 5H* (which might easily make from north's point of view). Starting with 2S might easily work better than starting to jump. It is just one of those tactical H-S situations. I don't know if I would bid 2S myself (it risks 170 or so), probably depends on my mood, but I know lots of players who will always start like that. It is so common that the French have a word for this tactic: l'ascenseur (the lift). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets [big snip] Gordon wrote: >>But it's always disturbing when the outcome of a >>hearing depends quite so much on who happens to >>get selected to sit. Adam replied: >Again, if the AC knows what the definition of LA is >and applies this definition correctly, this >shouldn't happen very often; and in the cases when >it does, I wouldn't find it disturbing because to >me there's nothing disturbing in the notion that >humans are not omniscient. The thing that would >disturb me is the possibility that the AC is >applying the wrong standard due to ignorance. Perhaps a parallel case will reveal whether the EBU AC was applying the wrong standard. A similar case from the forthcoming Welsh Bridge Union Appeals 2002 booklet is attached below. Best wishes Richard * * * Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: David Harris (Chairman) Anne Jones Laura Woodruff Swiss Teams Board no 20 Dealer West All vulnerable J8763 953 2 AJ53 Q T95 AQJT K8642 QT9543 A86 K6 T9 AK42 7 KJ7 Q8742 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Dbl(1) 2H 2S 3H Pass(2) 4H 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Showing four spades and five clubs (2) Agreed hesitation Result at table: 4S+1 by North, NS +620, lead Hx Director first called: At end of auction Director's statement of facts: Recalled at end of hand. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 4H-1 by East, NS +100 Details of ruling: Pass was a logical alternative to 4S. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit forfeited Appeals Committee's comments: Pass was clearly a logical alternative, especially given North's first decision to only bid 2S knowing that N/S had a double- fit under their specific agreements. Deposit forfeited as it is understood that the Appeals Consultant advised against appealing. There is no merit in this appeal. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 7 17:31:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:31:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <010401c314ad$81df5220$378d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030507182751.01d4a490@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:29 8/05/2003 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Richard Hills wrote: > >The booklet can be dowloaded from: > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm > > > >The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal > >Number 8 - Can South progress after a signoff? > > > >Swiss Pairs > >Board no 14 > >Dealer East > >None vulnerable > > J97643 > > KJT3 > > J2 > > J > >K5 Q2 > >Q92 765 > >K84 QT5 > >QT642 K9873 > > AT8 > > A84 > > A9763 > > A5 > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass 1D > >Pass 1S Pass 1NT(1) > >Pass 2S(2) Pass 3S > >Pass 4S Pass Pass > >Pass > > > >(1) 15-16 > >(2) Hesitation > > > >The TD sensibly adjusted the score to 2S +200. But > >when NS appealed to an AC, they not only got their > >deposit back - which I would have retained - but > >the AC also overruled the TD, and restored the table result! > > > > >Despite his flirtation with a Reveley ruling, I > >believe that Barry Rigal hit the nail on the head: > > > >Barry Rigal's comments: > >"Were N/S playing new minor or Crowhurst; would 3S > >have been invitational? We need to be told! > >Appalling decision; 2S is natural weak and to play. > >Why did South bid on - we all know why. At the very > >least N/S should be left with +200, but my firm > >view is that this should be the score for both > >sides." > > > >This ruling is completely ridiculous. Members of this AC should > > be dismissed and put on some kind of black list. But then it is > > more then 10 year ago that in Holland I suggested that there > > should be some kind of regulation > >about who can and cannot be appointed on an AC. > >IMO this ruling depends on whether a direct 2S response to 1D >would have been weak. If so, then the 3S bid has to be acceptable; AG : IMOBO, even then 3S would not be acceptable. Say you play WJR and Crowhurst. How do you bid : Qxxxx - xx - Qx - Qxxx ? Facing that hand, South wouldn't like to force his partner to play 3S. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 8 13:10:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 08:10:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <200305080110.SAA13675@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030508080445.01f8ed80@pop.starpower.net> At 09:10 PM 5/7/03, Adam wrote: >However, even if one knows what the definition is, it's still hard to >avoid one's own personal feelings about an auction when guessing at >"what 80% (or whatever) of a player's peers would do". Certainly, >someone who thinks 3S is clear is more likely to imagine that 80% of >the peers would see things the same way, and someone who thinks pass >is clear is more likely to imagine that 80% of the peers would think >the same way. Perhaps the committee should be lambasted for not >conducting a poll to get a more objective idea of what percentage of >players would have done what. On the other hand, I don't know enough >about the situation to know whether this was feasible. If an AC >member is forced to guess what percentage of players would take a >certain action, it's hard and maybe impossible for the member not to >be influenced by his own feelings about what's clear and what isn't. Taking a poll is easy. The hard part is deciding who an unfamiliar (or even not so unfamiliar) player's "peers" are. >(It should be clear that this applies not only to AC members but to >those who comment on AC decisions; such people also need to be careful >not to substitute their own judgment for the 80%-or-whatever rule when >determining what is a LA. In fact, I haven't made any statement about >whether the AC ruling was good or bad; my comment that you quoted >above was part of an argument that commentators shouldn't judge AC >decisions by their own notions of what constitutes sound bidding >practices, as well as an attempt to question whether it's right to >imply that a large number of successful players must be idiots if they >don't bid the way you would.) It can be very difficult to decide what 80% would do when you can't answer the question "80% of what?" How are the AC members, and, even more so, the commentators, to know who a player's peers are from the dry facts of a case in a writeup? >Again, if the AC knows what the definition of LA is and applies this >definition correctly, this shouldn't happen very often; and in the >cases when it does, I wouldn't find it disturbing because to me >there's nothing disturbing in the notion that humans are not >omniscient. The thing that would disturb me is the possibility that >the AC is applying the wrong standard due to ignorance. Not necessarily ignorance of the law, but often just ignorance of the "class of player involved". 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 May 8 13:31:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 14:31:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: <007b01c31551$ce533640$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508142934.01d4e420@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:05 8/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Complete nonsense. With the north hand it is very difficult to judge what >works better, 2S, 3S or 4S. I would try to play the hand in 4S (doubled if >possible) rather than in 5H* (which might easily make from north's point of >view). Starting with 2S might easily work better than starting to jump. It >is just one of those tactical H-S situations. I don't know if I would bid 2S >myself (it risks 170 or so), probably depends on my mood, but I know lots of >players who will always start like that. It is so common that the French >have a word for this tactic: l'ascenseur (the lift). AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was, more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases. Also, please note that 4S bypasses The Law (TNT). From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu May 8 14:02:30 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 15:02:30 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990017DA40@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> At 13:05 8/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Complete nonsense. With the north hand it is very difficult to judge what >works better, 2S, 3S or 4S. I would try to play the hand in 4S (doubled if >possible) rather than in 5H* (which might easily make from north's point of >view). Starting with 2S might easily work better than starting to jump. It >is just one of those tactical H-S situations. I don't know if I would bid = 2S >myself (it risks 170 or so), probably depends on my mood, but I know lots = of >players who will always start like that. It is so common that the French >have a word for this tactic: l'ascenseur (the lift). AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was,=20 more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases.=20 Also, please note that 4S bypasses The Law (TNT). ----- As I've already said in an earlier posting (indirectly) 4S is supported by = the law of total tricks. When there's a known double fit for both sides, TNT increa= ses, and with this north hand and the bidding the expected number of total tricks is= 20-21. 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 twm@cix.co.uk Thu May 8 14:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <001501c3154c$c519b540$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > I can understand 3S very well, it probably wins more often than it > loses, but passing a SO is always a LA and should be even in the EBU. Of course passing a sign-off is an LA. But if the AC determines that 2S is descriptive, showing 6 spades, rather than a sign-off then pass is not an LA. Put another way if opener is allowed to move over 2S it is impossible for him to have a more suitable hand than he does. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu May 8 14:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > >Playing no convention bridge with a > >strong NT the South hand is a completely > >automatic try after 1N-2S (wto) > > As a matter of bidding theory (as opposed > to the Lawful question of whether Pass is > a logical alternative), I totally disagree. > > Unless there is some local English style > where a wto denies a yarborough, in my I don't think it is universal but that philosophy is certainly prevalent amongst rubber bridge players. When playing duplicate I have an explicit agreement that passing a 2S wto of 1N denies either a maximum with 3 card support or any 4 card support. This may not be optimal but effectively I end up bidding on whenever the other tables would break a transfer. I agree that the actual situation is not directly comparable but by playing these sequence as semi-constructive you take a lot of pressure off responder when he is near maximum but the degree of fit is unknown. Is my approach ideal in terms of bidding theory - I really have no idea. However it is certainly playable, and sufficiently common that an AC might determine that it was indeed the system being played. > opinion mathematical expectancy from Pass > would be greater than mathematical > expectancy for the raise of a putative > signoff to 3S. The obvious mathematical > downsides of the raise to 3S are either > 3S -50, or 4S -50. > > (You may wish to run a computer simulation > of 100-200 random deals to check which of us > is right.) Don't forget all those -130/-140/-110/-100s where opps are able to get into the auction with a take-out double if you pass 2S. Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 16:01:06 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:01:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508142934.01d4e420@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004001c31574$4c7dac40$0fb54351@noos.fr> Well Alain, > AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was, > more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases. As I said, I don't do it myself that often. But what is 'self-serving' about it. As an AC you have to decide if a) it is a post-facto argument (in that case shoot it) or b) it is a clear tactical bid (nothing self serving just real life). But in this case I don't care at all. I simply don't see what the pause over 3H has to do with the four level decision. Yes yes, he could have known that partner might have known etc. But that kind of reasoning kills bridge. There has to be some kind of reasonable clear UI with a reasonable clear information content before we are going to discuss LA's and so. Can someone tell me what this pause means other than what I said already, the guy didn't know whether it was a smart idea to bid 3S over 3H with all the tactical implications that come with such a decision. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; ; Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > At 13:05 8/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > >Complete nonsense. With the north hand it is very difficult to judge what > >works better, 2S, 3S or 4S. I would try to play the hand in 4S (doubled if > >possible) rather than in 5H* (which might easily make from north's point of > >view). Starting with 2S might easily work better than starting to jump. It > >is just one of those tactical H-S situations. I don't know if I would bid 2S > >myself (it risks 170 or so), probably depends on my mood, but I know lots of > >players who will always start like that. It is so common that the French > >have a word for this tactic: l'ascenseur (the lift). > > AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was, > more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases. > Also, please note that 4S bypasses The Law (TNT). > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 16:12:51 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:12:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet References: Message-ID: <004101c31574$4cb92ea0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Tim: > Of course passing a sign-off is an LA. But if the AC determines that 2S > is descriptive, showing 6 spades, rather than a sign-off then pass is not > an LA. Put another way if opener is allowed to move over 2S it is > impossible for him to have a more suitable hand than he does. If the AC determines so they should have said so. But I simply don't believe it. If a bid is to play like 2S it cannot be descriptive because than you cannot decide to play 2S anymore. Once more, I think 3S is a smart bid. You are far more likely to make game than to go down. But after a break in tempo it is just too much. In the end you are overruling partner on a negative decision. In a way it is like hesistation Blackwood. Some might argue that partner might also think with a bad hand (pass or 2S). True. But still the changes of 3S being right improve quite a lot if 2S comes slowly. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet > Jaap wrote: > > > I can understand 3S very well, it probably wins more often than it > > loses, but passing a SO is always a LA and should be even in the EBU. > > Of course passing a sign-off is an LA. But if the AC determines that 2S > is descriptive, showing 6 spades, rather than a sign-off then pass is not > an LA. Put another way if opener is allowed to move over 2S it is > impossible for him to have a more suitable hand than he does. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu May 8 16:40:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:40:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: <001601c3154c$c57542c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000201c31578$2169b360$6900a8c0@WINXP> I have no problem agreeing with you completely. What I do have problem with is when somebody attacks a routine that has = been the practice for ages as being wrong because it is not (explicitly) supported by the laws instead of just pointing out that there might be a cause for legalizing what "everybody" believe is already the law.=20 Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > Sent: 8. mai 2003 12:20 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Leaving your card face up. >=20 > Sven: >=20 > > But when criticizing the laws I think one should bear in mind that > Bridge > > was played for many years before the laws of duplicate contract = bridge > were > > written the first time. It is only fair to assume that the initial = laws > > omitted a lot of items which were considered common knowledge and as > such > > did not need to be mentioned explicitly in the laws. >=20 > Of course it started out like that. But that is no excuse not to = upgrade > the > laws when the membership grew from a couple of thousands to a couple = of > millions. And in that proces a gentlemen's passtime became a 'serious' > sport. >=20 > > What if some of these critics could accept that much of Bridge is = still > > based on tradition; we live in a world where the laws are incomplete > > particularly on the most trivial items on which common sense ought = to be > > sufficient. >=20 > Bridge has become a serious sport with a lot of money at stake as = well. > Then > you need good laws. Common sense has often multiple interpretations. = Smart > lawyers will do/defend anything wich is not explicitly forbidden. We = (at > least I) don't like that TD/AC decisions seem to be almost lotteries. = Etc. >=20 > > Too many of the "problems" brought forward for discussions on blml = seems > to > > be such items: "I know that everybody does it that way, but there is = no > law > > supporting it so it must be wrong". >=20 > Now you turn it around. Something in 'universal use' like leaving a = card > up > to get same time, gets attacked because there is no formal support in = the > laws. Look what Wayne comes up with. In a way he has a point. So the = laws > should change and be clear about whatever normal procedure is supposed = to > be. >=20 > In the end I like the quote of David Burn; when the laws make no sense = the > players ignore it and go on with the game. But still this is no excuse = for > the lawmakers. They should work on better laws. >=20 > Jaap >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:13 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Leaving your card face up. >=20 >=20 > > > Alain Gottcheiner > > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > ...... > > > > So whoever wrote these laws needs his head examined. > > > > > > AG : this follows from the fact that one was a bridge player :-] > > > SMOn, any Laws often represent a compromise, and as such include a > > > juxtaposition of ideas from different persons -or perhaps one > > > schizophrenic person- > > ....... > > > > And about the 'right' to leave your card face up to regulate > > > > the speed or to take some time for thinking. The current laws > > > > don't say anything about whether this is ok or not. So > > > > everybody can have a go at whatever interpretation he would = like. > > > > Great. I myself would state something like 'a player turns his > > > > card when he is ready for the next trick' along with 'you can > > > > only lead to the next trick when all cards are turned' in the > > > > new law. > > > > > > AG : count me as an aye. > > > > Sven: Me too, this sounds sensible if we really need a = formalization. > > > > But when criticizing the laws I think one should bear in mind that > Bridge > > was played for many years before the laws of duplicate contract = bridge > were > > written the first time. It is only fair to assume that the initial = laws > > omitted a lot of items which were considered common knowledge and as > such > > did not need to be mentioned explicitly in the laws. (My oldest = law-book > > dates from 1932 and is indeed interesting in that way). > > > > Too many of the "problems" brought forward for discussions on blml = seems > to > > be such items: "I know that everybody does it that way, but there is = no > law > > supporting it so it must be wrong". > > > > What if some of these critics could accept that much of Bridge is = still > > based on tradition; we live in a world where the laws are incomplete > > particularly on the most trivial items on which common sense ought = to be > > sufficient. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 8 17:10:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:10:24 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990017DA40@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508180730.01d554c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:02 8/05/2003 +0200, Skjaran, Harald wrote: >At 13:05 8/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > >Complete nonsense. With the north hand it is very difficult to judge what > >works better, 2S, 3S or 4S. I would try to play the hand in 4S (doubled if > >possible) rather than in 5H* (which might easily make from north's point of > >view). Starting with 2S might easily work better than starting to jump. It > >is just one of those tactical H-S situations. I don't know if I would bid 2S > >myself (it risks 170 or so), probably depends on my mood, but I know lots of > >players who will always start like that. It is so common that the French > >have a word for this tactic: l'ascenseur (the lift). > >AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was, >more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases. >Also, please note that 4S bypasses The Law (TNT). > >----- >As I've already said in an earlier posting (indirectly) 4S is supported by >the law >of total tricks. When there's a known double fit for both sides, TNT >increases, and >with this north hand and the bidding the expected number of total tricks >is 20-21. AG : okay, I buy it, 4S is a subtle bid, and results from a logical reasoning. Only thing is, youy aren't allowed to be smart after partner's tempo-then-pass. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 8 17:14:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:14:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: <004001c31574$4c7dac40$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508142934.01d4e420@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508181047.00a33870@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:01 8/05/2003 +0200, you wrote: >Well Alain, > > > AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was, > > more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases. > >As I said, I don't do it myself that often. But what is 'self-serving' about >it. As an AC you have to decide if a) it is a post-facto argument (in that >case shoot it) or b) it is a clear tactical bid (nothing self serving just >real life). AG : in the Common Market Championships, in Oostende, a player's claim that he was trying for "the lift" was dismissed by the AC with the comment "that's too easy". What's more, the player was chastised in the Championship's journal for having lied. I don't say that the AC was right ; I say that some ACs rule that way, and that therefore it might be quite dangerous to try for the lift if your partner often takes tempi in compeittive situations. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu May 8 11:03:33 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:03:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please 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_01C31549.15CF5110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid = 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20 It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. = But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide = line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and = having chosen not to bid game before.=20 =20 Portugal needs my answer so please be fast.=20 =20 =20 =20 Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was:=20 S: AJxxxx=20 H: Kxxx=20 D: Jx=20 C: x=20 and the bidding was:=20 N E S W=20 1D P 1S 2C=20 2S P 3S 4C=20 P P 4S ALL PASS=20 South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an = average player, with a lot of experience in competition. Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. = Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not to bid = 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding maybe = suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the 4S bid? The = contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be 420(NS) or 130(EW). Thank you for your time=20 Best regards=20 Lu=EDs Oliveira=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31549.15CF5110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your opinion, please

I just received the case below from Portugal. A player = chooses to=20 bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20

It=20 is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But = if many of=20 you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: A = player=20 never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having = chosen not=20 to bid game before.

 

Portugal needs my answer so please be fast.=20

 

 

 

 Playing teams, no one vuln, = South's hand=20 was:
S: AJxxxx =
H: Kxxx

D: = Jx=20
C: x
and the=20 bidding was:

N       = E       = S      =20 W
1D     =20 P       1S      = 2C=20
2S     =20 P       3S      = 4C=20
P      =20 P       4S      = ALL=20 PASS

South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation = by his=20 partner. South is an average player, with a lot of experience in=20 competition.

Most of the players inquired would have = bid 4S over=20 the 2S rebid. Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he = previously=20 decided not to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the = 4S=20 bidding maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to = cancel the=20 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be = 420(NS) or=20 130(EW).

Thank you for youtime

Best regards

    Lu=EDs=20 Oliveira


------_=_NextPart_001_01C31549.15CF5110-- From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu May 8 11:29:20 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:29:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? 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_01C3154C.AFA6AE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid = 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20 It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. = But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide = line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and = having chosen not to bid game before.=20 Portugal needs my answer so please be fast.=20 =20 ton=20 Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was:=20 S: AJxxxx=20 H: Kxxx=20 D: Jx=20 C: x=20 and the bidding was:=20 N E S W=20 1D P 1S 2C=20 2S P 3S 4C=20 P P 4S ALL PASS=20 South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an = average player, with a lot of experience in competition. Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. = Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not to bid = 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding maybe = suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the 4S bid? The = contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be 420(NS) or 130(EW). Thank you for your time=20 Best regards=20 Lu=EDs Oliveira=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3154C.AFA6AE20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your opinion, please

 

I just received the case below from Portugal. A player = chooses to=20 bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20

It=20 is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But = if many of=20 you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: A = player=20 never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having = chosen not=20 to bid game before.

Portugal needs my answer so please be fast. 
 

= ton 

 Playing teams, no one vuln, = South's hand=20 was:
S: AJxxxx =
H: Kxxx
D: = Jx=20
C: x
and the=20 bidding was:

N       = E       = S      =20 W
1D     =20 P       1S      = 2C=20
2S     =20 P       3S      = 4C=20
P      =20 P       4S      = ALL=20 PASS

South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation = by his=20 partner. South is an average player, with a lot of experience in=20 competition.

Most of the players inquired would have = bid 4S over=20 the 2S rebid. Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he = previously=20 decided not to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the = 4S=20 bidding maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to = cancel the=20 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be = 420(NS) or=20 130(EW).

Thank you for youtime

Best regards

    Lu=EDs=20 Oliveira


------_=_NextPart_001_01C3154C.AFA6AE20-- From adam@irvine.com Thu May 8 17:38:35 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 09:38:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 08:10:57 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20030508080445.01f8ed80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200305081638.JAA25088@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > Taking a poll is easy. The hard part is deciding who an unfamiliar (or > even not so unfamiliar) player's "peers" are. > . . . > It can be very difficult to decide what 80% would do when you can't > answer the question "80% of what?" How are the AC members, and, even > more so, the commentators, to know who a player's peers are from the > dry facts of a case in a writeup? > . . . > Not necessarily ignorance of the law, but often just ignorance of the > "class of player involved". The "class of player" is a point I hadn't thought of yesterday, and reading some of the other comments has made it clear how important this is. For example, one poster commented, "Passing a signoff is always a LA". This might be true for novices or intermediate players, who are more likely to treat the "rules" of bidding as absolutes; it is probably untrue for experts, since in some "signoff" auctions (or should we say almost-signoff? How about drop-almost-dead?), an expert will not follow a rule blindly but will still be there listening to the auction, evaluating and reevaluating his/her hand, and making a decision about whether this is the right hand to violate a "rule"? For this class of player, I think it's reasonable to believe that there might be a hand where following the "rule" is not even a LA; and the South hand in the appeal case is the best example we can come up with of such a hand. Unfortunately, the booklet didn't tell us what the class of player was. (Eric, did they tell you what it was before they asked you to comment on the appeal?) So our arguments about whether the AC was reasonable or lunatic are missing a key piece of information. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Thu May 8 17:49:25 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 09:49:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 13:03:00 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20030508125524.01d42260@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200305081649.JAA25223@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > >I agree that if 1D-2S is weak, and if 2S in the actual auction > >promises, say, the equivalent of 7-10 HCP, passing might not be a LA. > > AG : it does not. How do you bid Qxxxx - x - Jxx - Qxxx ? It's hard for me to answer this since I don't normally play a weak notrump. In fact, I think my statement above may have been a mistake, made because my notions about bidding are mostly based on a strong-notrump structure. Playing a strong notrump, after 1D-1S-1NT, I would pass. We could have a problem in hearts; however, 2S here is much more likely to catch a doubleton (and possibly a weak doubleton) than after a 1NT opening, since partner will sometimes raise with three. Playing a weak notrump, after 1D-1S-1NT, the problem is different, since opener would (I presume) rebid 1NT with a notrump hand in the right range, even if he has three spades. I don't know. These are my thoughts on how I'd bid, and they shouldn't be taken as statements about how 80% of players would bid. -- Adam From con.holzscherer@philips.com Thu May 8 17:54:45 2003 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:54:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: > A player chooses to bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? No. > It is easy to say yes Even easier to say no (one less letter). > if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: > A player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having > chosen not to bid game before. I don't like this rule. It sounds OK, but it is absolutely not. Two resons: 1. The fact is, that the player received new information, namely: a. That LHO has extra club length (and no heart length, otherwise he might have doubled) b. That partner has not doubled 4C which he surely would have done with 'useless' club values. This means that the chances of making 4 spades have increased and in my opinion even significantly. 2. In case NS can exactly make 3 spades and EW can make 4 clubs, it is optimal bridge both to pass 3 spades and to bid 4 spades over 4 clubs because -100 is better than -130. For these two reasons, I do not consider pass an LA. By the way if RHO would have bid 4 clubs, the situation would have been different and I would have consired pass an LA. Regards, Con Holzscherer From gillp@bigpond.com Thu May 8 17:59:54 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 02:59:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: <004c01c31583$3ffc3c20$a6c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Ton Kooijman wrote: >I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to >bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? > >It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. >But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found >a new guide line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after >having received UI and having chosen not to bid game before. > >Portugal needs my answer so please be fast. > >Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: >S: AJxxxx >H: Kxxx >D: Jx >C: x >and the bidding was: > >N E S W >1D P 1S 2C >2S P 3S 4C >P P 4S ALL PASS > >South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is >an average player, with a lot of experience in competition. > >Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. >Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided >not to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S >bidding maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to >cancel the 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision >should be 420(NS) or 130(EW). Although I personally would have bid 4S on both the first and second rounds of bdding, I think that that is irrelevant because the personal bidding of anyone who would have bid 4S directly over 2S surely is irrelevant to the actual situation. I feel fairly strongly that Pass of 4C is a LA, especially if 2S might be bid on three card support. It is easy to create lots of hands where both 4C and 4S fail after an in tempo pass by North. However I am not convinced about Ton's general rule. Consider the following as an exception: LHO opens 1H, you hold ten solid spades and three singletons and decide to bid 3S in an attempt to get doubled later when you bid 4S over 4H. LHO bids 4H, partner hesitates (with 2-2-5-4 shape believe it or not he is actually considering 4S) and it is passed to you. There is no way that you should feel barred from bidding 4S, is there? What I mean is, each case has to be considered on its own merits. Bidding is such an inexact science that it is difficult to apply exact rules to bidding. Card play is different in that, as David Burn has demonstrated more than once, exact rules for certain sitautions (e.g. with claims) could be useful. Peter Gill Australia. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu May 8 18:06:52 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 13:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] LA? In-Reply-To: from "Kooijman, A." at May 08, 2003 12:29:20 PM Message-ID: <200305081706.h48H6qR02151@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Kooijman, A. writes: > > I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S > with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? Not only would I consider a Pass, but having chosen to bid only 3S, I *would* pass. Which is not to say that I think that pass is a LA. I think it's close. Put me down for "yes", it's a LA. Inferior, but that's not the issue at hand. > It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But if > many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: A > player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having > chosen not to bid game before. I think this would be a welcome addition to the Laws, but I don't don't read them as currently supporting this. -- Ron Johnson (Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca), 613-947-5285 facsimile / tilicopieur 613-947-1408 Canada Center for Remote Sensing/ Centre Canadien de teledetection Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y7 Ressources naturelles Canada, 588 rue Booth, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0Y7 Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada From gillp@bigpond.com Thu May 8 18:39:00 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 03:39:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: <000e01c31588$b664c9e0$a6c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Con Holzscherer wrote: Ton wrote: >> A player chooses to bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead >> of 4S a LA then? > >No. > >b. That partner has not doubled 4C which he surely would have >done with 'useless' club values. >This means that the chances of making 4 spades have increased >and in my opinion even significantly. > >2. In case NS can exactly make 3 spades and EW can make 4 clubs, > it is optimal bridge both to pass 3 spades and to bid 4 spades over > 4 clubs because -100 is better than -130. Con, did you notice that the original post said Teams not Pairs? Thus this 100/130 stuff is not important. Also, at Teams partner is not as likely to risk doubling 4C as at Pairs. Even with 'useless' club values partner at Teams may well Pass 4C rather than Double, as your 3S call can be (and indeed was) based on shapely values, making a spade void and a -510 disaster quite possible. At Teams, I still feel strongly that Pass is a LA. Peter Gill. From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 19:48:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 20:48:48 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030508180730.01d554c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005a01c31592$79624e00$0fb54351@noos.fr> > AG : okay, I buy it, 4S is a subtle bid, and results from a logical > reasoning. Only thing is, youy aren't allowed to be smart after partner's > tempo-then-pass. Alain, Maybe I focussed too much about no UI (the pause over 3H has no real menaing for the four level decision). Maybe I focussed too much on the tactical aspects of the case. I can also understand that you bid 2S because you don't mind playing there if everybody passes. Might be right. But it is one thing not to bid 4S yourself, it is something completely diffferent to defend 4H with this hand (it is insane). For that very reason pass is not an LA Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:10 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > At 15:02 8/05/2003 +0200, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > > >At 13:05 8/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > > >Complete nonsense. With the north hand it is very difficult to judge what > > >works better, 2S, 3S or 4S. I would try to play the hand in 4S (doubled if > > >possible) rather than in 5H* (which might easily make from north's point of > > >view). Starting with 2S might easily work better than starting to jump. It > > >is just one of those tactical H-S situations. I don't know if I would bid 2S > > >myself (it risks 170 or so), probably depends on my mood, but I know lots of > > >players who will always start like that. It is so common that the French > > >have a word for this tactic: l'ascenseur (the lift). > > > >AG : I suppose you don't agree, but "I was going to make the lift" was, > >more than once, judged to be a self-serving argument in similar cases. > >Also, please note that 4S bypasses The Law (TNT). > > > >----- > >As I've already said in an earlier posting (indirectly) 4S is supported by > >the law > >of total tricks. When there's a known double fit for both sides, TNT > >increases, and > >with this north hand and the bidding the expected number of total tricks > >is 20-21. > > AG : okay, I buy it, 4S is a subtle bid, and results from a logical > reasoning. Only thing is, youy aren't allowed to be smart after partner's > tempo-then-pass. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu May 8 18:48:48 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:48:48 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: <2BAB97DC-813E-11D7-A780-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 03:16 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Perhaps a parallel case will reveal whether the EBU > > AC was applying the wrong standard. A similar case > > from the forthcoming Welsh Bridge Union Appeals 2002 > > booklet is attached below. > > > > Dealer West > > All vulnerable > > J8763 > > 953 > > 2 > > AJ53 [and this person bids 2S then 4S after partner with 4S5C hesitates] I can understand why people think pass is an alternative, and I wouldn't go so far as to say this committee "got it wrong." But I have a LOT more sympathy for this North wanting to bid on than I do for the 3S bidder in the 1D-1S-1NT-2S case. Here, partner hasn't made another move (so he won't be 5-6 or anything, probably) but he also hasn't emphatically limited his hand, and the opponents' continued bidding of hearts gives us a reason to think we have at most one heart loser, able to ruff in the short spade hand. I wouldn't have kept the deposit. (In the 1D-1S-1NT-2S case, I'd be ruling back to 2S and seriously considering keeping the deposit.) To AG: After 1D-1S-1NT, it wouldn't even enter my mind to take a second call on the 5-2-2-4 hand with 3 queens. With the 5-1-3-4 5HCP hand I would probably still bid 1S then pass, but if passing the 2nd time is going to make you uncomfortable, I might pass the first time instead: 1D Pass Pass [opponents reach 2H] 2S by me will show this sort of "I am broke but have spades and can tolerate diamonds if you can't stand spades" hand. To AB: Yes, we do have to consider peers, not just our own bridge judgment. But problems arise when some people think bidding is so obvious they wouldn't feel the need to bother asking around, while others this passing is so obvious they wouldn't feel the need to bother asking around. The overall lesson seems to be that almost nothing that is completely obvious to one person is, in fact, obvious to the rest of the room. GRB From jrhind@therock.bm Thu May 8 19:23:44 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:23:44 -0300 Subject: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please In-Reply-To: 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. --B_3135252224_1467115 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable On 5/8/03 7:03 AM, "Kooijman, A." wrote: > I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S = with > this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? >=20 > It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But = if > many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line= : A > player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and havin= g > chosen not to bid game before. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Portugal needs my answer so please be fast. >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: > S: AJxxxx=20 > H: Kxxx=20 > D: Jx=20 > C: x=20 > and the bidding was: >=20 > N E S W > 1D P 1S 2C > 2S P 3S 4C > P P 4S ALL PASS >=20 > South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an avera= ge > player, with a lot of experience in competition. >=20 > Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. Anyway,= the > hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not to bid 4S, d= o you > agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding maybe suggested by > partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the 4S bid? The contracts= of > 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be 420(NS) or 130(EW). >=20 > Thank you for your time >=20 > Best regards=20 >>=20 >> Lu=EDs Oliveira=20 >>=20 >=20 IMO South did not know that he had sufficient values to bid 4S over partner= s raise. He then received UI from partners hesitation that now tells him he does. I believe that we must disregard the fact that most players would bid 4S over 2S. Without knowing this pairs specific methods, we must assume tha= t South used UI to eliminate Pass as a LA. Regards, Jack Rhind --B_3135252224_1467115 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please On 5/8/03 7:03 AM, "Kooijman, A." <a.kooi= jman@dwk.agro.nl> wrote:

= I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S wit= h this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?

It is easy t= o say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But if many of you = do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: A player neve= r is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having chosen not t= o bid game before.

 

Portugal nee= ds my answer so please be fast.

 

 

 

Playing teams, no one vuln, South= 's hand was:
S: AJxxxx
H: Kxxx
D: Jx
C: x
and the bidding was:=

N      = ; E       S      = ; W
1D      P=       1S      2C
2S      P=       3S      4C
P      &n= bsp;P       4S      A= LL PASS

South bid 4S after an agreed hesit= ation by his partner. South is an average player, with a lot of experience i= n competition.

Most of the players inquired would= have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, = as he previously decided not to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA ava= ilable, the 4S bidding maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is f= air to cancel the 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision sh= ould be 420(NS) or 130(EW).

Thank you for your time

Best regards

    Luís Oliveira



IMO South did not know that he had sufficient values to bid 4S over partner= s raise. He then received UI from partners hesitation that now tells him he = does. I believe that we must disregard the fact that most players would bid = 4S over 2S. Without knowing this pairs specific methods, we must assume that= South used UI to eliminate Pass as a LA.

Regards,

Jack Rhind
--B_3135252224_1467115-- From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 8 19:40:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 20:40:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please References: Message-ID: <004c01c31591$6157efa0$0fb54351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C315A2.215F8820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your opinion, pleaseTon, Pass is a LA and a clear one (but that is only part of the story). The moment the guy bid 3S it would be the end of the bidding at least = 80% of the time so he cleary thought he didn't have enough for game. Not = even for an serious invite if he is any good because in standard theory = 3S is just 'barrage'.=20 Any new info? At teams partner is very unlikely to double 4C unless he = really has a couple of trump tricks. So no double has no meaning. For = the same reason a slow pas suggest strongly partner was considering 4S = rather than double. So I would rule no 4S bid IF THERE WAS A REAL PAUSE. Now something more = serious. In this kind of sensitive situation we really need some kind of = (mini) stop rule. The guy should have the right to think some time about = such a decision. 4C is a rather unexpected bid you know. For the same = reasons he should avoid bidding very quick. The only way to control the = UI in competitive situations is to impose a certain minimum time. Three, = five, seven, ten seconds. I don't know what works best. But 'zero' is = ridiculous for all kind of reasons. Portugal: > South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner.=20 What is a hesistation. I would consider two-three seconds normal tempo = (and a lot of players consider 2-3 secs hesistation) in this type of = competitive action. The problem is that as long this is not 'law' people = can chose between quick normal tempo' (split second pas) and slow = 'normal tempo' (the 2-3 seconds any sane bridge player considers normal = to make a bid in competition). Ton: > It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. = But if many of you do=20 > consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: A player = never is allowed to bid to=20 > game after having received UI and having chosen not to bid game = before.=20 This is silly Ton. Every case on its own merits. You know: 1. Is there UI 2. Does the UI suggests bidding the game 3. Is not bidding the game an LA In this case 2 and 3 are easy (to me), but 1 is difficult (was there = really a break in tempo). Part of 1. is a fundemental problem, the other = part has to be solved in Portugal. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kooijman, A.=20 To: 'blml@rtflb.org'=20 Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid = 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20 It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. = But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new = guide line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after having = received UI and having chosen not to bid game before.=20 Portugal needs my answer so please be fast.=20 Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was:=20 S: AJxxxx=20 H: Kxxx=20 D: Jx=20 C: x=20 and the bidding was:=20 N E S W=20 1D P 1S 2C=20 2S P 3S 4C=20 P P 4S ALL PASS=20 South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an = average player, with a lot of experience in competition. Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. = Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not = to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding = maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the = 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be = 420(NS) or 130(EW). Thank you for your time=20 Best regards=20 Lu=EDs Oliveira=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C315A2.215F8820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your opinion, please
Ton,
 
Pass is a LA and a clear one (but that = is only part=20 of the story).
 
The moment the guy bid 3S it would be = the end of=20 the bidding at least 80% of the time so he cleary thought he didn't have = enough=20 for game. Not even for an serious invite if he is any good because in = standard=20 theory 3S is just 'barrage'.
 
Any new info? At teams partner is very = unlikely to=20 double 4C unless he really has a couple of trump tricks. So no double = has no=20 meaning. For the same reason a slow pas suggest strongly partner was = considering=20 4S rather than double.
 
So I would rule no 4S bid IF THERE WAS = A REAL=20 PAUSE. Now something more serious. In this kind of sensitive = situation we=20 really need some kind of (mini) stop rule. The guy should have the right = to=20 think some time about such a decision. 4C is a rather unexpected bid you = know. For the same reasons he should avoid bidding very quick. The = only way=20 to control the UI in competitive situations is to impose a certain = minimum time.=20 Three, five, seven, ten seconds. I don't know what works best. But = 'zero' is=20 ridiculous for all kind of reasons.
 
Portugal:
> South bid 4S after an agreed = hesitation by his=20 partner.
 
What is a hesistation. I would consider = two-three=20 seconds normal tempo (and a lot of players consider 2-3 = secs hesistation)=20 in this type of competitive action. The problem is that as long this is = not=20 'law' people can chose between quick normal tempo' (split second pas) = and slow=20 'normal tempo' (the 2-3 seconds any sane bridge player considers normal = to make=20 a bid in competition).
 
Ton:
> It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? = I have my=20 doubts. But if many of you do
> consider pass a LA we probably have found a new = guide line: A=20 player never is allowed to bid to
> game after having received UI and having chosen not = to bid=20 game before.
 
This=20 is silly Ton. Every case on its own merits. You = know:
1. Is=20 there UI
2.=20 Does the UI suggests bidding the game
3. Is=20 not bidding the game an LA
 
In=20 this case 2 and 3 are easy (to me), but 1 is difficult (was there really = a break=20 in tempo). Part of 1. is a fundemental problem, the other part has to be = solved=20 in Portugal.
 
Jaap
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kooijman,=20 A.
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 = 12:03=20 PM
Subject: [blml] FW: Your = opinion,=20 please

I just received the case below from Portugal. A player = chooses=20 to bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20

It is easy to say yes, but is it the right = answer? I=20 have my doubts. But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably = have=20 found a new guide line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after = having=20 received UI and having chosen not to bid game before.=20

 

Portugal needs my answer so please be fast. =

 

 

 

 Playing teams, no one vuln, = South's hand=20 was:
S: AJxxxx =
H: Kxxx
D: Jx=20
C: x
and the=20 bidding was:

N      =20 E       = S      =20 W
1D     =20 P       1S      = 2C
2S     =20 P       3S      = 4C
P      =20 P       4S      = ALL=20 PASS

South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation = by his=20 partner. South is an average player, with a lot of experience in=20 competition.

Most of the players inquired would have = bid 4S over=20 the 2S rebid. Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he = previously=20 decided not to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the = 4S=20 bidding maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to = cancel the=20 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be = 420(NS) or=20 130(EW).

Thank you for youtime

Best regards

    Lu=EDs=20 Oliveira


------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C315A2.215F8820-- From svenpran@online.no Thu May 8 20:53:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 21:53:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please In-Reply-To: <004c01c31591$6157efa0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000d01c3159b$7b190fa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I have followed this thread for a while. My immediate reaction was that = =93of course PASS is LA=94, and I still haven't changed that opinion. But I = cannot follow the argument that this will establish a new standard for what we shall allow and what not after a break in tempo. Also in my opinion each case must be tried separately. And Jaap very correctly draws the attention to the question of = hesitation in bid sequences like this so I looked up the stop rules currently in force = in Norway. Quite as I expected I found: =93Stop=94 with a compulsory pause of at least approximately 10 seconds (controlled by the player who displays the stop card or says the word "stop") shall be used: - with all opening bids at level two or higher - with all skip bids - with all calls except pass in all competitive bid sequences at level = three and above. This is probably irrelevant in Portugal, but maybe worth mentioning? Regards Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Jaap van der Neut Sent: 8. mai 2003 20:41 To: Kooijman, A.; blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please Ton, =A0 Pass is a LA and a clear one (but that is only part of the story). =A0 The moment the guy bid 3S it would be the end of the bidding at least = 80% of the time so he cleary thought he didn't have enough for game. Not even = for an serious invite if he is any good because in standard theory 3S is = just 'barrage'.=20 =A0 Any new info? At teams partner is very unlikely to double 4C unless he really has a couple of trump tricks. So no double has no meaning. For = the same reason a slow pas suggest strongly partner was considering 4S = rather than double. =A0 So I would rule no 4S bid IF THERE WAS A REAL PAUSE.=A0Now something = more serious. In this kind of sensitive situation we really need some kind of (mini) stop rule. The guy should have the right to think some time about such a decision. 4C is a rather unexpected bid you know.=A0For the same reasons he should avoid bidding very quick. The only way to control the = UI in competitive situations is to impose a certain minimum time. Three, = five, seven, ten seconds. I don't know what works best. But 'zero' is = ridiculous for all kind of reasons. =A0 Portugal: > South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner.=20 =A0 What is a hesistation. I would consider two-three seconds normal tempo = (and a lot of players consider 2-3 secs=A0hesistation) in this type of = competitive action. The problem is that as long this is not 'law' people can chose between quick normal tempo' (split second pas) and slow 'normal tempo' = (the 2-3 seconds any sane bridge player considers normal to make a bid in competition). =A0 Ton: > It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. = But if many of you do=20 > consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: A player = never is allowed to bid to=20 > game after having received UI and having chosen not to bid game = before.=20 =A0 This is silly Ton. Every case on its own merits. You know: 1. Is there UI 2. Does the UI suggests bidding the game 3. Is not bidding the game an LA =A0 In this case 2 and 3 are easy (to me), but 1 is difficult (was there = really a break in tempo). Part of 1. is a fundemental problem, the other part = has to be solved in Portugal. =A0 Jaap =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kooijman, A.=20 To: 'blml@rtflb.org'=20 Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: [blml] FW: Your opinion, please I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20 It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But = if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide = line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and = having chosen not to bid game before.=20 =A0 Portugal needs my answer so please be fast.=20 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was:=20 S: AJxxxx=20 H: Kxxx=20 D: Jx=20 C: x=20 and the bidding was:=20 N=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 W=20 1D=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 2C=20 2S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4C=20 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ALL PASS=20 South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an = average player, with a lot of experience in competition. Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. = Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not to bid = 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding maybe = suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the 4S bid? The = contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be 420(NS) or 130(EW). Thank you for your=A0time=20 Best regards=20 Lu=EDs Oliveira=20 From henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org Thu May 8 21:02:39 2003 From: henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 22:02:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Spam and approvals Message-ID: Folks, I'm getting complaints again about mails delayed with a "your message requires operator approval" or similar messages. These and similar messages are sent by the spam filters applied to the list. So far, the spam filters have blocked all spam and I like to keep that that way. There are a few things that you can do to reduce the chance that your mail is mislabeled as spam: 1. Do not send a second copy of your mail as HTML. 2. Post in plain ascii, use conventions such as "ue" for the German u-umlaut. 3. Limit the number of "Cc:", "Bcc:" and "Fcc:" entries. If your mail is still labelled as spam, it will end up the moderator approval queue, which means that I have to look at it, check that it is about bridge and then forward it to the list. I try to look at that list approximately once a day, with the emphasis on _approximately_. If your posting is so urgent that it cannot wait for my approval, then create a new message, cut and paste the minimum amount of text from previous messages into that and send it to to blml@rtlfb.org ONLY. Finally, there are two things you can do to delay delivery of your posting: 1. Send mail to henk@ripe.net 2. Call me on my cell-phone or business number during office hours. Kind regards, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk@rtflb.org BLML List Moderator WWW: http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 8 21:44:17 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: <200305082044.QAA11836@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S > with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? As others have said, yes, unless there is something special about the bidding system in use. (Like everyone else, I would have bid 4S on the previous round, but that's irrelevant.) What worries me more is whether the hesitation suggests bidding on. Could it be short spades (three) and wasted values in clubs, but not quite enough to double at teams? Or does it mean anything at all? As Jaap said, a modest hesitation is certainly normal. Probably opener needs to figure out whether pass would be forcing, if nothing else. One hopes the people on the spot have examined this question. > we probably have found a new guide line: A > player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having > chosen not to bid game before. This probably is a reasonable guideline as long as we don't take it to an extreme. At least a player needs new and _unexpected_ information in order to justify bidding on, or alternatively, clear evidence from the hand that a "lift" (called "walking the dog" around here) was always planned. Peter gave a good example. From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 8 21:40:04 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 21:40:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] There are no stupid questions... References: Message-ID: <003101c315a3$46ed1160$77c64c51@pc> I can only surmise that its the bit that says a player bids a number of ODD tricks between 1 and 7. Therefore, to an Oz, that might rule out 2,4,and 6. Larry > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 7C > Pass Pass Pass > > Question: What Law of bridge makes this > auction more likely to occur in Australia > rather than in ACBL-land? > > Best wishes > > Richard From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu May 8 22:26:34 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:26:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <200305080110.SAA13675@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200305080110.SAA13675@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: >Gordon wrote: > >> On Wed, 7 May 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> > The "final summary" by the editor states: "There was much discussion >> > at the time about this case, with a lot of good players of the view >> > that no-one would ever pass 2S." >> >> Perhaps a charitable way of summarizing Jaap's feelings (and mine, and a >> few other poster's) is that there are also some number of good players of >> the view that passing 2S is normal or even obvious. >> >> If you happen to get a committee where everyone feels bidding on is clear, >> then the committee will, of course, rule as it did. > >It shouldn't, since the standard is not "what would the members of the >committee do at the table"---nor, for that matter, "what would a >player who adheres to Basic Bidding Theory, or more likely >such-and-such-a-player's opinion of what constitutes Basic Bidding >Theory, do at the table---but, rather, "what would a certain >percentage of the player's peers would do at the table". If the >committee confused the two, substituting their own opinions about what >they would do at the table for the correct legal definition of >"logical alternative", they clearly made a mistake and may need to be >educated as to what this definition is. In other words, we need an ensemble (in the statistical mechanics sense) of identical tables composed of identical players playing identical hands without the hesitation. Instead, we have a very small group of players, backgrounds and experiences differing from the players involved, deciding what "logical alternatives" are for players they don't know anything about. A situation sure to lead to many doubtful decisions. (Since no sensible solution is possible, maybe the repulsive "if it hesitates shoot it" rule should be put in the law book. Then at least we'd get closer to consistency. And no more hesitations, and, soon, no more tournament bridge.) Not that there is no problem with hesitations that convey information. A few of them do. (The consensus of local club players I have consulted has been that most hesitations in our club games have no discernable meaning beyond the presence of a problem in the mind of the slow one. The problems are thought to be unreal in most cases. And a hesitation by some players does not even mean a problem.) Like it or not, we'll have controversy. I hope that all these discussions of controversial appeals decisions will some day lead to ideas for better education of players and those who serve as directors and committee members. Kaplan's efforts with the Appeals Committee series in The Bridge World seems not to have worked. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu May 8 22:44:07 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:44:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Thanks, Henk Message-ID: Thank you, Henk. We should, from time to time, express our gratitude to Henk for keeping this list going. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 8 22:49:29 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:49:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <200305081638.JAA25088@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030508174020.01f91670@pop.starpower.net> At 12:38 PM 5/8/03, Adam wrote: >(Eric, did they tell you what it was before they asked you to >comment on the appeal?) ("It" being the class of player involved.) No. The commentators were given exactly what appears in the book ahead of the commentators' comments. It was known to us only if it was included in the TD's or AC's comments (or the Editor's notes). What bothers me is that in the case where it wasn't noted in any of the above, it seems likely that neither the TD nor AC knew. I have been arguing for years that it is unreasonable for the laws to require rulings that vary with the class of player involved, as it is unreasonable to ask TD's and AC's to make that particular judgment objectively in most cases, and that forcing them to do so leads to inconsistent judgments that result in what appear to outsiders to be random rulings. If I exceed the speed limit, or run a red light, neither the cop who tickets me nor the judge who sentences me needs to decide how good a driver I am to determine whether I should get cited, or how much of a fine I should pay. 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 May 8 23:31:59 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:31:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 17:49:29 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20030508174020.01f91670@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200305082231.PAA29855@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > What bothers me is that in the case where it wasn't noted in any of the > above, it seems likely that neither the TD nor AC knew. I have been > arguing for years that it is unreasonable for the laws to require > rulings that vary with the class of player involved, as it is > unreasonable to ask TD's and AC's to make that particular judgment > objectively in most cases, and that forcing them to do so leads to > inconsistent judgments that result in what appear to outsiders to be > random rulings. My fear in eliminating the "class of player" from this Law is that it could penalize novices for no good reason. Certainly, there are auctions in which an expert realizes there are several alternative calls while a novice might think of only one. E.g. after an invitational raise sequence, an expert with a minimum point-count would try to think of reasons why game might be a good bet despite the minimum, while a novice is not going to think there is any alternative to passing since he has a minimum. If this happens after UI, and the novice makes the only call he thinks is possible, and is then judged to have broken the Law because he did not select a call that would be a LA for an expert, that doesn't seem fair to me. OTOH, using "what a novice would consider to be an LA" as the standard would probably weaken the UI law too much and allow experts to get away with using UI. This argument is specific to the UI laws. I don't have a problem eliminating the "class of player" from the claim laws; if the definition of "normal" in the footnote to Laws 69-71 were replaced by a definition that allowed the TD to determine mechanically whether a line of play would be considered possible or impossible after a claim, I don't think that would be unfair to either novices or experts. And the traffic-ticket example doesn't seem germane here because the purpose is very different. The purpose of the L16A standard is to prevent players from taking advantage of UI, and is IMHO worded as an attempt to approximate, as closely as possible, the same results we would get if we were able to read the player's mind to determine whether he took advantage; while the purpose of traffic laws is primarily to keep people from getting injured or killed, and for that purpose we don't really care *why* the person driving unsafely was doing so or whether he knew what he was doing. -- Adam From twm@cix.co.uk Thu May 8 23:36:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 23:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <004101c31574$4cb92ea0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: But I simply don't > If a bid is to play like 2S it cannot be descriptive because than > you cannot decide to play 2S anymore. In the basic Acol Sequence 1S-2C-2H the 2H is both descriptive and non-forcing. However it will only be passed once in a blue moon. 1D-1H-1N is also descriptive and non-forcing. It will be passed fairly frequently. There is, if you like, a continuum on which any descriptive bid can be placed: Discouraging, semi-constructive, constructive, encouraging, invitational, near-forcing. I think the majority of Acol players would regard 2S as semi-constructive or constructive rather than discouraging. This also explains why I thought the hesitation more indicative of a poor suit than of extras. I fully agree that the AC could have explained the basis for their ruling rather better but I do believe well over 70% of Acol players would have made a move over an in-tempo 2S. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 9 00:34:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:34:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] There are no stupid questions... Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass 7C >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>Question: What Law of bridge makes this >>auction more likely to occur in Australia >>rather than in ACBL-land? Larry Bennett: >I can only surmise that its the bit that says >a player bids a number of ODD tricks between 1 >and 7. Therefore, to an Oz, that might rule >out 2,4,and 6. An excellent answer by Larry. However, the answer I was thinking of was Law 80E: "to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding....." Aussies use written bidding pads, and the auction in question was written on a second bidding sheet, after relays had used up all the boxes on the previous bidding sheet. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 9 00:53:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:53:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: >As I've already said in an earlier posting (indirectly) >4S is supported by the law of total tricks. When there's >a known double fit for both sides, TNT increases, and >with this north hand and the bidding the expected number >of total tricks is 20-21. > >Regards, >Harald I totally agree. North should have bid 4S on the previous round of the auction. North's actual 2S bid was a gross underbid caused by irrational hand evaluation. However... If North is an irrational hand evaluator, then passing an opponent's 4H call is a logical alternative for that particular North. It is not possible for UI to be used by North to recover from their irrational hand evaluation. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 9 02:27:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:27:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Class of player Message-ID: >From the thread EBU Appeals 2002 booklet - Eric: >>I have been arguing for years that it is >>unreasonable for the laws to require >>rulings that vary with the class of player >>involved, as it is unreasonable to ask TD's >>and AC's to make that particular judgment >>objectively in most cases, and that forcing >>them to do so leads to inconsistent >>judgments that result in what appear to >>outsiders to be random rulings. Adam: >My fear in eliminating the "class of player" >from this Law is that it could penalize >novices for no good reason. [big snip] Coincidentally, last night at the Canberra Bridge Club, I was involved as an AC member in adjudicating a complex appeal where "class of player" was one of the factors. At trick seven, on the second round of clubs, declarer claimed that RHO hesitated with a singleton. Declarer subsequently opted for this side suit to break 3-3, instead of the successful alternative line of taking a ruffing finesse in clubs. The hesitation was disputed by the other side. Determining whether or not a break in tempo had occurred was difficult, since RHO is notorious as one of the slowest players in Canberra. The bidding strongly suggested that RHO's initial shape was 1-5-5-2, while declarer's unsuccessful line was predicated on RHO holding 1-5-4-3. Declarer is a medium-strength expert, so is normally of the class of player that would have drawn the inferences from the bidding, and easily made the contract. However, earlier in the play, declarer had overlooked a simple cross-ruff to guarantee the contract. Therefore, was declarer's class of player lower than normal on this particular deal? Does this make declarer's choice of a 3-3 break a temporarily normal line of play for this expert? Is "irrational" for a player, day-of-the-week sensitive, as well as class-of-player sensitive? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 9 03:06:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:06:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: >In the basic Acol Sequence 1S-2C-2H the 2H is both descriptive and >non-forcing. However it will only be passed once in a blue moon. >1D-1H-1N is also descriptive and non-forcing. It will be passed fairly >frequently. > >There is, if you like, a continuum on which any descriptive bid can be >placed: Discouraging, semi-constructive, constructive, encouraging, >invitational, near-forcing. I think the majority of Acol players would >regard 2S as semi-constructive or constructive rather than discouraging. >This also explains why I thought the hesitation more indicative of a poor >suit than of extras. > >I fully agree that the AC could have explained the basis for their ruling >rather better but I do believe well over 70% of Acol players would have >made a move over an in-tempo 2S. > >Tim Using Tim's terminology, calls can be divided into 3 classes. 1. Signoff - partner must pass 2. Descriptive - partner may bid or pass 3. Forcing - partner must bid In Tim-style Acol, many calls are descriptive, and few calls are signoffs. In many scientific versions of Acol - including some Acol methods popular in Australia - there are many more signoff and forcing calls, and much fewer descriptive calls. For example, my Acol team-mates in this year's Australian Interstate Teams event play this sequence as forcing: WEST EAST 1H 1S 2D Therefore, merely stating that a pair plays "Acol", and 70% of pairs play a particular Acol style, is insufficient information to categorically state what the style is of the pair in question. If the EBU AC blandly assumed that the pair in question played an identical Acol style to the EBU AC's preferred Acol style, then the EBU AC should be shot. If the EBU AC took the trouble to interrogate the pair in question on their particular Acol style, why were details of this interrogation missing from the booklet's writeup? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 9 05:48:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:48:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 - Number 16 Message-ID: The case I found personally most irritating was Appeal Number 8 - "Can South progress after a signoff?" However, the case I found most unusual was Number 16 - "Was it in time?", an echo of the notorious appeal in the 1990 World Championship in Switzerland. See attached. Best wishes Richard * * * Tournament Director: John Pain Appeals Committee: Keith Stanley (Chairman) Heather Dhondy Tony Priday Form of scoring: K/O teams. A triple was played, ie three teams played each other. Director first called: About 45 minutes after end of match Director's statement of facts: In the first round triple Zmudzinski/Leslie/Taylor it was agreed that Taylor lost to both. It was thought that Leslie had beaten Zmudzinski by 1 imp. Because of hotel problems the Polish Team had to change hotels for 1 night. They did this at the conclusion of the match at c3.15 pm. The TD drove them to the new hotel and they walked back. On their return at c3.55 pm they reported that the match was in fact drawn. This was agreed. Director's ruling: Match tied: four extra boards to be played. Details of ruling: In ruling whether this was out of time the TD did not count the time it took to make the hotel change. The TD ruled, therefore, that the appeal to change the score was therefore in time. Laws 81B2, 81C6, 93B1. Note by editor: Under EBU regulations the correction period at the end of a Spring Foursomes threesome ends 30 minutes after scores are agreed and handed to the scorer. Appeal lodged by: Leslie team Basis of appeal: It was out of time to make a score change of this type, and the TD was wrong to not include the change-over time. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: Very difficult.= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 9 06:11:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:11:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: WBU Committee: >>Deposit forfeited as it is understood that the >>Appeals Consultant advised against appealing. Gordon Rainsford: >It's interesting to note that the Appeals >Consultant's advice is considered to be relevant >in this instance: EBU CoC's usually warn that an >Appeal Consultant's advice will not be taken into >account by ACs in making their decision, and that >advice will not usually even be known by the AC. I >understand this was a significant factor in Appeal >No 3 in the EBU 2000 Appeals publication, when a >deposit was forfeited in spite of an Appeals >Consultant's advice recommending the appeal. > >Does the WBU have different regulations from the >EBU about this, or is there some other reason why >the Appeals Consultant's advice has been taken >into account here? It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to adopt the following deposit regulations: a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is *automatically* forfeit. b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is *possibly* forfeit. Best wishes Richard From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu May 8 21:22:49 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 21:22:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA? References: Message-ID: <002701c3159f$991ca300$58e41e3e@mikeamos> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C315A7.FA1BE640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your opinion, pleaseIn England we often call such a problem Tiperrary = (spelling ? ) asin "How do you get to Tipperary (sic) ?" " I wouldnt = have started from here (Sorry Fearghal) The justification goes something like this - I knew I was worth 4S but = hoped to get away with 3S and ensure a positive - now they have bid 4C = and I always intended to bid 4S - Ask the player quickly at the table = why they bid 4S and if they convince you so be it -- I guess I'd allow = on balance -- I dont like it much but I think even among those who bid = 3S the first time (timid beasties though they may be) 70% would bid 4S = now Best wishes mike ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kooijman, A.=20 To: 'blml@rtflb.org'=20 Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: [blml] LA? =20 I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid = 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20 It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. = But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new = guide line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after having = received UI and having chosen not to bid game before.=20 Portugal needs my answer so please be fast.=20 =20 ton=20 Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was:=20 S: AJxxxx=20 H: Kxxx=20 D: Jx=20 C: x=20 and the bidding was:=20 N E S W=20 1D P 1S 2C=20 2S P 3S 4C=20 P P 4S ALL PASS=20 South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an = average player, with a lot of experience in competition. Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. = Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not = to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding = maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the = 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be = 420(NS) or 130(EW). Thank you for your time=20 Best regards=20 Lu=EDs Oliveira=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C315A7.FA1BE640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your opinion, please
In England we often call such a problem = Tiperrary=20 (spelling ? ) asin "How do you get to Tipperary (sic) ?"  " I = wouldnt have=20 started from here (Sorry Fearghal)
 
The justification goes something like = this - I knew=20 I was worth 4S but hoped to get away with 3S and ensure a positive - now = they=20 have bid 4C and I always intended to bid 4S - Ask the player quickly at = the=20 table why they bid 4S and if they convince you so be it --  I guess = I'd=20 allow on balance -- I dont like it much but I think even among those who = bid 3S=20 the first time (timid beasties though they may be) 70% would bid 4S=20 now
 
Best wishes mike
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kooijman,=20 A.
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 = 11:29=20 AM
Subject: [blml] LA?


 

I just received the case below from Portugal. A player = chooses=20 to bid 3S with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then?=20

It is easy to say yes, but is it the right = answer? I=20 have my doubts. But if many of you do consider pass a LA we probably = have=20 found a new guide line: A player never is allowed to bid to game after = having=20 received UI and having chosen not to bid game before.=20

Portugal needs my answer so please be fast. 
 

<= FONT=20 face=3DArial>ton 

 Playing teams, no one vuln, = South's hand=20 was:
S: AJxxxx =
H: Kxxx
D: Jx=20
C: x
and the=20 bidding was:

N      =20 E       = S      =20 W
1D     =20 P       1S      = 2C
2S     =20 P       3S      = 4C
P      =20 P       4S      = ALL=20 PASS

South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation = by his=20 partner. South is an average player, with a lot of experience in=20 competition.

Most of the players inquired would have = bid 4S over=20 the 2S rebid. Anyway, the hesitation is UI for South and, as he = previously=20 decided not to bid 4S, do you agreed that, among the LA available, the = 4S=20 bidding maybe suggested by partner's hesitation and that is fair to = cancel the=20 4S bid? The contracts of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be = 420(NS) or=20 130(EW).

Thank you for youtime

Best regards

    Lu=EDs=20 Oliveira


------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C315A7.FA1BE640-- From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue May 6 08:58:24 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:58:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <001301c31277$df7ee770$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c315f6$6922eae0$3606e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:00 PM Subject: RE: [blml] revoke and claim, real case > ........... > > I didn't need any WBFLC minutes to form my > opinion. But I am surprised that there can be > so much doubt around with the application of > the revoke rules; these rules are really among > the simplest ones in the law book: > +=+ None of us needs WBF minutes to form our opinions. We need WBF minutes to dictate a common understanding of the law selected from among the many diverse opinions. Sven's 'surprise' surprises me. Surely if one thing is apparent from blml it is that opinions are greatly divided and are largely based upon the 'education' in the game and its rules that each has derived from a particular national, and in some cases international, upbringing. I chide myself at times when I fail to allow that local practice will have bred in a correspondent a different understanding of a law from my own - 'local practice' being that within the domain of his experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri May 9 08:22:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:22:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? References: Message-ID: <3EBB5746.5090908@skynet.be> I have read a number of answers and agree with M Amos in the sense that quite probably this player was underbidding his 3.5 Spade bid. When forced to the 4 level by the opponents it is quite normal to bid the fourth. Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S > with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? > > > Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: > S: AJxxxx > H: Kxxx > D: Jx > C: x > and the bidding was: > > N E S W > 1D P 1S 2C > 2S P 3S 4C > P P 4S ALL PASS > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri May 9 09:43:39 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:43:39 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990017DAB8@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> >As I've already said in an earlier posting (indirectly) >4S is supported by the law of total tricks. When there's >a known double fit for both sides, TNT increases, and >with this north hand and the bidding the expected number >of total tricks is 20-21. > >Regards, >Harald I totally agree. North should have bid 4S on the previous round of the auction. North's actual 2S bid was a gross underbid caused by irrational hand evaluation. However... If North is an irrational hand evaluator, then passing an opponent's 4H call is a logical alternative for that particular North. It is not possible for UI to be used by North to recover from their irrational hand evaluation. ----- My comment regarding TNT applied only to the expected number of total tricks on this hand. I know nothing about the actual players bridge level or knowledge of the LAW. Consequently, I don't know if the TD/AC ruling is correct or not. What the correct bid with north's hand over 2H is, is difficult to assess, as this is a difficult tactical situation. As Jaap has pointed out, 2S, 3S and 4S could be correct, depending on how many tricks both sides actually can make and how you expect the opponents to act over the different bids. If EW can make 4H and you can make 4S, the one thing you don't want is to defend against 5H for a mere +100. So you have to judge what numer of tricks both sides can make, and how to get to the best contract possible against these opponents (not the best possible contract).=20 Personally, I would not bid 4S over 2H except against passive opponents, fearing that I would push them to 5H. I guess I would bid 3S, preemting the opponents a little, and at the same time inviting partner to raise to 4S. But I would never sell out to 4H. On the other hand, "the lift" might possibly be the best way to buy the contract. On a lucky day you'll end up in 4S doubled with an overtrick. Regards, Harald ----- Best wishes Richard _______________________________________________ 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 twm@cix.co.uk Fri May 9 11:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > In Tim-style Acol, many calls are descriptive, and few calls are > signoffs. While I would happy to take the credit for it I can't really claim to have invented basic Acol. > In many scientific versions of Acol - including some Acol methods > popular in Australia - there are many more signoff and forcing calls, > and much fewer descriptive calls. At some point the name "Acol" becomes a misnomer. The underlying principle of Acol was the number of descriptive but non-forcing sequences. I think a number of Klinger's ideas (while doubtless perfectly sound bidding theory) have crossed the line. > If the EBU AC took the trouble to interrogate the pair in question on > their particular Acol style, why were details of this interrogation > missing from the booklet's writeup? On the other hand if the AC didn't determine what variant of Acol was being played how could they possibly have made a ruling at all? Peers are those playing the same methods so without at least an assumption on those methods a ruling is impossible. At least I can agree with Richard that the lack of information in this ruling (as in so many) is an irritation. Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Fri May 9 06:32:20 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 07:32:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: Message-ID: <000201c31616$44996120$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard: > I totally agree. North should have bid 4S on the > previous round of the auction. North's actual 2S bid was > a gross underbid caused by irrational hand evaluation. [Jxxxx xxx x AJxx] Come on Richard. Bidding or not bidding 4S immediatly has more to do with tactics then with hand evaluation. I have no problem with 3S or 4S or 3D or 3H or whatever. Starting with 2S might work as well as anything. The bidding isn't over yet you know (and if so 2S might be right). I will use this hand for my bidding poll. I am curious what people do. Because the real problem will be the next round of the bidding and the only goal at this turn is to be well placed for the next. > It is not possible for UI to be used > by North to recover from their irrational hand evaluation. 1. What is irrational about the hand evaluation that it is not necessarily 4S for your side (it is not) but in that case the opps are very likely to make 4H (rather obvious). Please don't mix up hand evaluation with handling the timing of competitive bidding. This is one of the reasons that competitive situations are far more difficult to rule (and far more difficult for the players). 2. Which UI is available and how is it used. I fail to see any significant UI in this case. I have already said so three times or so in this thread and there where no reactions so far. But maybe you can enlighten me. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > > >As I've already said in an earlier posting (indirectly) > >4S is supported by the law of total tricks. When there's > >a known double fit for both sides, TNT increases, and > >with this north hand and the bidding the expected number > >of total tricks is 20-21. > > > >Regards, > >Harald > > I totally agree. North should have bid 4S on the > previous round of the auction. North's actual 2S bid was > a gross underbid caused by irrational hand evaluation. > > However... > > If North is an irrational hand evaluator, then passing an > opponent's 4H call is a logical alternative for that > particular North. It is not possible for UI to be used > by North to recover from their irrational hand evaluation. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 9 13:08:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <200305082231.PAA29855@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030509075946.026c9ad0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:31 PM 5/8/03, Adam wrote: >My fear in eliminating the "class of player" from this Law is that it >could penalize novices for no good reason. Certainly, there are >auctions in which an expert realizes there are several alternative >calls while a novice might think of only one. E.g. after an >invitational raise sequence, an expert with a minimum point-count >would try to think of reasons why game might be a good bet despite the >minimum, while a novice is not going to think there is any alternative >to passing since he has a minimum. If this happens after UI, and the >novice makes the only call he thinks is possible, and is then judged >to have broken the Law because he did not select a call that would be >a LA for an expert, that doesn't seem fair to me. OTOH, using "what a >novice would consider to be an LA" as the standard would probably >weaken the UI law too much and allow experts to get away with using >UI. Adam makes a good point, but eliminating "class of player" from this law wouldn't preclude the TD/AC finding that *this particular player* (Adam's novice) did not have an alternative call that was logical for *him*. That does not require any determination as to his "class" or who his "peers" are. Such reasoning is tricky, however; it requires the TD/AC to understand that they're judging what would be logical for the player in determining his alternatives, not what his determined alternatives actually were (IOW, understanding the difference between "it would have been logical for him to have considered it" and "he considered it"). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jrhind@therock.bm Fri May 9 13:52:22 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:52:22 -0300 Subject: [blml] LA? In-Reply-To: <3EBB5746.5090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 5/9/03 4:22 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > I have read a number of answers and agree with M Amos in the sense > that quite probably this player was underbidding his 3.5 Spade bid. > When forced to the 4 level by the opponents it is quite normal to bid > the fourth. > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> >> >> >> I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S >> with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? >> >> >> Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: >> S: AJxxxx >> H: Kxxx >> D: Jx >> C: x >> and the bidding was: >> >> N E S W >> 1D P 1S 2C >> 2S P 3S 4C >> P P 4S ALL PASS >> >> > Herman, I would agree with you entirely, except that after there is a hesitation by partner, South has restrictions. In this case, it is clear to me that South did not want to bid 4S and therefore pass must be considered a LA after the hesitation. Jack From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri May 9 14:41:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:41:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? In-Reply-To: References: <3EBB5746.5090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030509153528.01dba470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:52 9/05/2003 -0300, Jack A. Rhind wrote: >On 5/9/03 4:22 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > > I have read a number of answers and agree with M Amos in the sense > > that quite probably this player was underbidding his 3.5 Spade bid. > > When forced to the 4 level by the opponents it is quite normal to bid > > the fourth. > > > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S > >> with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? > >> > >> > >> Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: > >> S: AJxxxx > >> H: Kxxx > >> D: Jx > >> C: x > >> and the bidding was: > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1D P 1S 2C > >> 2S P 3S 4C > >> P P 4S ALL PASS > >> > >> > > > >Herman, I would agree with you entirely, except that after there is a >hesitation by partner, South has restrictions. In this case, it is clear to >me that South did not want to bid 4S and therefore pass must be considered a >LA after the hesitation. AG : I would like to have at my disposal some general guideline like : "after making a bid which would or could represent the final contract absent interference, a player who bids higher in the absence of any supplementary information, after partner's UI (usually a slow pass) that suggests doing so, will be deemed to have used this UI" Exceptions might be made if it is *obvious* that the player was "using the lift". Note that it doesn't apply to the 4S-after-2S case which we discussed, since the ensuing bidding added to the TNT. We will therefore have to judge this case on its specific merits or demerits. But I think it will apply here. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri May 9 15:07:00 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 16:07:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? References: Message-ID: <3EBBB604.7040209@skynet.be> Jack A. Rhind wrote: > On 5/9/03 4:22 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > >>I have read a number of answers and agree with M Amos in the sense >>that quite probably this player was underbidding his 3.5 Spade bid. >>When forced to the 4 level by the opponents it is quite normal to bid >>the fourth. >> > > Herman, I would agree with you entirely, except that after there is a > hesitation by partner, South has restrictions. In this case, it is clear to > me that South did not want to bid 4S and therefore pass must be considered a > LA after the hesitation. > No Jack, you misinterpret the laws. If you agree with me entirely, then you say that there are no LA's to 4S. After the hesitation, South's only restrictions are that he should not bid if pass is a LA. Since we apparently both say that pass is no LA, he is allowed to bid 4S. What is clear to you is that South did not want to bid 4S unless forced. Now that he is forced, it should be allright to bid it. Mind you, I am not actually saying that this is the ruling I believe to be right - I'm just saying that there is something to be said for allowing 4Sp. Much depends indeed on South's explanation of his 3Sp bid. There is a huge difference between a South who hesitated himself in putting down 3Sp, and one who put 3Sp without realizing he had a 3.5 Sp bid. > Jack > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Fri May 9 16:04:37 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:04:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet References: <200305080110.SAA13675@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002901c3163c$748c33a0$791e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Adam Beneschan" ; Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 booklet > > Like it or not, we'll have controversy. I hope > that all these discussions of controversial appeals > decisions will some day lead to ideas for better > education of players and those who serve as > directors and committee members. Kaplan's > efforts with the Appeals Committee series in > The Bridge World seems not to have worked. > > REH > +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee does much to assist Directors and Appeals Committee Chairmen in their appreciation of the committee's standpoint on rulings and appeals decisions. All EBU appeals are reviewed by a panel of three of its members. If a question arises it is brought to a meeting of the full committee. Where the committee has an opinion to express its minutes carry it; these are sent to all Directors and other key people. If the AC has done something odd the Chairman receives a letter expressing the committee's position and/or anxieties. Where further explanation would help the committee (or it has anxieties about the players' actions) players are written to. David Stevenson sometimes bases material for TD training courses on cases that have come forward, whether seen or not by the full committee. I would imagine it is not in England only that such efforts are made at the centre. Some of the comments in this thread reflect differences of policy and practice as between national authorities, or indeed in some cases individual points of view. In this regard the Laws & Ethics Ctee settled only this week the contents of the forthcoming re-issue of the White Book (effective possibly September 2003).. DWS has gone away to implement the committee's wishes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Fri May 9 17:09:16 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: <3ebbd2ac.449d.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ...] > Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: >S: AJxxxx >H: Kxxx >D: Jx >C: x >and the bidding was: > >N E S W >1D P 1S 2C >2S P 3S 4C >P P 4S ALL PASS > >South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an >average player, with a lot of experience in competition. +++ This is a borderline case and I could go either way. A few points Bidding on points (1) 3S was probably an underbid - 7 loser opposite an opening bid, 9+ trumps, good shape 4S rates to make. 4C now suggests any values by pd will be working. Take the push. (2) Teams - the usual bid on argument. If 4C goes off and 4S's goes off -100 or -200, 4 imps not the end of the world. If both make ouch ... Even if we go off 2 highly unlikely we are going to be doubled. (3) Pd's pause. Old argument is it bid on or double or forcing pass or whatever ... no one really knows Against bidding (4) 2S in my system shows 3 spades (support doubles). Was this the case ?? This makes bidding 4S, less attractive. I would conjecture that this was the case as 6 opposite 4 is almost a certain 4S bid these days. (5) 3S is not a good bid - 3H or 3D as a trial is surely superior if you dont fancy 4S. 3S's in my book is blocking to play. You bid your hand with 3S, live with it, Pd should have the final decision. (6) While at MPS argument (3) above, may apply at imps it is phenomenally dangerous to double 4C's unless its going off for sure -2/3. It is far more likely in this scenario that the pause suggests bidding on. (7) Pd's pass should indicate he thinks 4S's will not make. Pass is now certainly a LA. (8) Does the pause make a close 4S easier ?? IMO yes. I tend to agree with the majority of the panelists. I would bid 4S. I would on the other hand expect an appeal and be quite prepared to lose it. I would not have bid these hands the way they were, saving me this last guess. The pair in question dont appear to have more "delicate" methods available and as such should probably suffer the consequences. Their lack of bidding finesse should not be augmented by illegal means. This case would be won or lost, IMO, on the players testimony and how much they convinced me. Objectively I go with the NOS, 4C making. As for Ton's new rule - I think it may set a precedence but each case should be judged on its own merits. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Fri May 9 18:09:11 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 19:09:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030509190911.00eec4d0@ip-worldcom.ch> Is pass a LA ? No. Is pass a LA, for that player? Maybe. Could [4S] demonstrably have been suggested over another [LA] ? No. Could [4S] demonstrably have been suggested over another [LA], for that player ? Dont know. Yvan From jaapb@noos.fr Fri May 9 18:10:52 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 19:10:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? References: <3EBBB604.7040209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c3164d$f5139520$0fb54351@noos.fr> Herman, Please read some beginners text (well you might call it intermediate) on bidding theory. If you think you have 3.5 spade you make a game try. 2NT, 3C, 3H, pick one. 3S is not really invitational (although partner is not barred from bidding), it is intended to shut out competition. Now this player might claim he is too stupid to play like that but that is what I call self-serving. Of course I think his hand evaluation was lacking. And now you are trying to sell that pass is not a LA. Come on Herman. Herman: > No Jack, you misinterpret the laws. I think Jack understands the relevant laws way better than you do. Herman: > Much depends indeed on South's explanation of his 3Sp bid. Great, I am really curious what the guy will say to an AC after consulting his lawyers. Probably he will say he was all the time going to bid 4S if the opps where going to bid something (ridiculous argument because in this sequence it is very unlikely there will be further bidding). The table TD has a change to get some real info, after that forget it. But in this case I really don't care what the guy has to say. The facts state is was a serious match with maybe not great but at least experienced players. Then spare me the fairy tales, I just assume they play bridge. And yes I have played a couple of tournaments in Portugal so I have some idea about local customs down there. > There is a huge difference between a South who hesitated himself > in putting down 3Sp, and one who put 3Sp without realizing he had a > 3.5 Sp bid. I know since long you don't understand too much about bridge but you don't understand a lot about the laws as well. It is completely irrelevant. If there is UI then an LA is defined as any action comparable players might seriously consider (or however they 'officially' put it). This is independent of the state of mind of the actual player. Seems obvious to me for all kind of reasons. One of them being that there is no way to decide such things. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA? > Jack A. Rhind wrote: > > > On 5/9/03 4:22 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > > > > >>I have read a number of answers and agree with M Amos in the sense > >>that quite probably this player was underbidding his 3.5 Spade bid. > >>When forced to the 4 level by the opponents it is quite normal to bid > >>the fourth. > >> > > > > Herman, I would agree with you entirely, except that after there is a > > hesitation by partner, South has restrictions. In this case, it is clear to > > me that South did not want to bid 4S and therefore pass must be considered a > > LA after the hesitation. > > > > > No Jack, you misinterpret the laws. If you agree with me entirely, > then you say that there are no LA's to 4S. After the hesitation, > South's only restrictions are that he should not bid if pass is a LA. > Since we apparently both say that pass is no LA, he is allowed to bid 4S. > > What is clear to you is that South did not want to bid 4S unless > forced. Now that he is forced, it should be allright to bid it. > > Mind you, I am not actually saying that this is the ruling I believe > to be right - I'm just saying that there is something to be said for > allowing 4Sp. Much depends indeed on South's explanation of his 3Sp > bid. There is a huge difference between a South who hesitated himself > in putting down 3Sp, and one who put 3Sp without realizing he had a > 3.5 Sp bid. > > > > Jack > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 9 19:13:50 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: <200305091813.OAA13285@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > (5) 3S is not a good bid - 3H or 3D as a trial is surely superior if you dont > fancy 4S. 3S's in my book is blocking to play. Others have said the same, but the relevant question is what 3S is in the "book" of the pair who bid it. In the "good old days" 3S was just as invitational as 3D or 3H would have been. Maybe this pair still plays that way. The evidence of the hand certainly suggests so. I don't think it changes the ruling, though. If 3S is invitational, East has seen his invitation refused. Why bid on? Well, we know one reason.... From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri May 9 19:46:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:46:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. Message-ID: On 5/7/03, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >So we better forget about the current laws, they suck, and try to >decide what the laws should be. I suppose that depends on who "we" are, and what "we" are trying to accomplish. *I* am a player and (eventually, I hope) director who needs to understand how to play and direct the game *under the current rules*. So what they "should be" is largely irrelevant to me. 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 tom.cornelis@pi.be Fri May 9 19:56:41 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 20:56:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? References: <3EBBB604.7040209@skynet.be> <001701c3164d$f5139520$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001701c3165c$ce09b1d0$92d3eb3e@cornelis> Hi all, I'm only cutting in on the discussion, but I think I have a clear idea what it is about. > Please read some beginners text (well you might call it intermediate) on > bidding theory. If you think you have 3.5 spade you make a game try. 2NT, > 3C, 3H, pick one. 3S is not really invitational (although partner is not > barred from bidding), it is intended to shut out competition. > Now this player might claim he is too stupid to play like that but that is > what I call self-serving. Of course I think his hand evaluation was lacking. > > And now you are trying to sell that pass is not a LA. Come on Herman. I think Herman knows that 3S is not invitational. We all agree that 3S was a serious underbid. I also think we can all agree that the player was too stupid to bid something else than 3S. > Herman: > > Much depends indeed on South's explanation of his 3Sp bid. > > Great, I am really curious what the guy will say to an AC after consulting > his lawyers. Probably he will say he was all the time going to bid 4S if the > opps where going to bid something (ridiculous argument because in this > sequence it is very unlikely there will be further bidding). The table TD > has a change to get some real info, after that forget it. Quite right. > > There is a huge difference between a South who hesitated himself > > in putting down 3Sp, and one who put 3Sp without realizing he had a > > 3.5 Sp bid. > > I know since long you don't understand too much about bridge but you don't > understand a lot about the laws as well. It is completely irrelevant. If > there is UI then an LA is defined as any action comparable players might > seriously consider (or however they 'officially' put it). This is > independent of the state of mind of the actual player. Seems obvious to me > for all kind of reasons. One of them being that there is no way to decide > such things. I somewhat disagree. A LA is defined as any action comparable players might seriously consider, given there is no UI. The difference is that the absence of UI must be able to lead to a LA. It is not *completely* irrelevant. You know that South was underbidding. Neither South nor North knew that when the bidding took place. The bidding wasn't over yet. West bid 4C. All attention is focused on South. Do you honestly believe that any South (including this one) would pass 4C in absence of the UI? We all believe he was underbidding. That doesn't mean that he would decide on 3S to be the final contract. It only means that he meant 3S to be the final contract if the bidding was over. The bidding wasn't over however. West bid 4C and pass is not a LA, even if he underbid with 3S. 4S can be bid for purely competitive reasons. In this case, the hand is way to distributional to let them play 4C. It is true that the UI induces a more reasonable *makeable* 4S. But the Law doens't forbid that. It only forbids 4S if another LA was avilable, given the absence of UI. There wasn't. Hope this contributes something to the discussion. Best regards, Tom. From svenpran@online.no Fri May 9 20:17:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 21:17:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Leaving your card face up. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3165f$a0c49d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On 5/7/03, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >=20 > >So we better forget about the current laws, they suck, and try to > >decide what the laws should be. >=20 > I suppose that depends on who "we" are, and what "we" are trying to > accomplish. >=20 > *I* am a player and (eventually, I hope) director who needs to > understand how to play and direct the game *under the current rules*. = So > what they "should be" is largely irrelevant to me. >=20 That is quite OK when you find the law text unambiguous and precisely covering a particular case. But if you feel that a question is not explicitly covered by the laws = you will have to interpret these, and that includes trying to figure out = what is the intention of the laws on that question. In this process you should not ignore your own "common sense" or = traditions (including of course official commentaries that may be available). And I expect that you will find (after considering the case) that for instance law 66A protects the player who wants to make sure he has = noticed all cards played to a trick before quitting it against the player who = more or less quickly turns his own card face down and leads to the next trick = "in tempo".=20 But you will also undoubtedly find that law 66A is no excuse for a = player who keeps his card face up apparently for the single purpose of delaying = the game. Good luck with your progress! Regards Sven=20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri May 9 20:08:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:08:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 - Number 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 5/9/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Appeals Committee's comments: >Very difficult. Very difficult to determine that a rule which says "the correction period ends 30 minutes after scores are agreed and handed to the scorer" doesn't mean what it says? Or perhaps difficult to determine whether in fact the Polish team had agreed to the score before they left to change hotels? 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 pellegri@hotmail.com Fri May 9 19:41:32 2003 From: pellegri@hotmail.com (jorge pellegrini) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] LA? Message-ID: Hi, I read many opinions, just I want give mine, listen the bidding pls. : 1 Diam.... = normal opening 1 spade ... = 4 cards - and 6 plus 2 club ... = Normal overcall 2 Spade ... = minimim opening, with support spade 3 Spade ... = Partner i know you have minimun, but if you have a little more give me 4 4 club ... = I want fight PASS ... = Sorry, i haven`t what you need for go game 4 spade ... = Never mind partner, no need you, my hand grew up alone. (comments = are you kidding me ?) Jorge >From: "Kooijman, A." >To: "'blml@rtflb.org'" >Subject: [blml] LA? >Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:29:20 +0200 > > > > >I just received the case below from Portugal. A player chooses to bid 3S >with this holding. Is pass instead of 4S a LA then? > >It is easy to say yes, but is it the right answer? I have my doubts. But if >many of you do consider pass a LA we probably have found a new guide line: >A >player never is allowed to bid to game after having received UI and having >chosen not to bid game before. > >Portugal needs my answer so please be fast. > >ton > > Playing teams, no one vuln, South's hand was: >S: AJxxxx >H: Kxxx >D: Jx >C: x >and the bidding was: > >N E S W >1D P 1S 2C >2S P 3S 4C >P P 4S ALL PASS > >South bid 4S after an agreed hesitation by his partner. South is an average >player, with a lot of experience in competition. > >Most of the players inquired would have bid 4S over the 2S rebid. Anyway, >the hesitation is UI for South and, as he previously decided not to bid 4S, >do you agreed that, among the LA available, the 4S bidding maybe suggested >by partner's hesitation and that is fair to cancel the 4S bid? The >contracts >of 4C and 4S win, so the decision should be 420(NS) or 130(EW). > >Thank you for your time > >Best regards > > Luís Oliveira > Jorge Pellegrini J. - pellegri@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jorgepelle/ ACBL. 8598606 Icq.94849740 (Jorge)- aol.pellegrinijorge Fono-Fax.(56)(2)2111790 Chile > _________________________________________________________________ Charla con tus amigos en línea mediante MSN Messenger: http://messenger.yupimsn.com/ From svenpran@online.no Fri May 9 21:03:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 22:03:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 - Number 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c31666$08e53460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert=20 > >Appeals Committee's comments: > >Very difficult. >=20 > Very difficult to determine that a rule which says "the correction > period ends 30 minutes after scores are agreed and handed to the = scorer" > doesn't mean what it says? Or perhaps difficult to determine whether = in > fact the Polish team had agreed to the score before they left to = change > hotels? >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Ed Did the EBU regulations specify that the correction period shall be = timed from the moment a participant handles in his result report rather than = from the moment the scorer publishes the official score? Law 79C says:=20 An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made = by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the sponsoring organization. Unless the sponsoring = organization specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 minutes after = the official score has been made available for inspection. (Footnote 23 to the word "later": An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest.) I have always interpreted this as "made available (by the scorer) for inspection (by the players)". To my knowledge nobody in Norway times the correction period from the moment a result report is handed by the = players to the official scorer.=20 That would not make sense to me; say that a result report is handed to = the scorer which then for some reason more than 30 minutes later publishes = the official scores for that round. Does Law 79C now prevent a participant = from having an error made by the official scorer (sic!) to become corrected?=20 Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 9 21:51:26 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 16:51:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] LA? In-Reply-To: References: <3EBB5746.5090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030509164632.009e5230@pop.starpower.net> At 08:52 AM 5/9/03, Jack wrote: >Herman, I would agree with you entirely, except that after there is a >hesitation by partner, South has restrictions. In this case, it is >clear to >me that South did not want to bid 4S and therefore pass must be >considered a >LA after the hesitation. I don't think "must be considered an LA after the hesitation" makes any sense. As I read the laws, either 4S is an LA or it isn't. If it is, partner's hesitation may make it an infraction to choose it. If it isn't, though, it just isn't, and partner's huddle can't change that. 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 Fri May 9 22:20:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 07:20:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets Message-ID: The WBU Appeals 2002 booklet can now be downloaded from: http://www.wbu.org.uk/TDinfo.htm And a reminder that the EBU Appeals 2002 booklet can be downloaded from: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 10 02:55:05 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 21:55:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030509214839.02192da8@mail.comcast.net> At 01:11 AM 5/9/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to >adopt the following deposit regulations: > >a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of >the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the >deposit is *automatically* forfeit. > >b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the >Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is >*possibly* forfeit. I wouldn't be quite as strong in situation a), as there can be many issues involved. However, the advice should be given some consideration. The following might be better. a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals Consultant and loses, there is a presumption that the appeal was without merit, and the deposit is forfeited unless a majority of the committee disagrees. b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant and loses, there is a presumption that the appeal had merit, and the deposit can only be forfeited by a unanimous decision of the committee that the appelant should have withdrawn it despite the consultant's recommendation. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat May 10 05:45:52 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 05:45:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030509214839.02192da8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000801c316af$091ba380$854427d9@pbncomputer> David wrote: > I wouldn't be quite as strong in situation a), as there can be many issues > involved. However, the advice should be given some consideration. The > following might be better. > a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals Consultant and > loses, there is a presumption that the appeal was without merit, and the > deposit is forfeited unless a majority of the committee disagrees. > b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant and > loses, there is a presumption that the appeal had merit, and the deposit > can only be forfeited by a unanimous decision of the committee that the > appelant should have withdrawn it despite the consultant's recommendation. Well, it might. Since I am (a) part of the committee that makes the rules in England; (b) someone who sits on a lot of appeals in England; (c) someone who acts as a consultant at a lot of English tournaments; I suppose that I am vaguely qualified to comment. I think that whatever deterrent there is (a monetary deposit, an Appeal Without Merit Warning, a fine in terms of match points or victory points) does not really matter. In my experience, the fact that there is some deterrent works pretty well. What works rather better is the screening process - in the USA, this is called "the screening process"; in England, we have what are called "appeals consultants". I do not know what other jurisdictions may have. At a recent high-level knockout tournament in England, a number of appeals were brought that (by common consent) ought not to have been brought; they were "without merit". But they represented the only chance the appellants had not to be knocked out of the tournament. In such circumstances, the nature of the deterrent does not matter at all - to argue about what deterrent would be "most effective" is a waste of time. I think that far more attention is paid than necessary to the question of whether "the deposit should have been kept", or "an AWMW should have been issued", or whatever. In the case of the Welsh booklet, for example, DWS argues in a number of cases that not to keep the deposit is almost an abuse of process - yet Barry Rigal (and I) do not agree with the actual ruling (and in at least one case, DWS is surprised that he is the only one who agrees with himself). My own practice as chair of a committee is this: if the three of us agree in quick time that the appellants lose their case, I ask my colleagues whether the appellants might reasonably have felt aggrieved by either the events at the table or the consequences of the applicable laws. Only if my colleagues and I answer this question at once in the negative do we keep the deposit. I don't expect players to understand what the rules require of them, for I don't myself understand what the rules require of players (and if not I, then who?) I don't expect players to know what to bid, nor to know what not to bid because of some dither by partner. I think that almost no decisions at the bridge table (whether by players or directors) are clear-cut, and I am sure as I can be of anything that even a man trying to do his best to comply with the rules may fall foul of them through no fault of his own. If there is to be some deterrent, well and good - it means that I might get the odd dinner break at a tournament instead of having to hear a load of appeals. And yet, the words of Magna Carta invariably come to my mind: To no man will we sell, to no man delay, to no man deny, justice or right. David Burn London, England From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002101c316d6$ff50e590$452d6651@annescomputer> What is the opinion of the forum as to the advisability of the AC being informed that a) the appellant has consulted the appeals consultant, and b) of the advice that was given, prior to the hearing. In theory this information is not given to the Welsh ACs formally, but gossip does happen :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > At 01:11 AM 5/9/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to > >adopt the following deposit regulations: > > > >a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of > >the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the > >deposit is *automatically* forfeit. > > > >b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the > >Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is > >*possibly* forfeit. > > I wouldn't be quite as strong in situation a), as there can be many issues > involved. However, the advice should be given some consideration. The > following might be better. > > a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals Consultant and > loses, there is a presumption that the appeal was without merit, and the > deposit is forfeited unless a majority of the committee disagrees. > > b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant and > loses, there is a presumption that the appeal had merit, and the deposit > can only be forfeited by a unanimous decision of the committee that the > appelant should have withdrawn it despite the consultant's recommendation. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 06/05/2003 From hermandw@skynet.be Sat May 10 11:54:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:54:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? References: <3EBBB604.7040209@skynet.be> <001701c3164d$f5139520$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3EBCDA56.4070709@skynet.be> Jaap, I don't mind it in the least if you choose to remind everyone that I am a mediocre bridge player. I do mind if you believe that my knowledge of the laws is not up to scratch. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > Please read some beginners text (well you might call it intermediate) on > bidding theory. If you think you have 3.5 spade you make a game try. 2NT, > 3C, 3H, pick one. 3S is not really invitational (although partner is not > barred from bidding), it is intended to shut out competition. Tell that to the player who bid 3Sp. > Now this player might claim he is too stupid to play like that but that is > what I call self-serving. Of course I think his hand evaluation was lacking. > And that is where our main discussion will have to focus on. > And now you are trying to sell that pass is not a LA. Come on Herman. > Well, it might not be, not for this player. > Herman: > >>No Jack, you misinterpret the laws. >> > > I think Jack understands the relevant laws way better than you do. > Which is why he says that pass is not a LA, but South must pass anyway? Apparently you understand the relevant law as good as Jack. > Herman: > >>Much depends indeed on South's explanation of his 3Sp bid. >> > > Great, I am really curious what the guy will say to an AC after consulting > his lawyers. Probably he will say he was all the time going to bid 4S if the > opps where going to bid something (ridiculous argument because in this > sequence it is very unlikely there will be further bidding). The table TD > has a change to get some real info, after that forget it. > I agree that we shall have to deal with his comments and the self-serving nature of it. I don't want to go into this discussion, because we really don't know what he is going to say. > But in this case I really don't care what the guy has to say. The facts And that is precisely why you are such a pain in the ... Of course the reason why he bid 3Sp is the most important piece of information, if we want to be able to rule that passing 4Cl is not a LA for this player. If you are not prepared to rule that way, then you belong in the "if it hesitates, shoot it" club. I know you don't. So why won't you listen to this South? > state is was a serious match with maybe not great but at least experienced > players. Then spare me the fairy tales, I just assume they play bridge. And > yes I have played a couple of tournaments in Portugal so I have some idea > about local customs down there. > OK, assume away. But then don't discuss it. I say I want to hear, you say you know what he's going to say. Good. I suppose that if he does say what you assume, then we shall both rule the same way. But don't criticise me for having the imagination that he might say something else. > >>There is a huge difference between a South who hesitated himself >>in putting down 3Sp, and one who put 3Sp without realizing he had a >>3.5 Sp bid. >> > > I know since long you don't understand too much about bridge but you don't > understand a lot about the laws as well. It is completely irrelevant. If > there is UI then an LA is defined as any action comparable players might > seriously consider (or however they 'officially' put it). This is > independent of the state of mind of the actual player. Seems obvious to me > for all kind of reasons. One of them being that there is no way to decide > such things. > True and not true. Not true in the sense that something can be a logical alternative, for the player himself, with his system, with his previous bidding. You cannot hold a poll of 20 players, all of whom would have bid 4Sp a round earlier, and ask them sincerely what they would do if they had only bid 3Sp. You need to hold your poll among players who would bid it as this player did. And true in the sense that this is very difficult. Very rudimentary, Jaap, I'd like to divide the players into four categories: a- those that will never bid 4Sp b- those that will only bid 4Sp with partner's help c- those that will bid 3Sp in the lift, and 4Sp over 4Cl d- those that will always bid 4Sp, and do so a round earlier Obviously you belong to group d-. Obviously our South belongs to group b- or c-. If he belongs to group b-, he is not allowed to bid 4Sp, because partner's help comes in the form of UI. But if he belongs to group c-, to him, passing over 4Cl is not a LA. My point is that there are players in group c-, and that those players should be allowed to bid 4Sp, even with UI. And yes, putting this South in group b- or c- is a very difficult decision for the AC to make. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Sat May 10 14:33:03 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 15:33:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030509214839.02192da8@mail.comcast.net> <002101c316d6$ff50e590$452d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <002901c316fb$c1d267a0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Anne, In Holland we don't have such a thing. In EBL/WBF events there is no such thing. But if the SO organizes or imposes such a concept and appoints the consultants (it is not just a random person) then I think the AC should be told. To put it differently, if I chair an AC and there is a serious screening procedure, I cannot imagine taking the money (or points or whatever). I might issue a statement that I am not happy that the appeal got through screening but I won't take the money if a consultant told the guy it was 'ok' to lodge the appeal. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > What is the opinion of the forum as to the advisability of the AC being > informed that a) the appellant has consulted the appeals consultant, and b) > of the advice that was given, prior to the hearing. > > In theory this information is not given to the Welsh ACs formally, but > gossip does happen :-) > > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David J. Grabiner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 2:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > > > > At 01:11 AM 5/9/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > >It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to > > >adopt the following deposit regulations: > > > > > >a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of > > >the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the > > >deposit is *automatically* forfeit. > > > > > >b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the > > >Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is > > >*possibly* forfeit. > > > > I wouldn't be quite as strong in situation a), as there can be many issues > > involved. However, the advice should be given some consideration. The > > following might be better. > > > > a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals Consultant > and > > loses, there is a presumption that the appeal was without merit, and the > > deposit is forfeited unless a majority of the committee disagrees. > > > > b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant and > > loses, there is a presumption that the appeal had merit, and the deposit > > can only be forfeited by a unanimous decision of the committee that the > > appelant should have withdrawn it despite the consultant's recommendation. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 06/05/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat May 10 15:12:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:12:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] LA? References: <3EBBB604.7040209@skynet.be> <001701c3164d$f5139520$0fb54351@noos.fr> <3EBCDA56.4070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003001c316fe$3fc22c20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Dear Herman: > I do mind if you believe that my knowledge of the laws is not up to > scratch. Not up to scratch ? Lets put it like this, I am not really impressed given what you say from time to time on the subject. But what really pisses me off is rather frequent nonsense like this (in Dutch 'het vingertje van de schoolmeester'): > No Jack, you misinterpret the laws. Now I don't know Jack (sorry Jack) and I have no idea how qualified he is on bridge laws but given the fact he is on blml it cannot be that bad. Actually Jack said: > Herman, I would agree with you entirely, except that after there is a > hesitation by partner, South has restrictions. In this case, it is clear to > me that South did not want to bid 4S and therefore pass must be considered a > LA after the hesitation. This is quite sensible, Jack just says that passing 4S is a LA for a guy that just bid 3S with this hand (yes somebody said that LA is independent of the hesistation, true but nitpicking). It is really beyond me how you conclude from these 4 lines that Jack misinterprets the laws. Herman: > Which is why he says that pass is not a LA, but South must pass anyway? Herman, please read more careful what others write. Jack says clearly that he considers pass an LA. So please don't write the opposite. > Not true in the sense that something can be a logical alternative, for > the player himself, with his system, with his previous bidding. > You cannot hold a poll of 20 players, all of whom would have bid 4Sp a > round earlier, and ask them sincerely what they would do if they had > only bid 3Sp. You need to hold your poll among players who would bid > it as this player did. Herman please stop making up your own laws, when deciding as TD/AC we assume comparable players (Zia is not judged by Mrs G. standards and the other way round), but not necessarily players that would bid as a certain player did on a certain hand on a certain day. And don't say silly things about polling, we never poll 10 players let alone 20. Herman: > c- those that will bid 3Sp in the lift, and 4Sp over 4Cl Herman, once again, your bridge is too poor for you to make any judgement. 3S in this sequence is end of bidding at least 80% of the time so this is not a situation anybody will 'lift'. By the way, if you want me to stop commenting your bridge skills the solution is quite simple. Stop writing about your 'judgements' in public. Herman: > Apparently you understand the relevant law as good as Jack. Actually I think Jack understands the relevant law quite well so I will take this as a compliment. Anyway, do me and others a favour, try to have some rudementary knowledge about subjects you write about let alone subjects where you have the inclination to correct others. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA? > Jaap, > > I don't mind it in the least if you choose to remind everyone that I > am a mediocre bridge player. > I do mind if you believe that my knowledge of the laws is not up to > scratch. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman, > > > > Please read some beginners text (well you might call it intermediate) on > > bidding theory. If you think you have 3.5 spade you make a game try. 2NT, > > 3C, 3H, pick one. 3S is not really invitational (although partner is not > > barred from bidding), it is intended to shut out competition. > > > Tell that to the player who bid 3Sp. > > > > Now this player might claim he is too stupid to play like that but that is > > what I call self-serving. Of course I think his hand evaluation was lacking. > > > > > And that is where our main discussion will have to focus on. > > > > And now you are trying to sell that pass is not a LA. Come on Herman. > > > > > Well, it might not be, not for this player. > > > > Herman: > > > >>No Jack, you misinterpret the laws. > >> > > > > I think Jack understands the relevant laws way better than you do. > > > > > Which is why he says that pass is not a LA, but South must pass anyway? > Apparently you understand the relevant law as good as Jack. > > > > Herman: > > > >>Much depends indeed on South's explanation of his 3Sp bid. > >> > > > > Great, I am really curious what the guy will say to an AC after consulting > > his lawyers. Probably he will say he was all the time going to bid 4S if the > > opps where going to bid something (ridiculous argument because in this > > sequence it is very unlikely there will be further bidding). The table TD > > has a change to get some real info, after that forget it. > > > > > I agree that we shall have to deal with his comments and the > self-serving nature of it. I don't want to go into this discussion, > because we really don't know what he is going to say. > > > > But in this case I really don't care what the guy has to say. The facts > > > And that is precisely why you are such a pain in the ... > Of course the reason why he bid 3Sp is the most important piece of > information, if we want to be able to rule that passing 4Cl is not a > LA for this player. If you are not prepared to rule that way, then you > belong in the "if it hesitates, shoot it" club. I know you don't. So > why won't you listen to this South? > > > > state is was a serious match with maybe not great but at least experienced > > players. Then spare me the fairy tales, I just assume they play bridge. And > > yes I have played a couple of tournaments in Portugal so I have some idea > > about local customs down there. > > > > > OK, assume away. But then don't discuss it. I say I want to hear, you > say you know what he's going to say. Good. I suppose that if he does > say what you assume, then we shall both rule the same way. But don't > criticise me for having the imagination that he might say something else. > > > > > >>There is a huge difference between a South who hesitated himself > >>in putting down 3Sp, and one who put 3Sp without realizing he had a > >>3.5 Sp bid. > >> > > > > I know since long you don't understand too much about bridge but you don't > > understand a lot about the laws as well. It is completely irrelevant. If > > there is UI then an LA is defined as any action comparable players might > > seriously consider (or however they 'officially' put it). This is > > independent of the state of mind of the actual player. Seems obvious to me > > for all kind of reasons. One of them being that there is no way to decide > > such things. > > > > > True and not true. > Not true in the sense that something can be a logical alternative, for > the player himself, with his system, with his previous bidding. > You cannot hold a poll of 20 players, all of whom would have bid 4Sp a > round earlier, and ask them sincerely what they would do if they had > only bid 3Sp. You need to hold your poll among players who would bid > it as this player did. > And true in the sense that this is very difficult. > > Very rudimentary, Jaap, I'd like to divide the players into four > categories: > a- those that will never bid 4Sp > b- those that will only bid 4Sp with partner's help > c- those that will bid 3Sp in the lift, and 4Sp over 4Cl > d- those that will always bid 4Sp, and do so a round earlier > > Obviously you belong to group d-. > Obviously our South belongs to group b- or c-. > If he belongs to group b-, he is not allowed to bid 4Sp, because > partner's help comes in the form of UI. > But if he belongs to group c-, to him, passing over 4Cl is not a LA. > > My point is that there are players in group c-, and that those players > should be allowed to bid 4Sp, even with UI. > > And yes, putting this South in group b- or c- is a very difficult > decision for the AC to make. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 10 16:42:06 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:42:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 06:11 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to > adopt the following deposit regulations: > > a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of > the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the > deposit is *automatically* forfeit. > > b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the > Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is > *possibly* forfeit. I think this is almost the wrong way around. Imagine the reaction of a player (indeed some EBU members have witnessed it!) who has been advised by an officially appointed Appeals Consultant to appeal, and then finds that on top of losing his appeal he also loses his deposit. The real problem with your suggestion is that it will discourage people from seeking the advice of an Appeals Consultant (which is not mandatory), and therefore probably increase the number of appeals. If a player thought they had a reasonable case for appeal, they would not risk consulting an Appeals Consultant in case it resulted in a recommendation not to appeal, and therefore an automatic forfeit if the appeal is lost. However unlikely they think they would be to lose the appeal, talking to the Consultant would be a losing strategy. A more practical, and fair-seeming guideline would be a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is *possibly* forfeit. b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is *never* forfeit. This would have the additional advantage of taking some of the decision-making powers about deposits away from the Appeals Committees themselves. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun May 11 08:48:19 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 08:48:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030509214839.02192da8@mail.comcast.net> <000801c316af$091ba380$854427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000601c31794$1e0ccd60$ba35e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets > > At a recent high-level knockout tournament in England, > a number of appeals were brought that (by common > consent) ought not to have been brought; they were > "without merit". But they represented the only chance > the appellants had not to be knocked out of the tournament. > In such circumstances, the nature of the deterrent does not > matter at all - to argue about what deterrent would be > "most effective" is a waste of time. > +=+ I agree largely with what David says about the effects of penalties for appeals without merit, whether applied with enthusiasm or otherwise. It is a subject on which I am little inclined to intervene but have my reservations - for example an anxiety that monetary fines may act unfairly upon the less well endowed if there are now any such in the game. As for the AWMPP one wonders whether it is toothless. If there are to be penalties under the footnote to Law 92A my own inclination would be to apply them in the scoring of the following round of the tournament in question, with a carry forward to the next tournament when the appeal is heard after the final round of the tournament begins. Nor am I sure that the footnote in question can be said to extend to appeals under Law 93C, technically speaking, given that appeals under Laws 92, 93A & B, have been 'exhausted'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Sun May 11 22:01:15 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 17:01:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030509214839.02192da8@mail.comcast.net> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030511165629.01fbcb80@pop.starpower.net> At 09:55 PM 5/9/03, David wrote: >At 01:11 AM 5/9/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to >>adopt the following deposit regulations: >> >>a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of >>the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the >>deposit is *automatically* forfeit. >> >>b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the >>Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is >>*possibly* forfeit. > >I wouldn't be quite as strong in situation a), as there can be many >issues involved. However, the advice should be given some >consideration. The following might be better. > >a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of the Appeals >Consultant and loses, there is a presumption that the appeal was >without merit, and the deposit is forfeited unless a majority of the >committee disagrees. > >b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the Appeals Consultant and >loses, there is a presumption that the appeal had merit, and the >deposit can only be forfeited by a unanimous decision of the committee >that the appelant should have withdrawn it despite the consultant's >recommendation. Much better. There's not much point in having Appeals Consultants if the players won't trust their advice, and it wouldn't take more than one or two stories put about by (rightfully) disgruntled players who lost their deposit money after a consultant advised them to go ahead with their appeal for the consultants, collectively, to lose their credibility and become useless. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Sun May 11 22:05:41 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 17:05:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] LA? In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030509164632.009e5230@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030511170345.01fad140@pop.starpower.net> At 03:11 AM 5/10/03, Jack wrote: >On 5/9/03 5:51 PM, "Eric Landau" wrote: > > > I don't think "must be considered an LA after the hesitation" makes any > > sense. As I read the laws, either 4S is an LA or it isn't. If it is, > > partner's hesitation may make it an infraction to choose it. If it > > isn't, though, it just isn't, and partner's huddle can't change that. > >Eric, you need to reread my comment. I was talking about Pass being a LA, >NOT 4S. Quite so. Well, I needed to, past tense, but, given the nature of e-mail, too late now... Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Sun May 11 22:25:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 17:25:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: <002901c316fb$c1d267a0$0fb54351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030509214839.02192da8@mail.comcast.net> <002101c316d6$ff50e590$452d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030511171147.01fb5c60@pop.starpower.net> At 09:33 AM 5/10/03, Jaap wrote: >In Holland we don't have such a thing. >In EBL/WBF events there is no such thing. > >But if the SO organizes or imposes such a concept and appoints the >consultants (it is not just a random person) then I think the AC should be >told. > >To put it differently, if I chair an AC and there is a serious screening >procedure, I cannot imagine taking the money (or points or whatever). I >might issue a statement that I am not happy that the appeal got through >screening but I won't take the money if a consultant told the guy it was >'ok' to lodge the appeal. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Jones" > > > What is the opinion of the forum as to the advisability of the AC being > > informed that a) the appellant has consulted the appeals > consultant, and >b) > > of the advice that was given, prior to the hearing. > > > > In theory this information is not given to the Welsh ACs formally, but > > gossip does happen :-) I don't think it's a big deal whether the AC knows about the screening process when making its ruling -- probably better they don't in theory, but not worth the effort of formalizing and worrying about the gossip. But I'm firmly with Jaap in the opinion that they must have this information when making a determination whether a rejected appeal is to be considered frivolous. And that's not theory, it's gut reaction. If I were sitting on an AC that voted to keep a deposit, and discovered afterwards that, unbeknownst to me, someone blessed by the sponsoring organization as an advisor to players on whether to pursue their appeals had duly, if foolishly, opined that their appeal had some merit and advised them to proceed, I would be rather upset, to say the least, to the point where I would probably refuse to sit in the future. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Sun May 11 22:37:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 17:37:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030511172729.02015ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:42 AM 5/10/03, Gordon wrote: >On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 06:11 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>It would be sensible for the EBU and the WBU to >>adopt the following deposit regulations: >> >>a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of >>the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the >>deposit is *automatically* forfeit. >> >>b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the >>Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is >>*possibly* forfeit. > >I think this is almost the wrong way around. Imagine the reaction of a >player (indeed some EBU members have witnessed it!) who has been >advised by an officially appointed Appeals Consultant to appeal, and >then finds that on top of losing his appeal he also loses his deposit. > >The real problem with your suggestion is that it will discourage >people from seeking the advice of an Appeals Consultant (which is not >mandatory), and therefore probably increase the number of appeals. If >a player thought they had a reasonable case for appeal, they would not >risk consulting an Appeals Consultant in case it resulted in a >recommendation not to appeal, and therefore an automatic forfeit if >the appeal is lost. However unlikely they think they would be to lose >the appeal, talking to the Consultant would be a losing strategy. > >A more practical, and fair-seeming guideline would be > >a) If a player appeals contrary to the advice of >the Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the >deposit is *possibly* forfeit. > >b) If a player appeals with the blessing of the >Appeals Consultant, and loses, then the deposit is >*never* forfeit. > >This would have the additional advantage of taking some of the >decision-making powers about deposits away from the Appeals Committees >themselves. IMO, frivolous protest penalties should be reserved for the relatively rare egregious cases. I would like to see deposits kept only by unanimous vote of the committee, and, if a screener or appeals consultant is part of the process, only if that person advised against the appeal, or wasn't consulted. 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 Sun May 11 22:52:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 07:52:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: Richard: >>I totally agree. North should have bid 4S on the >>previous round of the auction. North's actual 2S bid was >>a gross underbid caused by irrational hand evaluation. Jaap: >Come on Richard. Bidding or not bidding 4S immediately >has more to do with tactics then with hand evaluation. I >have no problem with 3S or 4S or 3D or 3H or whatever. >Starting with 2S might work as well as anything. The bidding >isn't over yet you know (and if so 2S might be right). I >will use this hand for my bidding poll. I am curious what >people do. Because the real problem will be the next round >of the bidding and the only goal at this turn is to be well >placed for the next. I agree with Jaap that if North was as competent as Jaap, then North might have been walking the dog (doing the lift). However, this was panellist David Stevenson's comment: "The only problem with this is that North might easily have bid 4S on the second round, and the hand is worth more than 2S. Still, for someone who thinks 2S is the right bid, pass must be a logical alternative at the end so there is no doubt the ruling and appeal are right. The only alternative could be if North was sandbagging - deliberately underbidding to try to be doubled. Not only does this look very strange on this hand and auction but presumably the report would have said so if North had claimed this as an excuse." Given that North did not claim walking the dog/doing the lift/ sandbagging as an excuse at the Appeals Committee hearing, the only logical alternative that the AC had, was to rule that North was an irrational hand evaluator. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 12 07:06:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:06:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dooh Nibor Message-ID: In the thread EBU & WBU Appeals 2002 booklets, Grattan wrote: [big snip] >have my reservations - for example an anxiety >that monetary fines may act unfairly upon the >less well endowed if there are now any such >in the game. [big snip] Many years ago, a TD ruled in favour of an opposing pair who had hesitated. Since it was a national Australian championship, my appeal required me to post a $50 deposit. To me, both then and now, $50 is a significant amount of money. The AC Chairman was a nice guy. At the very beginning of his announcement of the AC decision, he immediately allayed my financial anxiety by handing back my $50. He then proceeded to announce that the AC had upheld my appeal. Monetary deposits, as both Grattan and I agree, are basically reverse Robin Hood actions, which steal from the poor, and are meaningless to the rich. The new Aussie deposits for appeals of *score* deposits, now seems to be working well. There was one minor teething problem in implementing the new system. Most Aussie national teams events have a lengthy Swiss qualifying before the final. In an early stages of a Swiss qualifying, a contending team was fined a significant number of VPs for a frivolous appeal. However, this was a meaningless fine, since it merely meant that the contending team had easier opponents in the next few Swiss matches. Since then, Aussie ACs have provided that the VP fine for a frivolous appeal during a Swiss qualifying, will not take effect until the conclusion of the Swiss rounds. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 12 07:51:41 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 08:51:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet References: Message-ID: <001e01c31852$f89f9a20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard, You might have a point. This discussion has reached a point where the facts are insufficient. You have to know more abaut the players. The problem is that unlike other cases the 2S bid in itself is no proof. It is a bid that might be made by weak player for the wrong reasons and a good player for the right reasons. Maybe you are right I can not say it is an ok bid, but neither can you call it a bad hand evaluation bid. But there is two other issues here. 1. I think there is no relevant UI, the pause of 3H has no real meaning for the four level decision IMO (if so what please), so the guy can bid as he pleases. But this doesn't preclude a theoretical discussion about LA's. 2. If he is not bidding 4S for a make he is now bidding 4S for a save. Which is so obvious to me that pass cannot be a LA. But well maybe you are right mrs G. might pass and then we have to guess the level of the player. I don't know. But the fact that it reaches a serious AC is for me an indication it is some kind of serious competition so I tend to assume some reasonable level of play. But given the write-up the AC seems close to mrs. G. because they also mention that previous round as proof against the guy. True, the guy bid only 2S (which he might well want to play if partner didn't move) but then the opps didn't yet bid a vulnerable game they were likely to make (the fact that you want to play 2S doesn't mean you want to defend 4H). And this apart from the fact that if as now the opps bid freely 4H this suggest extre shape all around so this improves the chances of you making 4S as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet > > Richard: > > >>I totally agree. North should have bid 4S on the > >>previous round of the auction. North's actual 2S bid was > >>a gross underbid caused by irrational hand evaluation. > > Jaap: > > >Come on Richard. Bidding or not bidding 4S immediately > >has more to do with tactics then with hand evaluation. I > >have no problem with 3S or 4S or 3D or 3H or whatever. > >Starting with 2S might work as well as anything. The bidding > >isn't over yet you know (and if so 2S might be right). I > >will use this hand for my bidding poll. I am curious what > >people do. Because the real problem will be the next round > >of the bidding and the only goal at this turn is to be well > >placed for the next. > > I agree with Jaap that if North was as competent as Jaap, > then North might have been walking the dog (doing the lift). > > However, this was panellist David Stevenson's comment: > > "The only problem with this is that North might easily have > bid 4S on the second round, and the hand is worth more than > 2S. Still, for someone who thinks 2S is the right bid, pass > must be a logical alternative at the end so there is no doubt > the ruling and appeal are right. > The only alternative could be if North was sandbagging - > deliberately underbidding to try to be doubled. Not only does > this look very strange on this hand and auction but presumably > the report would have said so if North had claimed this as an > excuse." > > Given that North did not claim walking the dog/doing the lift/ > sandbagging as an excuse at the Appeals Committee hearing, the > only logical alternative that the AC had, was to rule that > North was an irrational hand evaluator. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 12 07:37:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:37:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 - Number 16 Message-ID: Sven asked: >>Did the EBU regulations specify that the correction >>period shall be timed from the moment a participant >>handles in his result report rather than from the >>moment the scorer publishes the official score? The report of Appeal Number 16 had this note by the editor: "Under EBU regulations the correction period at the end of a Spring Foursomes threesome ends 30 minutes after scores are agreed and handed to the scorer." Law 79C says: >An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon >score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be >corrected until the expiration of the period >specified by the sponsoring organization. Unless >the sponsoring organization specifies a later time, >this correction period expires 30 minutes after the >official score has been made available for >inspection. >(Footnote 23 to the word "later": An earlier time >may be specified when required by the special >nature of a contest.) [snip] What's the problem? By agreeing the score, and handing it to the official scorer, the players have made the official score available for inspection to each other. By EBU regulation, the 30 minute Law 79C clock starts ticking at this point. A *subsequent* misposting of the officially agreed score by the official scorer - which is _not_ what happened in this particular case - would obviously be a nullity, of no legal or practical validity. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon May 12 20:41:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:41:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: EBU and WBU Appeals 2002 Message-ID: Hi, BLMLers. David Stevenson asked me to post this to the list. ====== Forwarded Message ====== EBU and WBU Appeals 2002 These are edited by David Stevenson and can be downloaded as PDF files from http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm http://www.wbu.org.uk/TDinfo.htm Thanks very much to the commentators Herman De Wael of Belgium, Fearghal O'Boyle of the Irish Republic, Ron Johnson of Canada, Laurie Kelso and Richard Hills of Australia, Matthias Berghaus of Germany, Barry Rigal, Eric Landau, Roger Pewick and Adam Wildavsky of the USA and Con Holzscherer of the Netherlands. -- Cheers, David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ ====== End Forwarded Message ====== 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 Mon May 12 23:02:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 08:02:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet Message-ID: Jaap wrote: [big snip] >If he is not bidding 4S for a make he is now >bidding 4S for a save. Which is so obvious to >me that pass cannot be a LA. [big snip] Jaap has overlooked one possibility - 4S might be a phantom save. Therefore, while it is possible that pass cannot be a LA for a player of Jaap's ability, the reason given by Jaap is not a sufficient reason to rule that pass is "obviously" not an LA for *every* bridge player. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 12 23:42:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 08:42:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: "Wild or gambling" is normally an egregious double-shot by the NOS. However, if a legal auction by the OS would have seen them stop in a part-score, is doubling their illegal game sufficient to change the NOS's normal entitlement of -170 to -950? Best wishes Richard * * * Tournament Director: Ken Richardson Appeals Committee: Anne Jones (Chairman) John Glubb Teams Match Board no 26 Dealer East All vulnerable A J93 AQT74 QT63 QJ763 984 KT652 A87 5 J3 82 J9754 KT52 Q4 K9862 AK WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D Pass 2D Pass Pass 3D 5D Dbl Pass Pass Pass Result at table: 5D doubled +1 by South, NS +950 Director first called: After dummy was spread Director's statement of facts: The failure to alert 2D was the reason for West's 3D bid. If West had known, by an alert, that 2D was game forcing he would have passed. N/S subsequently asked the TD to consider whether the double of 5D was "wild or gambling". The director did not feel that this was the case, and was irrelevant to his ruling. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 2D +4 by South, NS +170 Note by editor: This is from an international match Wales v England. Appeal lodged by: North-South Comments by North-South: North South accept that their score should be +170, but feel that the final double of 5D was wild and gambling and that East West should keep their score of -950 arising from this. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld No deposit taken Appeals Committee's comments: The Committee does not consider double to be wild and gambling. The action was neither. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue May 13 02:48:44 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 21:48:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030512213934.0152d058@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:42 PM 5/12/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >"Wild or gambling" is normally an egregious >double-shot by the NOS. > >However, if a legal auction by the OS would >have seen them stop in a part-score, is >doubling their illegal game sufficient to >change the NOS's normal entitlement of -170 >to -950? > >Best wishes > >Richard What I have suggested in a case such as this is that the NOS receives no redress for that part of the damage which is self-inflicted. In this case, the NOS was entitled to -170, were damaged by the infraction to -620, and then made an irrational double which changed -620 to -950. The NOS is thus entitled to an adjustment for the difference between -620 and -170. If the other table was +620, then the NOS is entitled to an additional 10 IMPs, because the infraction caused them to be 0 instead of +10, while the irrational double caused them to be -7 instead of 0. >* * * > >Tournament Director: >Ken Richardson > >Appeals Committee: >Anne Jones (Chairman) John Glubb > >Teams Match >Board no 26 >Dealer East >All vulnerable > A > J93 > AQT74 > QT63 >QJ763 984 >KT652 A87 >5 J3 >82 J9754 > KT52 > Q4 > K9862 > AK > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D >Pass 2D Pass Pass >3D 5D Dbl Pass >Pass Pass > >Result at table: >5D doubled +1 by South, NS +950 > >Director first called: >After dummy was spread > >Director's statement of facts: >The failure to alert 2D was the reason for West's >3D bid. If West had known, by an alert, that 2D >was game forcing he would have passed. N/S >subsequently asked the TD to consider whether the >double of 5D was "wild or gambling". The director >did not feel that this was the case, and was >irrelevant to his ruling. > >Director's ruling: >Score assigned for both sides: >2D +4 by South, NS +170 > >Note by editor: >This is from an international match Wales v England. > >Appeal lodged by: >North-South > >Comments by North-South: >North South accept that their score should be +170, >but feel that the final double of 5D was wild and >gambling and that East West should keep their score >of -950 arising from this. > >Appeals Committee decision: >Director's ruling upheld >No deposit taken > >Appeals Committee's comments: >The Committee does not consider double to be wild and >gambling. The action was neither. The double appears wild or gambling to me. East knows that West does not have sufficient values to act directly over 2D, and East has only one defensive trick. If West had both majors and two defensive tricks, he would probably have overcalled, bid 2D, or doubled on the first round. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 13 06:05:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:05:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 - numero 9 Message-ID: A number of issues were raised by this complex appeal. (Attached at the end of this posting.) One issue I raised in my role as a panellist was - Richard Hills' comments: "I cannot fathom the TD's judgement to let the table score stand, given the prima facie plausibility of the non-offending side being damaged by the MI. At the very least the TD should have used Law 83 to voluntarily refer their decision to an AC, rather than leaving it to the non-offending side to lodge an appeal." In response - Final summary by editor: [snip] "The suggestion of the TD taking it to appeal is just not right. Either the TD feels she has made the right ruling, or she would have ruled differently. England does not want to revert to the approach by TDs and ACs of North America in the eighties where TDs relied on ACs to do their job for them." Therefore, does blml consider whether nowadays there remain any circumstances whatsoever, where a TD should voluntarily refer their decision to an AC under Law 83? Best wishes Richard * * * Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: Chris Jagger (Chairman) Eddie Lucioni John Holland Multiple Teams Board no 16 Dealer West E/W vulnerable JT73 AQJT4 - K762 85 KQ9 K873 952 A52 KJ8763 AQ98 T A642 6 QT94 J543 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT 2C (Alert) 3C Pass 3H Dbl 3NT Dbl 4C Pass 4D Dbl Pass Pass Pass Result at table: 4D doubled -3 by East, NS +800 Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: East asked the meaning of 2C. South described it as one-suited. Before the opening lead North said her partner had misdescribed her hand. The real meaning was hearts and another suit. The TD asked East what he would have bid if given a correct explanation. He said he might have passed, bid 2D or 2NT. Director's ruling: Table result stands Note by editor: Multiple Teams is called Round Robin Teams in many parts of the world. The defence to 1NT described by South was not permitted in this minor event, though it was permitted in the major event that had preceded it. Apparently N/S were aware of this and played different systems in different events as permitted, but South had not realised in what level event he was playing. Appeal lodged by: East-West Appeals Committee decision: Score assigned for both sides: 3NT -3 by West, NS +300 Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: Had West known North had hearts he would certainly not have bid 3H. He says he would have bid 3NT, and it is not obvious for this to be doubled. In fact E/W are damaged by an explanation of a forbidden convention, even though N/S were playing a permitted convention. East reasonably did not know how to defend against this, and tried a "3C cue". He would presumably have made a 2H cue given the correct explanation, and played in no-trumps. From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue May 13 08:59:12 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:59:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030512213934.0152d058@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <004f01c31925$9deac900$102b4451@Default> David: > What I have suggested in a case such as this is that the NOS receives no > redress for that part of the damage which is self-inflicted. Makes perfect sense to me. I like the way you describe this procedure. But probably there are some theoretical questions how to compute the result. > The double appears wild or gambling to me. I would call the double lunatic. Nobody, NOS or not, should be protected against the consequences of such follies. You have 1 trick and no guarantee that partner has one let alone two. And for double to make sense you need partner to have at least a go at 3 tricks because doubling for one down at teams is silly. The guy seems to have forgotten that someone who passes 1D with interesting shape normally has not a lot of HCP. > The Committee does not consider double to be wild and gambling. The action was neither. Are AC members with this kind of bridge judgement available for (high stake) rubber bridge. Maybe I am too agressive on this subject but I really hate (and all good players hate) being judged on bridge issues by people who seem to lack enough bridge skills to do such judging. Look if you say that all subsequent and consequent proceedings are irrelevant that is one thing (although I don't like it). But if you issue a judgement on 'wild and gambling' please give a serious judgement. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 > At 06:42 PM 5/12/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >"Wild or gambling" is normally an egregious > >double-shot by the NOS. > > > >However, if a legal auction by the OS would > >have seen them stop in a part-score, is > >doubling their illegal game sufficient to > >change the NOS's normal entitlement of -170 > >to -950? > > > >Best wishes > > > >Richard > > What I have suggested in a case such as this is that the NOS receives no > redress for that part of the damage which is self-inflicted. In this case, > the NOS was entitled to -170, were damaged by the infraction to -620, and > then made an irrational double which changed -620 to -950. The NOS is thus > entitled to an adjustment for the difference between -620 and -170. If the > other table was +620, then the NOS is entitled to an additional 10 IMPs, > because the infraction caused them to be 0 instead of +10, while the > irrational double caused them to be -7 instead of 0. > > > >* * * > > > >Tournament Director: > >Ken Richardson > > > >Appeals Committee: > >Anne Jones (Chairman) John Glubb > > > >Teams Match > >Board no 26 > >Dealer East > >All vulnerable > > A > > J93 > > AQT74 > > QT63 > >QJ763 984 > >KT652 A87 > >5 J3 > >82 J9754 > > KT52 > > Q4 > > K9862 > > AK > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass 1D > >Pass 2D Pass Pass > >3D 5D Dbl Pass > >Pass Pass > > > >Result at table: > >5D doubled +1 by South, NS +950 > > > >Director first called: > >After dummy was spread > > > >Director's statement of facts: > >The failure to alert 2D was the reason for West's > >3D bid. If West had known, by an alert, that 2D > >was game forcing he would have passed. N/S > >subsequently asked the TD to consider whether the > >double of 5D was "wild or gambling". The director > >did not feel that this was the case, and was > >irrelevant to his ruling. > > > >Director's ruling: > >Score assigned for both sides: > >2D +4 by South, NS +170 > > > >Note by editor: > >This is from an international match Wales v England. > > > >Appeal lodged by: > >North-South > > > >Comments by North-South: > >North South accept that their score should be +170, > >but feel that the final double of 5D was wild and > >gambling and that East West should keep their score > >of -950 arising from this. > > > >Appeals Committee decision: > >Director's ruling upheld > >No deposit taken > > > >Appeals Committee's comments: > >The Committee does not consider double to be wild and > >gambling. The action was neither. > > The double appears wild or gambling to me. East knows that West does not > have sufficient values to act directly over 2D, and East has only one > defensive trick. If West had both majors and two defensive tricks, he > would probably have overcalled, bid 2D, or doubled on the first round. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue May 13 08:59:19 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:59:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet References: Message-ID: <005001c31925$9f3152c0$102b4451@Default> Richard, Lets stop this. Your last remark is superfluous, I said already the same. Besides the fact that the save might be a phantom (of course it might) is an irelevant argument. Any ridiculous decision might be right and the most automatic of decisions might be wrong. But this has nothing to do with LA's. The question is if comparable players would seriously consider passing 4H. I tend to answer that question negatively with the possible exception of Mrs. G. and true beginners. Because 4S is only wrong if 4S and 4H both are down (and they don't bid 5H). With this hand in this sequence that would be rather unlikely, and given the size of the relevant swings (both 1 down undoubled is half the imps of one making and a third of both making) you don't even need close to even odds to bid 4S. Even mediocre players know this (intuitively). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet > > Jaap wrote: > > [big snip] > > >If he is not bidding 4S for a make he is now > >bidding 4S for a save. Which is so obvious to > >me that pass cannot be a LA. > > [big snip] > > Jaap has overlooked one possibility - 4S might > be a phantom save. > > Therefore, while it is possible that pass > cannot be a LA for a player of Jaap's ability, > the reason given by Jaap is not a sufficient > reason to rule that pass is "obviously" not an > LA for *every* bridge player. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 13 11:31:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:31:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: <004f01c31925$9deac900$102b4451@Default> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030512213934.0152d058@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030513121948.01d39310@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:59 13/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > The double appears wild or gambling to me. AG : to me too. And Richard's argument, reproduced hereunder, sets it. East knows that West does not > have sufficient values to act directly over 2D, and East has only one > defensive trick. If West had both majors and two defensive tricks, he > would probably have overcalled, bid 2D, or doubled on the first round. However ... We have to confer the WIG label with parsimony. Remember that they are the NOS. If knowing that the bid (or double, as it is) is very bad needs 3 lines of reasoning, the AC may decide to not confer it. Only in cases where the absurdity of the bid is IOTTMCO shall we say 'WIG'. In this case, I'd say that it's not *that* obvious. If the AC says the double is a very bad bridge action, but not irrational, they don't deserve such severity from our part. In other terms : pull the 'benefit of doubt' principle to its extreme before deciding 'WIG'. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 13 11:42:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:42:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 booklet In-Reply-To: <005001c31925$9f3152c0$102b4451@Default> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030513123311.01d39ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:59 13/05/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >The question is if comparable players >would seriously consider passing 4H. I tend to answer that question >negatively with the possible exception of Mrs. G. and true beginners. >Because 4S is only wrong if 4S and 4H both are down (and they don't bid 5H). >With this hand in this sequence that would be rather unlikely, and given the >size of the relevant swings (both 1 down undoubled is half the imps of one >making and a third of both making) you don't even need close to even odds to >bid 4S. Even mediocre players know this (intuitively). AG : I'd say mediocre players defend a little bit too much. I've read your arguments with great interest, and do agree with most of them, but I think you're dodging an important issue : The right question is not : "is bidding 4S obvious ?" (to which the answer could well be positive) It is : "Is bidding 4S obvious, knowing you did only bid 2 at the former round ?" North had an obvious 4S, or at least 3S, bid and *chose not to do it*. We have to investigate why North bid only 2. If he tried for the lift, you're right. But another, quite plausible, explanation is that he knows partner makes very unsound tekaout doubles. In which case bidding 4S will *not* result in down one undoubled, so your argument loses its potency. It may result in either several undertricks, or pushing them to a slam (they, too, can infer partner's shortness from the 4-bid). Of course, this will no more be the case if partner has a sound, classical double, which is suggested by the tempo. So we should not dismiss the possible use of UI that quickly. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 13 13:24:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 08:24:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030513081224.01ff7e90@pop.starpower.net> At 06:42 PM 5/12/03, richard.hills wrote: >"Wild or gambling" is normally an egregious >double-shot by the NOS. > >However, if a legal auction by the OS would >have seen them stop in a part-score, is >doubling their illegal game sufficient to >change the NOS's normal entitlement of -170 >to -950? > >* * * > >Tournament Director: >Ken Richardson > >Appeals Committee: >Anne Jones (Chairman) John Glubb > >Teams Match >Board no 26 >Dealer East >All vulnerable > A > J93 > AQT74 > QT63 >QJ763 984 >KT652 A87 >5 J3 >82 J9754 > KT52 > Q4 > K9862 > AK > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D >Pass 2D Pass Pass >3D 5D Dbl Pass >Pass Pass > >Result at table: >5D doubled +1 by South, NS +950 > >Director first called: >After dummy was spread > >Director's statement of facts: >The failure to alert 2D was the reason for West's >3D bid. If West had known, by an alert, that 2D >was game forcing he would have passed. N/S >subsequently asked the TD to consider whether the >double of 5D was "wild or gambling". The director >did not feel that this was the case, and was >irrelevant to his ruling. > >Director's ruling: >Score assigned for both sides: >2D +4 by South, NS +170 > >Note by editor: >This is from an international match Wales v England. > >Appeal lodged by: >North-South > >Comments by North-South: >North South accept that their score should be +170, >but feel that the final double of 5D was wild and >gambling and that East West should keep their score >of -950 arising from this. > >Appeals Committee decision: >Director's ruling upheld >No deposit taken > >Appeals Committee's comments: >The Committee does not consider double to be wild and >gambling. The action was neither. WTP? As Richard says, "'Wild or gambling' is normally an egregious double shot by the NOS. As the AC said, this action was neither wild nor gambling, and certainly wasn't an egregious double shot. Everybody is on the right track here except N-S. Perhaps we ought to consider changing L92, which allows players to contest "any ruling", so that a ruling may be appealed only if the appelants are asking for a change in their own score or standing. Appeals brought by players who ask for no redress, but are simply trying to deny the the other side the windfall created by their infraction, serve nobody, and we would do well to eliminate them. 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 May 13 13:28:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:28:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] The strangest ruling Message-ID: <3EC0E4E3.3050505@skynet.be> Last friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the players my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. In stead, I would let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed one of the players to blml so that he can read along. board 20 (W/All) AK7 102 1092 108654 Q532 1096 AQ8754 63 753 AQJ864 - 32 J84 KJ9 K AKQJ97 The bidding: W N E S P P P 1NT 2Di P P 3Cl P 4Cl P P P The facts: South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club was not important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put among the diamonds, which explains the singleton. East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, but East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which time I was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping under the Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one down. Dummy did not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a spade if he does ruff this. Rulings: I tried very hard to find something to give to the NOS. 1) North has been given MI, but his diamond and heart holdings are almost equal, so why should he act differently over 2Di alerted? 2) East has forgotten the new system, but we cannot blame him for passing a transfer. It's a bit strange not to raise with that six-card suit, but absent any infraction, what can we do? (I have no doubt as to East-West's honesty - a mediocre pair to say the least) 3) South has MI, so he must interpret that East has very good diamonds (actually true). His call of 3Cl was, according to him, based on his six-card suit and his now rediscovered singleton. 4) West has UI that East believes 2Di to be natural. Could we force a 3Di on him? That one is maybe the toughest! 5) North still has MI about the location of the heart and diamond suits, but his 4Cl bid is not based on this MI. 6) West has to lead something. The bidding tells him that partner has long diamonds, with UI (the non-alert) to suggest that this is not true. A non-diamond lead is the suggested alternative, so the diamond lead cannot be ruled against. 7) East sees the diamond king drop. This cannot be a doubleton (certainly not in the eyes of this player) and (actual quote) "they do open 1NT with everything these days". A spade or club return cannot be good, so the heart stands out a mile, even with the UI. Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the NOS any redress. Comments? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <003e01c3194e$1229ab10$232d6651@annescomputer> Can anyone format this please? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 1:28 PM Subject: [blml] The strangest ruling > Last friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the > players my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. In > stead, I would let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed one of > the players to blml so that he can read along. > > board 20 (W/All) > AK7 > 102 > 1092 > 108654 > Q532 1096 > AQ8754 > 63 > 753 > AQJ864 > - > 32 > J84 > KJ9 > K > AKQJ97 > The bidding: > W > N > E > S > P > P > P > 1NT > 2Di > P > P > 3Cl > P > 4Cl > P > P > P > > The facts: > South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club was > not important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put among the > diamonds, which explains the singleton. > East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, but > East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which time > I was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. > West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping under the > Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one down. Dummy did > not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a spade if he does > ruff this. > > Rulings: > I tried very hard to find something to give to the NOS. > 1) North has been given MI, but his diamond and heart holdings are > almost equal, so why should he act differently over 2Di alerted? > 2) East has forgotten the new system, but we cannot blame him for > passing a transfer. It's a bit strange not to raise with that six-card > suit, but absent any infraction, what can we do? (I have no doubt as > to East-West's honesty - a mediocre pair to say the least) > 3) South has MI, so he must interpret that East has very good diamonds > (actually true). His call of 3Cl was, according to him, based on his > six-card suit and his now rediscovered singleton. > 4) West has UI that East believes 2Di to be natural. Could we force a > 3Di on him? That one is maybe the toughest! > 5) North still has MI about the location of the heart and diamond > suits, but his 4Cl bid is not based on this MI. > 6) West has to lead something. The bidding tells him that partner has > long diamonds, with UI (the non-alert) to suggest that this is not > true. A non-diamond lead is the suggested alternative, so the diamond > lead cannot be ruled against. > 7) East sees the diamond king drop. This cannot be a doubleton > (certainly not in the eyes of this player) and (actual quote) "they do > open 1NT with everything these days". A spade or club return cannot be > good, so the heart stands out a mile, even with the UI. > > Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the NOS any redress. > > Comments? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 06/05/2003 From jrhind@therock.bm Tue May 13 13:57:25 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:57:25 -0300 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030513081224.01ff7e90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment: This is a team match and E/W do not know their opponents general methods? Doesn't anybody smell something fishy here? Do you really sit down against opponents in a team match and not bother to ascertain their general methods? Regards, Jack On 5/13/03 9:24 AM, "Eric Landau" wrote: > At 06:42 PM 5/12/03, richard.hills wrote: > >> "Wild or gambling" is normally an egregious >> double-shot by the NOS. >> >> However, if a legal auction by the OS would >> have seen them stop in a part-score, is >> doubling their illegal game sufficient to >> change the NOS's normal entitlement of -170 >> to -950? >> >> * * * >> >> Tournament Director: >> Ken Richardson >> >> Appeals Committee: >> Anne Jones (Chairman) John Glubb >> >> Teams Match >> Board no 26 >> Dealer East >> All vulnerable >> A >> J93 >> AQT74 >> QT63 >> QJ763 984 >> KT652 A87 >> 5 J3 >> 82 J9754 >> KT52 >> Q4 >> K9862 >> AK >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass 1D >> Pass 2D Pass Pass >> 3D 5D Dbl Pass >> Pass Pass >> >> Result at table: >> 5D doubled +1 by South, NS +950 >> >> Director first called: >> After dummy was spread >> >> Director's statement of facts: >> The failure to alert 2D was the reason for West's >> 3D bid. If West had known, by an alert, that 2D >> was game forcing he would have passed. N/S >> subsequently asked the TD to consider whether the >> double of 5D was "wild or gambling". The director >> did not feel that this was the case, and was >> irrelevant to his ruling. >> >> Director's ruling: >> Score assigned for both sides: >> 2D +4 by South, NS +170 >> >> Note by editor: >> This is from an international match Wales v England. >> >> Appeal lodged by: >> North-South >> >> Comments by North-South: >> North South accept that their score should be +170, >> but feel that the final double of 5D was wild and >> gambling and that East West should keep their score >> of -950 arising from this. >> >> Appeals Committee decision: >> Director's ruling upheld >> No deposit taken >> >> Appeals Committee's comments: >> The Committee does not consider double to be wild and >> gambling. The action was neither. > > WTP? As Richard says, "'Wild or gambling' is normally an egregious > double shot by the NOS. As the AC said, this action was neither wild > nor gambling, and certainly wasn't an egregious double shot. Everybody > is on the right track here except N-S. > > Perhaps we ought to consider changing L92, which allows players to > contest "any ruling", so that a ruling may be appealed only if the > appelants are asking for a change in their own score or > standing. Appeals brought by players who ask for no redress, but are > simply trying to deny the the other side the windfall created by their > infraction, serve nobody, and we would do well to eliminate them. > > > 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 idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Tue May 13 14:47:18 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:47:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: Jack A. Rhind's message of Tue, 13 May 2003 09:57:25 -0300 Message-ID: [Jack] > Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment: > > This is a team match and E/W do not know their opponents general methods? > Doesn't anybody smell something fishy here? Do you really sit down against > opponents in a team match and not bother to ascertain their general methods? If I remember correctly, one of East-West is a regular contributor to blml, so I'm with child (as they used to say) to see his response. B-> If I have remembered incorrectly, he was just one of East-West's teammates. Many players, even supposedly top class ones, can't be bothered preparing themselves for a match as fully as Jack (and I) would do. They'd rather rest their brains between sessions, or go to the bar, or both. It would annoy me were I their npc but, on the other hand, they probably aren't the kind of players who would go around making unwarranted insinuations about fishy smells. We all have our faults. --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 13 15:36:54 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <200305131436.KAA08231@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Perhaps we ought to consider changing L92, which allows players to > contest "any ruling", so that a ruling may be appealed only if the > appelants are asking for a change in their own score or > standing. Appeals brought by players who ask for no redress, but are > simply trying to deny the the other side the windfall created by their > infraction, serve nobody, and we would do well to eliminate them. While Eric's main idea is worthy of debate, it wouldn't affect this case. The event was a knockout team match, so changing the other side's score could affect the result of the match. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue May 13 15:44:32 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:44:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <3853694.1052837072096.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >If I remember correctly, one of East-West is a regular contributor to blml, so I'm with child (as they used to say) to see his response. Neither Priday nor Sandqvist contributes to BLML, as far as I am aware. I was on the England team, but was sitting out for the set of boards in question. When asked my opinion, I said: "NS -170 and a fine for cheating [5D], EW -950 and a bigger fine for worse cheating [double]." Mind you, in the first set of the match the NS pair produced another auction in which one of them passed his partner's forcing bid because he'd forgotten the system, so when the auction was reopened, his partner carefully jumped to game. NS a bigger fine still for repeated cheating might therefore also have formed part of the judgement. The match was all over and the result on this board didn't matter a whole lot, so I expect the actual ruling was because no one wanted to accuse anyone else of cheating. Happens all the time. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue May 13 15:57:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:57:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <612522.1052837878591.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Steve wrote: >While Eric's main idea is worthy of debate, it wouldn't affect this case. The event was a knockout team match, so changing the other side's score could affect the result of the match. Not exactly. The event was part of the Camrose series, a round robin among the national teams of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Changing the other side's score could (and would) affect the number of victory points scored by both teams in this particular round robin match, so constituted perfectly sensible grounds for appeal. In any case, I would consider it part of one's responsibility as a contestant to ensure that possible irregularities at one's table are brought to the attention of the proper authorities. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 13 16:14:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling Message-ID: <200305131514.LAA10553@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Reformatted without tabs. Hope I've got it right. I have no comment on the content. ----- Begin Included Message ----- From: Herman De Wael Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:28:19 +0200 Last friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the players my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. In stead, I would let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed one of the players to blml so that he can read along. board 20 (W/All) AK7 102 1092 108654 Q532 1096 AQ8754 63 753 AQJ864 - 32 J84 KJ9 K AKQJ97 The bidding: W N E S P P P 1NT 2D P P 3C P 4C P P P The facts: South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club was not important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put among the diamonds, which explains the singleton. East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, but East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which time I was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping under the Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one down. Dummy did not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a spade if he does ruff this. Rulings: I tried very hard to find something to give to the NOS. 1) North has been given MI, but his diamond and heart holdings are almost equal, so why should he act differently over 2Di alerted? 2) East has forgotten the new system, but we cannot blame him for passing a transfer. It's a bit strange not to raise with that six-card suit, but absent any infraction, what can we do? (I have no doubt as to East-West's honesty - a mediocre pair to say the least) 3) South has MI, so he must interpret that East has very good diamonds (actually true). His call of 3Cl was, according to him, based on his six-card suit and his now rediscovered singleton. 4) West has UI that East believes 2Di to be natural. Could we force a 3Di on him? That one is maybe the toughest! 5) North still has MI about the location of the heart and diamond suits, but his 4Cl bid is not based on this MI. 6) West has to lead something. The bidding tells him that partner has long diamonds, with UI (the non-alert) to suggest that this is not true. A non-diamond lead is the suggested alternative, so the diamond lead cannot be ruled against. 7) East sees the diamond king drop. This cannot be a doubleton (certainly not in the eyes of this player) and (actual quote) "they do open 1NT with everything these days". A spade or club return cannot be good, so the heart stands out a mile, even with the UI. Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the NOS any redress. Comments? -- 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 ----- End Included Message ----- From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue May 13 16:50:46 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 08:50:46 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling References: <200305131514.LAA10553@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:28:19 +0200 > > Last friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the > players my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. In > stead, I would let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed one of > the players to blml so that he can read along. > > board 20 (W/All) > AK7 > 102 > 1092 > 108654 > Q532 1096 > AQ8754 63 > 753 AQJ864 > - 32 > J84 > KJ9 > K > AKQJ97 > The bidding: > W N E S > P P P 1NT > 2D P P 3C > P 4C P P > P > > The facts: > South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club was not > important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put among the diamonds, > which explains the singleton. > > East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, but > East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which time > I was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. > West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping under the > Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one down. Dummy did > not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a spade if he does > ruff this. > > Rulings: > I tried very hard to find something to give to the NOS. > 1) North has been given MI, but his diamond and heart holdings are > almost equal, so why should he act differently over 2Di alerted? > 2) East has forgotten the new system, but we cannot blame him for > passing a transfer. It's a bit strange not to raise with that six-card > suit, but absent any infraction, what can we do? (I have no doubt as > to East-West's honesty - a mediocre pair to say the least) > 3) South has MI, so he must interpret that East has very good diamonds > (actually true). His call of 3Cl was, according to him, based on his > six-card suit and his now rediscovered singleton. > 4) West has UI that East believes 2Di to be natural. Could we force a > 3Di on him? That one is maybe the toughest! > 5) North still has MI about the location of the heart and diamond > suits, but his 4Cl bid is not based on this MI. > 6) West has to lead something. The bidding tells him that partner has > long diamonds, with UI (the non-alert) to suggest that this is not > true. A non-diamond lead is the suggested alternative, so the diamond > lead cannot be ruled against. > 7) East sees the diamond king drop. This cannot be a doubleton > (certainly not in the eyes of this player) and (actual quote) "they do > open 1NT with everything these days". A spade or club return cannot be > good, so the heart stands out a mile, even with the UI. > > Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the NOS any redress. > > Comments? K: As a player, I have trouble defining NS as the NOS, they look to me to be the OS although they may not have broken any laws. They opened 1NT with a singleton AND a six card good suit. (no law broken) Subsequently, NT-opener bidding again and breaking partnership (no law broken, one can break partnership and bid again having opened 1NT) . North raised clubs having first passed the overcall - I don't see why (but no law broken). As to EW, playing transfer overcalls, the long diamond hand might well attempt to play in diamonds even remembering their system. And based on fact that the diamond hand didn't bid some number of diamonds in third seat, makes me think this EW is not an experienced pair. Then they gave UI in an attempt to be honest and telling they forgot system, which is easy to do for an inexperienced player trying to be honest and not realizing that "honesty" here is UI. I don't envy the director's job on this one, but would love to see EW let off with education and give NS no redress of any kind. Actual defense is logical and sound, UI or not, therefore NS was not damaged because of UI, but rather because of their own actions. Best regards Kaima From gillp@bigpond.com Tue May 13 17:30:53 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 02:30:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <006301c3196d$08e71f00$cd8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> David Burn wrote: >Neither Priday nor Sandqvist contributes to BLML, as far as >I am aware. I was on the England team, but was sitting out for >the set of boards in question. So this was all the fault of the English npc. See what chaos results when one sits out Burn and (?) Callaghan. :) >When asked my opinion, I said: >"NS -170 and a fine for cheating [5D], EW -950 and a bigger >fine for worse cheating [double]." I don't think the Double was "worse cheating". My current Australian partner, who was in the Australian team in Maastricht, often spec doubles, so I will see whether he'd evalaute the East hand as a normal Double on the actual auction. If I remember, I will ask him at bridge tonight. Assuming that N/S do not have a WBF Convention Card filled in with "Never Ever" or "Absolutely Not" in the Psyches Box, then one would expect North not to take advantage of South's failure to alert. I also think it is reasonable for East to assume that North has done his duty correctly, i.e. that North really has a hand that bids 2D then 5D. Yes, I have seen people bid like this. A typical hand would be Jx, J, Kxxxx, Axxxx. Not wanting a correction to 3NT, some people avoid bidding 3D on such hands. Then, expecting the auction not to die in 2D, they bid 5D later. Doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen. Does this fit with the actual hand, from East's point of view? Yes.... If N/S are playing five card majors (unlikely but possible for a Welsh pair), South could have KQxx, KQxx, Qxx, Kx. West could then have A10xx, 10xxxx, A10x, Q. On Problem 4 of Bidding Forum in Australian Bridge magazine's April 2003 edition, Marshall Miles, after Pass Pass 1D, passed with AQJ9, J8742, K7, 92, nil vul. Repeat - nil vul, whereas WBU 2002 Number 4 is both vul. Andrew Robson and Al Roth considered Passing as a serious option and even Larry Cohen mentioned Pass as if it were an option. David Grabiner wrote: >>The double appears wild or gambling to me. East knows that >>West does not have sufficient values to act directly over 2D, East "knows" no such thing. There are a myriad of possible reasons why West might have passed. Some such reasons are - the unsuitable vulnerability, poor suit quality, being of such a venerable age that the 2002 Official Bridge Encyclopedia mistakenly describes him as "deceased", not having Michaels available (an unlikely but possible reason), even that West has a 4=4=5=0 shape and can deduce partner's void after 2D (should East trust N/S to have sorted their cards correctly or trust his partner?). Why sould East not trust that West's 3D call in preference to X really shows the values to compete vulnerable to the three level when Double followed by a correction to 3H seems more apt on a hand like the one West actually had. >>and East has only one defensive trick. If West had both majors >>and two defensive tricks, he would probably have overcalled, >>bid 2D, or doubled on the first round. "probably", you say. Probably! Because something would probably happen, it is wild or gambling to think that it might not have happened? Jack Rhind wrote: >>>This is a team match and E/W do not know their opponents' >>>general methods? Doesn't anybody smell something fishy here? >>>Do you really sit down against opponents in a team match and >>>not bother to ascertain their general methods? Yes I do, if by "general methods" you mean whether I know that they play Inverted Minor Raises. Believe it or not, I often know even less about my opponents' system than they do, and in this case N/S didn't seem to know much about what they were doing. Ok, so I wouldn't Double 5D in the East seat, but I know lots of people who IMO would double 5D. I think BLML is being way too tough on the actual AC. Peter Gill Australia. >> Teams Match >> Board no 26 >> Dealer East >> All vulnerable >> A >> J93 >> AQT74 >> QT63 >> QJ763 984 >> KT652 A87 >> 5 J3 >> 82 J9754 >> KT52 >> Q4 >> K9862 >> AK >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass 1D >> Pass 2D Pass Pass >> 3D 5D Dbl Pass >> Pass Pass >> >> Result at table: >> 5D doubled +1 by South, NS +950 >> >> Director first called: >> After dummy was spread >> >> Director's statement of facts: >> The failure to alert 2D was the reason for West's >> 3D bid. If West had known, by an alert, that 2D >> was game forcing he would have passed. N/S >> subsequently asked the TD to consider whether the >> double of 5D was "wild or gambling". The director >> did not feel that this was the case, and was >> irrelevant to his ruling. >> >> Director's ruling: >> Score assigned for both sides: >> 2D +4 by South, NS +170 >> >> Note by editor: >> This is from an international match Wales v England. >> >> Appeal lodged by: >> North-South >> >> Comments by North-South: >> North South accept that their score should be +170, >> but feel that the final double of 5D was wild and >> gambling and that East West should keep their score >> of -950 arising from this. >> >> Appeals Committee decision: >> Director's ruling upheld >> No deposit taken >> >> Appeals Committee's comments: >> The Committee does not consider double to be wild and >> gambling. The action was neither. From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Tue May 13 17:34:15 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:34:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: dalburn@btopenworld.com Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 13/05/03 16:44 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 >If I remember correctly, one of East-West is a regular contributor to=20 blml, so I'm with child (as they used to say) to see his response. Neither Priday nor Sandqvist contributes to BLML, as far as I am aware. I=20 was on the England team, but was sitting out for the set of boards in=20 question. When asked my opinion, I said: "NS -170 and a fine for cheating=20 [5D], EW -950 and a bigger fine for worse cheating [double]."=20 *** there must be something you didn't disclose; N made a forcing bid, saw his = partner pass, guessed his partner took it wrong, was given another chance=20 and tried to place the contract: which law did he break? was there any UI? = why do you think he cheated? and on east's side: i think he thought the contract could be beaten when=20 he doubled, i think he knew there was a td in the room and people apt to=20 sit on AC not so far away. maybe he showed poor judgment but do you think=20 he deliberately chose his call only to annoy everybody around? what=20 species of cheat did he show? maybe a masochist one wishing to show the=20 whole world how far opponents' failures to alert could lead him to display = silliness? jp rocafort ***=20 Mind you, in the first set of the match the NS pair produced another=20 auction in which one of them passed his partner's forcing bid because he'd = forgotten the system, so when the auction was reopened, his partner=20 carefully jumped to game. NS a bigger fine still for repeated cheating=20 might therefore also have formed part of the judgement. The match was all=20 over and the result on this board didn't matter a whole lot, so I expect=20 the actual ruling was because no one wanted to accuse anyone else of=20 cheating. Happens all the time. 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue May 13 17:50:48 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:50:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <1334501.1052844648444.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> J-P R wrote: >there must be something you didn't disclose; N made a forcing bid, saw his partner pass, guessed his partner took it wrong, was given another chance and tried to place the contract: which law did he break? Law 16 and Law 73 >was there any UI? Of course. The auction began 1D - pass 2D. Partner did not alert 2D as inverted before passing it. So North knew South had a real opening but had forgotten the system, and not an ultra-light or psychic opening with which he had viewed deliberately to pass a forcing bid. >why do you think he cheated? Because he cheated. He knowingly used information from his partner's extraneous action - information to which he knew that he was not entitled - for the benefit of his side. >and on east's side: i think he thought the contract could be beaten when he doubled I think he was hoping that if the contract did not go down, it would be adjudged not to have been the contract. I base this on no more than the fact that East told me that this was what he was doing. But of course, this is hearsay evidence only; far greater weight should be given to the speculations of BLML contributors, for these are known to be more valuable than facts. East, who played most of his international bridge in the days when the rules were (a) not quite the same as today's and (b) perhaps less widely discussed, believed that his action was entirely legitimate; when told that it was these days considered suspect, he was utterly horrified and greatly dismayed. >but do you think he deliberately chose his call only to annoy everybody around? No. He thought it was a legal manoeuvre. He is not in the habit of deliberately annoying people at the table; he is one of Nature's gentlemen, and he was aghast to find that his ploy was not according to Hoyle. >what species of cheat did he show? Oh, he wasn't actually cheating. He didn't know the rules. He does now, and he won't do it again. David Burn London, England From jrhind@therock.bm Tue May 13 18:11:54 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:11:54 -0300 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: <1334501.1052844648444.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: David's comments below bear out what has been my feeling all along. Namely that East was taking a double shot at a good result. According I would give EW the table result, which I believe they richly deserve, and NS +170. Regards, Jack On 5/13/03 1:50 PM, "dalburn@btopenworld.com" wrote: > J-P R wrote: > >> there must be something you didn't disclose; N made a forcing bid, saw his >> partner pass, guessed his partner took it wrong, was given another chance and >> tried to place the contract: which law did he break? > > Law 16 and Law 73 > >> was there any UI? > > Of course. The auction began 1D - pass 2D. Partner did not alert 2D as > inverted before passing it. So North knew South had a real opening but had > forgotten the system, and not an ultra-light or psychic opening with which he > had viewed deliberately to pass a forcing bid. > >> why do you think he cheated? > > Because he cheated. He knowingly used information from his partner's > extraneous action - information to which he knew that he was not entitled - > for the benefit of his side. > >> and on east's side: i think he thought the contract could be beaten when he >> doubled > > I think he was hoping that if the contract did not go down, it would be > adjudged not to have been the contract. I base this on no more than the fact > that East told me that this was what he was doing. But of course, this is > hearsay evidence only; far greater weight should be given to the speculations > of BLML contributors, for these are known to be more valuable than facts. > East, who played most of his international bridge in the days when the rules > were (a) not quite the same as today's and (b) perhaps less widely discussed, > believed that his action was entirely legitimate; when told that it was these > days considered suspect, he was utterly horrified and greatly dismayed. > >> but do you think he deliberately chose his call only to annoy everybody >> around? > > No. He thought it was a legal manoeuvre. He is not in the habit of > deliberately annoying people at the table; he is one of Nature's gentlemen, > and he was aghast to find that his ploy was not according to Hoyle. > >> what species of cheat did he show? > > Oh, he wasn't actually cheating. He didn't know the rules. He does now, and he > won't do it again. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 13 18:35:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:35:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The strangest ruling In-Reply-To: <3EC0E4E3.3050505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030513191902.01d3de20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:28 13/05/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Last friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the players >my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. In stead, I would >let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed one of the players to >blml so that he can read along. > >board 20 (W/All) > AK7 > 102 > 1092 > 108654 >Q532 1096 >AQ8754 63 >753 AQJ864 >- 32 > J84 > KJ9 > K > AKQJ97 >The bidding: >W N E S >P P P 1NT >2Di P P 3Cl >P 4Cl P P >P > >The facts: >South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club was not >important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put among the diamonds, >which explains the singleton. >East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, but >East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which time I >was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. >West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping under the >Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one down. AG : this should be a fair score to N/S. >Dummy did not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a spade if he >does ruff this. > >Rulings: >I tried very hard to find something to give to the NOS. >1) North has been given MI, but his diamond and heart holdings are almost >equal, so why should he act differently over 2Di alerted? AG : this is not obvious. My system calls for a bid or double with medium hands, on transfers, so that I would have bid over a transfer 2D (most probably a "sputnik" 2H) but not over a natural 2D. If N/S state they play that way, you have to examine the consequences. It is not uncommon to play wholly different defenses to natural and transfer overcalls, using the extra space provided by the transfer. >2) East has forgotten the new system, but we cannot blame him for passing >a transfer. It's a bit strange not to raise with that six-card suit, but >absent any infraction, what can we do? (I have no doubt as to East-West's >honesty - a mediocre pair to say the least) AG : Does your newly inscribed correspondent read this ? East did not break any rule in passing 2D, but it's strange. One possibility (perhaps not with this pair, but to be taken into account in the general case) is that East knew (or thought) it was natural, thus did not alert, and then decided that "surely a wheel has come loose, considering my holding" and passed. This is legal. Another possibility is that East didn't know whether 2D was natural or artificial, and therefore did not alert (most probably the best attitude), then decided it was not natural and didn't "raise" it. Not incorrect either, apart from possible MI. You should have asked him why he didn't raise and decided whether to believe him. >3) South has MI, so he must interpret that East has very good diamonds >(actually true). His call of 3Cl was, according to him, based on his >six-card suit and his now rediscovered singleton. AG : rediscovered singleton or not, South's bid is reasonable ... and of course it is no incorrection. (I would perhaps have opened 1NT even after seeing the singleton, so WTP ?) >4) West has UI that East believes 2Di to be natural. Could we force a 3Di >on him? That one is maybe the toughest! AG : say that East alerted, then passed 2D. This is what he'd have done on one fewer heart and one more club. In this case, there is something to be said in favor of a 3D bid by West (more than something !). Not bidding 3D is suggested by the non-alert, therefore not doing so could be considered an infraction. Indeed. Serendipitously, bidding 3D would have been a good idea. >5) North still has MI about the location of the heart and diamond suits, >but his 4Cl bid is not based on this MI. AG : reasonable. >6) West has to lead something. The bidding tells him that partner has long >diamonds, with UI (the non-alert) to suggest that this is not true. A >non-diamond lead is the suggested alternative, so the diamond lead cannot >be ruled against. AG : as a matter of fact, only the D lead would be allowed. >7) East sees the diamond king drop. This cannot be a doubleton (certainly >not in the eyes of this player) and (actual quote) "they do open 1NT with >everything these days". A spade or club return cannot be good, so the >heart stands out a mile, even with the UI. AG : indeed. No LA. >Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the NOS any redress. AG : so what ? The infraction of MI did not damage NS. The (posible) infraction of not bidding 3D as West gave N/S a better score than expected, or at least the same score (4T over 3D would have been obvious) No damage, no redress, but a lecture to West on UI and his non-3D bid (and a PP if he's a competent player). Had East been relatively short in D, you would have to consider the effects of West's 3D bid and award an adjusted score based on these effects. >Comments? AG : yes. From gillp@bigpond.com Tue May 13 18:20:19 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 03:20:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling Message-ID: <008a01c31973$f0f61b60$cd8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Steve Willner formatted: Thanks Steve. >Herman De Wael wrote: >Last Friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the >players my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. and it wasn't even Friday the 13th? >Instead, I would let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed >one of the players to blml so that he can read along. > >board 20 (W/All) > AK7 > 102 > 1092 > 108654 >Q532 1096 >AQ8754 63 >753 AQJ864 >- 32 > J84 > KJ9 > K > AKQJ97 > >W N E S >P P P 1NT >2D P P 3C >P 4C P P >P > >South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club >was not important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put >among the diamonds, which explains the singleton. > >East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, >but East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which >time I was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. >West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping >under the Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one >down. Dummy did not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a >spade if he does ruff this. The only possible adjusted scores seems to be diamond contracts by E/W failing (e.g. 4D which North would double, D lead to K, spade, diamond, club ruff [yes], spade to J, spade and club cashed, 500 to N/S) or 3NT making by South. Had South not done his missorting thing, he might have a chance of 600 or 630 to N/S, as he might reopen with 2NT with his heart stopper, raised to 3NT by North. However as he appears probably to have had Kx in both red suits, there was probably no difference between his red suit holdings at that time, so he would bid clubs regardless of which red suit he thought West had. Even on a diamond lead East might insert the jack to maintain communications, allowing 3NT to make, but I would ignore that due to South's mis-sort making his potential 2NT call too unlikely. While West might compete to 3D, I don't think he would compete to 4D vulnerable. Thus I would let the result stand as no damage occurred. I would also gently let E/W know about the correct timing for corrections of mistaken explanations. It is a bit odd that South downgraded the ultra-excellent hand of J8x, KJ, K9, AKQJ9x down to 17 points. To me, that hand looks more like a 2NT opening than a 1Nt opening! Had South thought he had Jxx, KJx, K, AKQJxx and downgraded the hand due to the bare king and thus opened 1NT as one does, then he would have a very good chance of being awarded 3NT IMO, but it seems that that is not what happened. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 13 18:44:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:44:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling In-Reply-To: <008a01c31973$f0f61b60$cd8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030513194334.00a34280@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:20 14/05/2003 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >It is a bit odd that South downgraded the ultra-excellent hand >of J8x, KJ, K9, AKQJ9x down to 17 points. To me, that hand looks >more like a 2NT opening than a 1Nt opening! Had South thought >he had Jxx, KJx, K, AKQJxx and downgraded the hand due to the >bare king and thus opened 1NT as one does, then he would have >a very good chance of being awarded 3NT IMO, but it seems that >that is not what happened. AG : just guessing : South saw Jxx - KJx - K - AKQJx and didn't dare say it. From gillp@bigpond.com Tue May 13 18:41:00 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 03:41:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <00f201c31976$d4be9140$cd8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Someone wrote: >>and on east's side: i think he thought the contract could be >>beaten when he doubled David Burn trumped with: >I think he was hoping that if the contract did not go down, it would >be adjudged not to have been the contract. I base this on no more >than the fact that East told me that this was what he was doing. Please cancel part of my previous submission to BLML - the part which appropriately began wirth "I don't think"! I have reproduced the rest of David's post just in case some people missed it the first time. David Burn's endplay was: >But of course, this is hearsay evidence only; far greater weight >should be given to the speculations of BLML contributors, for these >are known to be more valuable than facts. East, who played most >of his international bridge in the days when the rules were (a) not >quite the same as today's and (b) perhaps less widely discussed, >believed that his action was entirely legitimate; when told that it >was these days considered suspect, he was utterly horrified and >greatly dismayed. > >>but do you think he deliberately chose his call only to annoy >everybody around? > >No. He thought it was a legal manoeuvre. He is not in the habit of >deliberately annoying people at the table; he is one of Nature's >gentlemen, and he was aghast to find that his ploy was not >according to Hoyle. > >>what species of cheat did he show? > >Oh, he wasn't actually cheating. He didn't know the rules. He does >now, and he won't do it again. > >David Burn >London, England From svenpran@online.no Tue May 13 22:30:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 23:30:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling In-Reply-To: <200305131514.LAA10553@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c31996$e250a2b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I cannot help feeling that the entire TD approach in this incident must = have been wrong, quote: "I tried very hard to find something to give to the = NOS". The questions you should ask are: 1: Has there been a violation of law(s) and if so which? 2: Has such violation damaged the opponents of the offender in any way? Only when both questions are answered affirmative is a redress in order; this is so elementary that I feel ashamed of calling attention to it. Here it appears to me that possibly question 1 is asked in seven = different ways (I am not even convinced that all seven questions concerns the existence of an irregularity); but I fail to see any question 2. Maybe this is the real reason why you failed in finding "something to = give to NOS"? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Willner > Sent: 13. mai 2003 17:15 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling >=20 > Reformatted without tabs. Hope I've got it right. I have no > comment on the content. >=20 >=20 > ----- Begin Included Message ----- >=20 > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:28:19 +0200 >=20 > Last friday, I had a ruling which was so complex that I told the > players my decision, and that they were not allowed to appeal. In > stead, I would let you lot decide upon it and I even s*bscribed one of > the players to blml so that he can read along. >=20 > board 20 (W/All) > AK7 > 102 > 1092 > 108654 > Q532 1096 > AQ8754 63 > 753 AQJ864 > - 32 > J84 > KJ9 > K > AKQJ97 > The bidding: > W N E S > P P P 1NT > 2D P P 3C > P 4C P P > P >=20 > The facts: > South's 1NT was 15-17, five-card minor possible. The sixth club was = not > important, says South, and the 9 of hearts was put among the diamonds, > which explains the singleton. >=20 > East-West had recently changed from natural to transfer overcalls, but > East had forgotten this. West said this before the lead, at which time > I was called. I told them to play on, and told East that this was UI. > West led a small diamond, and East noticed the King dropping under the > Ace. East switched to hearts and the contract went one down. Dummy did > not ruff the third heart, but declarer must lose a spade if he does > ruff this. >=20 > Rulings: > I tried very hard to find something to give to the NOS. > 1) North has been given MI, but his diamond and heart holdings are > almost equal, so why should he act differently over 2Di alerted? > 2) East has forgotten the new system, but we cannot blame him for > passing a transfer. It's a bit strange not to raise with that six-card > suit, but absent any infraction, what can we do? (I have no doubt as > to East-West's honesty - a mediocre pair to say the least) > 3) South has MI, so he must interpret that East has very good diamonds > (actually true). His call of 3Cl was, according to him, based on his > six-card suit and his now rediscovered singleton. > 4) West has UI that East believes 2Di to be natural. Could we force a > 3Di on him? That one is maybe the toughest! > 5) North still has MI about the location of the heart and diamond > suits, but his 4Cl bid is not based on this MI. > 6) West has to lead something. The bidding tells him that partner has > long diamonds, with UI (the non-alert) to suggest that this is not > true. A non-diamond lead is the suggested alternative, so the diamond > lead cannot be ruled against. > 7) East sees the diamond king drop. This cannot be a doubleton > (certainly not in the eyes of this player) and (actual quote) "they do > open 1NT with everything these days". A spade or club return cannot be > good, so the heart stands out a mile, even with the UI. >=20 > Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the NOS any redress. >=20 > Comments? >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > ----- End Included Message ----- >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 13 23:31:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:31:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: [snip] >Appeals brought by players who ask for no >redress, but are simply trying to deny the >other side the windfall created by their >infraction, serve nobody, and we would do >well to eliminate them. > >Eric Landau I totally agree with Eric as a matter of principle. However, in this specific case, the setting was a home international match between England and Wales. The appealing side, while not trying to get direct redress, was hoping to get indirect redress via the rule for non-balancing adjustments, knockout play, Law 86B. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 00:09:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:09:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: David Burn wrote: [snip] >I think he was hoping that if the contract did >not go down, it would be adjudged not to have >been the contract. I base this on no more than >the fact that East told me that this was what >he was doing. But of course, this is hearsay >evidence only; far greater weight should be >given to the speculations of BLML contributors, >for these are known to be more valuable than >facts. [snip] But the fact provided by David Burn is an irrelevant fact. Merely because East himself believed that his double was an irrational, wild or gambling double-shot does *not* necessarily mean that the double was in actuality an irrational, wild or gambling double-shot. Blml speculation is also lawfully irrelevant. But the TD and AC decision is the Law. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue May 13 23:21:07 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:21:07 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric sayeth: > >Appeals brought by players who ask for no > >redress, but are simply trying to deny the > >other side the windfall created by their > >infraction, serve nobody, and we would do > >well to eliminate them. I agree that players appealing just to reduce their opponents' score isn't a good thing. However, I am wary of any tampering with the "any ruling may be appealed" rule: at a minimum, the replacement needs to specify something to the effect that a player has the right to appeal any ruling in which he believes the director has misapplied the law -- in lower-level games where we sometimes get directors who won't be bothered to open the rule book before they speak, especially, this right needs to be protected. I am not sure there is a way to maintain that right, without also allowing the appeal of everything else under the sun. Given the choice, I would rather see the right maintained, and deal with the occasional frivolous appeal by other means. GRB From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed May 14 00:29:52 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:29:52 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Claim frequency vs scoring Message-ID: I have often heard a sentiment expressed that it is right to claim more often / earlier at IMPs than at matchpoints "because the overtricks don't matter." 1. Does anyone feel there is any lawful basis for this attitude? I can't find one; assuming your answer is also no, then 2a. Is a person who claims fewer tricks than he would have actually taken had he played the hand out carefully doing anything wrong? (Claiming 2 tricks from his AKT without waiting to see if the QJ will fall doubleton, for example) Seems the answer to this is also no - but I am not altogether happy with that, because it does impose an extra obligation on the non-claiming side, checking for L72A2 compliance instead of just accepting the claims. 2b. Is a person who claims all the tricks he hopes to win, but in fact has only a 90% chance (or 95, or 98, or 99.9) of winning doing anything wrong, assuming he is willing have the director called and give back a trick on those rare occasions he doesn't get the 4-1 or better break (or whatever) that he is hoping for? It "feels" like the answer is yes -- but I can't actually find anything in the laws to forbid someone from deliberately making an uncertain claim and an inadequate statement, if they are winning to pay the L70-prescribed price when things don't work. It deeply offends my personal sense of ethics to see someone claim something they don't know if they are entitled to - but what stops them? Is there any basis in law for fining someone who habitually claims without checking for bad breaks, beyond taking away the tricks he couldn't have won? GRB From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 14 02:30:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 02:30:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: <022c01c319b8$71a32520$c15c27d9@pbncomputer> I wrote: Mind you, in the first set of the match the NS pair produced another auction in which one of them passed his partner's forcing bid because he'd forgotten the system, so when the auction was reopened, his partner carefully jumped to game. Well, this was the case. Game all, dealer South: A2 84 AQ732 8762 J9 KQ876 AJ65 K10732 KJ864 109 J9 A 10543 Q9 5 KQ10543 West North East South Burn Callaghan Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2C (1) Dble (2) Pass Pass 2H (3) Pass Pass 3C (4) 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted, no explanation sought at this point (2) Clubs (3) Intended as forcing, not so interpreted (4) After asking West about the auction, and being told that 2C "initiated invitational sequences; 2D would have been an artificial game force." The actual method was that 2C was the only way to create a force; 2D was to play in two diamonds. Yes, yes, I know. You would all have bid clubs with the South hand earlier in the auction. But you didn't, and you're not an idiot for not doing so. And yes, I know. You would not have reopened the auction with my hand, geniuses that you all are. But, if you can, just forget about how good at bridge you are (even you, Japp). Do you think that East's 4H bid even began to be justified? Do you think that I would have bid 3C if I had known that East thought that his 2H was forcing? David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 04:57:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:57:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: David Burn's burning questions: [big snip] >Do you think that East's 4H bid even began to be >justified? Yes. If East had announced at the beginning of the match that, "In my extended experience with my partner, pard has never psyched," as required by Law 75A, then AI to East is that pard is confused rather than perpetrating a psyche. >Do you think that I would have bid 3C if I had >known that East thought that his 2H was forcing? No. If East-West have a partnership agreement that 2H is forcing, then if I were East, I would have alerted West's Pass. Upon Burn's enquiry, I would have told Burn that pard had passed a forcing bid. If, on the other hand, as East I had perpetrated a systemically non-forcing bid by mistake, then it is tant pis to a Burnian balancer. Off-topic note: For a supposedly high-level event, there seems to be a number of partnerships (not the Burn-Callaghan partnership) who appear to discuss their bidding system only every February 29th. I am therefore developing slightly more sympathy for the suggestion Grattan floated a while ago, that lack of system preparation for a high-level event could or should be an infraction. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 05:11:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:11:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claim frequency vs scoring Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >I have often heard a sentiment expressed that it is >right to claim more often / earlier at IMPs than at >matchpoints "because the overtricks don't matter." > >1. Does anyone feel there is any lawful basis for >this attitude? Yes. Law 90B2, prohibiting unduly slow play by a contestant. My regular partner is medium-slow, so I often claim my contract rather than search for a possible 1 imp overtrick - especially since a slow play penalty is usually greater than 1 imp. [big snip] Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 05:33:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:33:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: The strangest ruling Message-ID: [big snip] >Seven possible rulings, and none of them give the >NOS any redress. > >Comments? > >Herman DE WAEL I agree with Sven - no damage, no score adjustment. I might consider a small PP on West for infracting the timing constraints of Law 75D2. However, since I suspect that an inexperienced West was merely trying to be helpful with their premature correction, I would probably educate West instead. Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed May 14 08:32:58 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:32:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: The answer on your first question isn't of any importance if the answer on your second question is 'no'. And my answer is. In the NBB North having received the actual information is entitled to know the system agreements of EW therewith realising the misunderstanding. So the contract to be played is 2H (and I might let East loose 4 tricks finessing the HQ over North or not playing the HK on the third round of diamonds, hoping 4H to be one off). I feel happy not to need the answer on your first question, since your suggestion that 4H can not be allowed is not obvious for me. I feel that a fair majority would bid so (game all!), but that is one of my weaknesses, not putting too strong restrictions when considering logical alternatives. Read my following message, a claim! ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 14 mei 2003 03:31 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: [blml] Put up or shut up > > > I wrote: > > Mind you, in the first set of the match the NS pair produced another > auction in which one of them passed his partner's forcing bid because > he'd forgotten the system, so when the auction was reopened, > his partner > carefully jumped to game. > > Well, this was the case. Game all, dealer South: > > A2 > 84 > AQ732 > 8762 > J9 KQ876 > AJ65 K10732 > KJ864 109 > J9 A > 10543 > Q9 > 5 > KQ10543 > > West North East South > Burn Callaghan > Pass > 1D Pass 1S Pass > 1NT Pass 2C (1) Dble (2) > Pass Pass 2H (3) Pass > Pass 3C (4) 4H Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Alerted, no explanation sought at this point (2) Clubs > (3) Intended > as forcing, not so interpreted (4) After asking West about > the auction, > and being told that 2C "initiated invitational sequences; 2D > would have > been an artificial game force." The actual method was that 2C was the > only way to create a force; 2D was to play in two diamonds. > > Yes, yes, I know. You would all have bid clubs with the South hand > earlier in the auction. But you didn't, and you're not an > idiot for not > doing so. And yes, I know. You would not have reopened the > auction with > my hand, geniuses that you all are. But, if you can, just forget about > how good at bridge you are (even you, Japp). Do you think > that East's 4H > bid even began to be justified? Do you think that I would > have bid 3C if > I had known that East thought that his 2H was forcing? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed May 14 08:47:22 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:47:22 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990017DC68@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric sayeth: > >Appeals brought by players who ask for no > >redress, but are simply trying to deny the > >other side the windfall created by their > >infraction, serve nobody, and we would do > >well to eliminate them. Gordon writes: I agree that players appealing just to reduce their opponents' score isn't a good thing. However, I am wary of any tampering with the "any ruling may be appealed" rule: at a minimum, the replacement needs to specify something to the effect that a player has the right to appeal any ruling in which he believes the director has misapplied the law -- in lower-level games where we sometimes get directors who won't be bothered to open the rule book before they speak, especially, this right needs to be protected. I am not sure there is a way to maintain that right, without also allowing the appeal of everything else under the sun. Given the choice, I would rather see the right maintained, and deal with the occasional frivolous appeal by other means. GRB ----- I abolutely disagree. In my opinion, if you believe the TD has awarded your= opponents a better score than they're entitled to, you should make an appe= al, also when this doesn't affect your own score on the board.=20 1. You compete against these opponents over a large numer og boards. Their result on the board might affect your own final result in the tournament. 2. You have an obligation to the rest of the field, whose results on this board, and final standings, are affected by your opponents result on this board. 3. As a principle, you should appeal any error made my a TD. To get correct results on the board, and to educate the TD. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 07:51:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:51:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Welsh wit Message-ID: In a thankyou note to WBU Appeals 2002 panellists, the Chair of the Welsh Law & Ethics committee wrote: "...It will be good to see whether, in the knowledge that there will be publicity, AC Chairmen will write notes of accuracy, interest, and humour in the future..." Some of the more singleminded panellists thought that Appeal number 11 was a waste of time. But it was my favourite appeal in the booklet, with a TD's wit squelching a North half-wit: Director's statement of facts: "The TD was called at the end of the auction by North who claimed he had a misexplanation of the opponents' system. The opening 1NT bid had been described as strong, but was in fact 14-17. North felt this was an inadequate explanation. The TD said the hand would have to be played out, and North should call him back at the end of the hand if he was unhappy. The TD was called back, and North asked to appeal the ruling. The TD said he hadn't given a ruling yet, would he like one now?" Best wishes Richard From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed May 14 09:51:15 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:51:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up References: <022c01c319b8$71a32520$c15c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002c01c319f5$ff2fa3e0$862f4451@Default> David: > Yes, yes, I know. You would all have bid clubs with the South hand > earlier in the auction. But you didn't, and you're not an idiot for not > doing so. And yes, I know. You would not have reopened the auction with > my hand, geniuses that you all are. But, if you can, just forget about > how good at bridge you are (even you, Japp). Stop whining and thanks for the honor. 1. Bidding or not bidding clubs earlier might be right or wrong, I have no problem either way (I am sure you know I would say/think so). 2. Reopening with your hand is quite normal. Actually I think it is close to automatic. I might have bid something the round before, but that might be right or wrong as usual when it comes to timing of competitive auctions. David: > Do you think that I would have bid 3C if I had known that East thought that his 2H was forcing? Stupid question. Of course you wouldn't. David: > Do you think that East's 4H bid even began to be justified? Well I have no problem with 4H itself (just like with 5D in the other case, despite your genial psyche argument). Opposite a weak NT this seems quite enough for game (anyway he had forced to game himself already). But I would 'always' rule this as MI rather than misbid. Just like the other case. But in the other case I consider the double completely crazy so I wouldn't protect the guy against his own double. By the way, what was the result. 4H might well be one off (although it seems normal to finesse against S on a D lead) in which case you probably where happy to have balanced them out of 2H. But don't worry, if 4H made I would restore this to 2H. In that case the discussion about 140 or 170 is rather academic. I would tend to give the same number of tricks as in real life unless there is a real argument the lead/play would be different when played at another level. Here I don't really see such a reason. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 3:30 AM Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up > I wrote: > > Mind you, in the first set of the match the NS pair produced another > auction in which one of them passed his partner's forcing bid because > he'd forgotten the system, so when the auction was reopened, his partner > carefully jumped to game. > > Well, this was the case. Game all, dealer South: > > A2 > 84 > AQ732 > 8762 > J9 KQ876 > AJ65 K10732 > KJ864 109 > J9 A > 10543 > Q9 > 5 > KQ10543 > > West North East South > Burn Callaghan > Pass > 1D Pass 1S Pass > 1NT Pass 2C (1) Dble (2) > Pass Pass 2H (3) Pass > Pass 3C (4) 4H Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Alerted, no explanation sought at this point (2) Clubs (3) Intended > as forcing, not so interpreted (4) After asking West about the auction, > and being told that 2C "initiated invitational sequences; 2D would have > been an artificial game force." The actual method was that 2C was the > only way to create a force; 2D was to play in two diamonds. > > Yes, yes, I know. You would all have bid clubs with the South hand > earlier in the auction. But you didn't, and you're not an idiot for not > doing so. And yes, I know. You would not have reopened the auction with > my hand, geniuses that you all are. But, if you can, just forget about > how good at bridge you are (even you, Japp). Do you think that East's 4H > bid even began to be justified? Do you think that I would have bid 3C if > I had known that East thought that his 2H was forcing? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed May 14 10:13:18 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:13:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All between clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each round and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks with in hand and in dummy: AJ Qx Jx -- xx KJx xx AQx saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs were indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the reason for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one trick already). At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we would have won. Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing that card at this moment should be considered normal play. I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent David. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Wed May 14 11:23:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:23:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up References: <022c01c319b8$71a32520$c15c27d9@pbncomputer> <002c01c319f5$ff2fa3e0$862f4451@Default> Message-ID: <3EC21927.6080407@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > David: > >>Do you think that I would have bid 3C if I had known that East thought >> > that his 2H was forcing? > > Stupid question. Of course you wouldn't. Wrong question! David, you are not entitled to know what East thought it meant. You are entitled to know what the system says it is. Now if we determine that 2H is indeed forcing, then that is what you will be told. You may then choose to believe that West has forgotten, or that West has an absolute minimum. If you believe the second, you might well bid again in order to push them to a higher, losing level. Please gentlemen, don't think I am in any way questioning your superior bridge skills. But don't start asking the wrong questions, please. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 14 12:09:10 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:09:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: <3949406.1052910550875.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > David, you are not entitled to know what East thought it meant. You are entitled to know what the system says it is. Supppose there was a screen. And suppose that West, my screenmate, told me that 2H was not forincg because that is what he thinks, when systemically it was forcing. Am I not "entitled" to that explanation? It is an infraction to act upon information to which one is not entitled, for such information cannot be authorised. Have I broken Law 16 because my opponent has misexplained his system? >Please gentlemen, don't think I am in any way questioning your superior bridge skills. But don't start asking the wrong questions. Herman, your insistence that I am not entitled to know that my opponents do not know their methods is (a) illegal in theory and (b) unworkable in practice. It leads, as I have shown above, to the ridiculous conclusion that if I am given a wrong explanation, I may be guilty of making use of unauthorised information. I am asking the right questions; please refrain from giving the wrong answers. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed May 14 12:45:35 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:45:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: > > Herman wrote: > > > David, you are not entitled to know what East thought it > meant. You are entitled to know what the system says it is. > Herman, your insistence that I am not entitled to know that > my opponents do not know their methods is (a) illegal in > theory and (b) unworkable in practice. It leads, as I have > shown above, to the ridiculous conclusion that if I am given > a wrong explanation, I may be guilty of making use of > unauthorised information. I am asking the right questions; > please refrain from giving the wrong answers. Herman is talking about East here, though he probably meant West. So his statement is right though probably wrong. Let me repeat. North is entitled to know what the partnership agreement is. He is not entitled to know what misconceptions the opponents might have about their part of the auction. But once a wrong explanation has been given, he should have been in the position to understand the misunderstanding. We talked about that before and Herman should be more reluctant in expressing his deviating opinion, even when he thinks that to be a statement from an AC. Once more this is not something an AC may decide, this is law and its interpretation. ton > David Burn From hermandw@skynet.be Wed May 14 14:29:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:29:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 References: Message-ID: <3EC244AE.5060608@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of > this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The > only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at > this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent > David. > Considering that you are appealing the decision it is not hard to guess what your opinion is. Sorry Ton, for me it's one off. > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed May 14 14:36:40 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:36:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: I said: > > > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an > opinion. Keep silent > > David. > > > Herman : > > Considering that you are appealing the decision it is not hard to > guess what your opinion is. > > Sorry Ton, for me it's one off. > David will be surprised about you once more I assume. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 14:58:50 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:58:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030514155717.01e53050@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:57 14/05/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >David Burn's burning questions: > >[big snip] > > >Do you think that East's 4H bid even began to be > >justified? > >Yes. If East had announced at the beginning of >the match that, "In my extended experience with my >partner, pard has never psyched," as required by >Law 75A, then AI to East is that pard is confused >rather than perpetrating a psyche. AG : do you mean that this information needs to be pre-alerted ? I would have thought that "never" in the "psyches" box of the CC would be enough. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 15:01:02 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:01:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim frequency vs scoring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030514160012.01e529a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:11 14/05/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Gordon Bower: > > >I have often heard a sentiment expressed that it is > >right to claim more often / earlier at IMPs than at > >matchpoints "because the overtricks don't matter." > > > >1. Does anyone feel there is any lawful basis for > >this attitude? > >Yes. Law 90B2, prohibiting unduly slow play by a >contestant. My regular partner is medium-slow, AG : mine is a spinner, i.e. his bidding makes my head spin. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 14 14:47:06 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:47:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 Message-ID: <3805916.1052920026218.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> > > Sorry Ton, for me it's one off. > David will be surprised about you once more I assume. Not in the least. Herman and I have this in common: we think some of the rules are bonkers, but we know what they are. Unless the jurisdiction in which this event is conducted specifies that "top down within suits" is the only "normal" line of play, the contract is... well, one down under the current bonkers laws; however many down it would be after losing SK and playing misere thereafter under sensible laws. Note: the EBU L&E has just enacted the "top down" guidance. It's my Committee, and I'll cry if I want to. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Wed May 14 15:42:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:42:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up References: <3949406.1052910550875.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3EC255BC.2020201@skynet.be> Yes David, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>David, you are not entitled to know what East thought it meant. You are entitled to know what the system says it is. >> > > Supppose there was a screen. yes - suppose. And suppose that West, my screenmate, told me that 2H was not forincg because that is what he thinks yes - suppose. , when systemically it was forcing. yes - suppose. Am I not "entitled" to that explanation? yes - you are. OK, so there you are, behind your screen with west, who explains to you that it is forcing, and he passes. What do you do? Might you not bid on to have them play a level higher? Perhaps you might not, but that is your call, not mine (as in TD). Or suppose you are on the other side of the screen, and East explains his own call as forcing. Yet you see a pass. Again you might call to lift them. What you are saying is that you would never call if you heard two explanations : one from East who believes it to be forcing AND one from West who believes it to be non-forcing. Now you don't call out of fear of pushing them to a makeable game. It is an infraction to act upon information to which one is not entitled, for such information cannot be authorised. Have I broken Law 16 because my opponent has misexplained his system? > > >>Please gentlemen, don't think I am in any way questioning your >> > superior bridge skills. But don't start asking the wrong questions. > > Herman, your insistence that I am not entitled to know that my opponents do not know their methods is (a) illegal in theory I am quite willing to debate that. As I have on many occasions. I don't seem to have any success in convincing you. Or the minority of others with the same view. and (b) unworkable in practice. That one I am not willing to debate. i have just shown you how it works. Put a screen in any position that you like and give just one explanation. See what you might do. It leads, as I have shown above, to the ridiculous conclusion that if I am given a wrong explanation, I may be guilty of making use of unauthorised information. I am asking the right questions; please refrain from giving the wrong answers. > You have shown no such thing. I did not understand your proof above. > 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 PeterEidt@t-online.de Wed May 14 16:17:44 2003 From: PeterEidt@t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:17:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] False explanation corrected after UI Message-ID: <000001c31a2b$fbaeaaf0$268be03e@barettigt.de> Dear blmlsts, the bidding begins (without interference from opps) North South 2 Dia 2 NT 3 Dia All bids are alerted and the opps ask for the meaning every time 2 Dia shows a Multi-hand with either weak two in majors or strong two in minors or some strong NT hand 2 NT is forcing with usually at least good opening values, maybe sometimes psychic with both majors 3 Dia is explained by South as strong with diamonds, whereafter North "gets a heard attack" Now North corrects to "sorry, shows WT in spades", and that is the systematic meaning of 3 Dia --- TD ! TD gives a warning to North, bidding goes on; they play anything (say 4 S +1) Are we as a TD supposed to find a non-making contract at the Level of 6 NT or higher (because Semiforcing + opening values gives slam) or whatelse is the correct procedure in such situations ? Best regards Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From cfgcs@eiu.edu Wed May 14 16:21:15 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:21:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030514101739.00aceec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 11:13 AM 5/14/03 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All between >clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 >oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the >highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is >playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each round >and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. > >One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks >with in hand and in dummy: > >AJ Qx >Jx -- >xx KJx >xx AQx > >saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs were >indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the reason >for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. >It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and >declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one >trick already). > >At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had >decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we >would have won. >Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of >this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The >only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at >this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing >that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > >I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent >David. > >ton Just to cancel out Herman's vote, I say contract made. Why on earth would anyone underplay the spade A with the spade J at this point? A doubleton K to the left of the A, or a singleton K to the right, and I have to rule down 1. But I think immediately underleading the A of spades is irrational. I'm sure David won't be surprised at my ruling. :) FWIW, Grant From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed May 14 17:34:02 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at May 14, 2003 09:09:13 AM Message-ID: <200305141634.MAA08678@gcpdb.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > David Burn wrote: > > [snip] > > >I think he was hoping that if the contract did > >not go down, it would be adjudged not to have > >been the contract. I base this on no more than > >the fact that East told me that this was what > >he was doing. But of course, this is hearsay > >evidence only; far greater weight should be > >given to the speculations of BLML contributors, > >for these are known to be more valuable than > >facts. I wonder. Did the AC have this info? I know I would have liked to have known this when writing my comments. > > [snip] > > But the fact provided by David Burn is an > irrelevant fact. Merely because East himself > believed that his double was an irrational, > wild or gambling double-shot does *not* > necessarily mean that the double was in > actuality an irrational, wild or gambling > double-shot. It does however mean that East was attempting a double shot. A good result or a (potentially) successsful protest. Though I don't like them, I can't find anything in the Laws that outlaws this. > Blml speculation is also lawfully irrelevant. > > But the TD and AC decision is the Law. And the AC has do do the best they can with the information they have. > > Best wishes > > Richard > -- Ron Johnson (Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca), 613-947-5285 facsimile / tilicopieur 613-947-1408 Canada Center for Remote Sensing/ Centre Canadien de teledetection Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y7 Ressources naturelles Canada, 588 rue Booth, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0Y7 Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed May 14 22:55:08 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 23:55:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal 'against opps' References: Message-ID: <015801c31a63$a6600160$7c3a4451@Default> > Eric sayeth: > > > >Appeals brought by players who ask for no > > >redress, but are simply trying to deny the > > >other side the windfall created by their > > >infraction, serve nobody, and we would do > > >well to eliminate them. The very use of the word windfall is a very good argument that the above is rubbish. Come on. If the TD gives a nice split score of say 80-80 at pairs or +10-+10 at teams nobody at the table will appeal but the others will cry foul. This is extreme (but I remember some infamous cases) but it is a well known problem. A contender (someone who might win the tournament) against a non-contender. The non-contender doesn't care, just goes home or so, and the contenders win their appeal in a very 'nice' way (with consequences for the overall ranking). Now a good non-contender might go to the AC hearing and will even appeal if requested be other contenders (those that lose their 1st, 2nd, 3th place or whatever by the ruling). In real life you seldom can expect the non-contenders to do so. IMO a TD should appeal against himself in such a case (as long as the real contenders have no right to appeal). But even more general. If someone thinks the ruling is wrong why the hell is it a good idea 'to eliminate them'. It serves nobody? Are you crazy? It serves all the other pairs in the room that are damaged if the ruling is no good. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 > > > Eric sayeth: > > > >Appeals brought by players who ask for no > > >redress, but are simply trying to deny the > > >other side the windfall created by their > > >infraction, serve nobody, and we would do > > >well to eliminate them. > > I agree that players appealing just to reduce their opponents' score isn't > a good thing. > > However, I am wary of any tampering with the "any ruling may be appealed" > rule: at a minimum, the replacement needs to specify something to the > effect that a player has the right to appeal any ruling in which he > believes the director has misapplied the law -- in lower-level games where > we sometimes get directors who won't be bothered to open the rule book > before they speak, especially, this right needs to be protected. > > I am not sure there is a way to maintain that right, without also allowing > the appeal of everything else under the sun. Given the choice, I would > rather see the right maintained, and deal with the occasional frivolous > appeal by other means. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed May 14 23:08:52 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 00:08:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 References: Message-ID: <016a01c31a66$4f4341a0$7c3a4451@Default> Dear Ton, I would like to enforce my 'blml claim rule', please give the full hand, the bidding and the early play. Of course I have no authority but I really think it is better for all involved. Anyway if you want to appeal this in Holland you cannot present the case like that as you very well know. Like this it will be thrown out. So why do you do so on blml. But to break my own rule immediatly, it seems a real nonsense n+n+n case where we will disagree like we always do because there is no consensus about the laws. So better fix those laws. But then we probably don't agree how to fix them. And some (you ?) might even claim they don't need any fixing. Anyway you yourself do not take the current laws seriously anymore, I remember quite well you said in public that you don't want to use the word irrational anymore. A fair POV but it happens to be essential wording of the current laws. So with which laws are we going to judge this time. Yours, mine, Davids, Dutch, American, French, English, British or do we stick to the text of that silly WBF booklet. Of course I am joking, but I am dead serious at the same time. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 > We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All between > clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 > oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the > highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is > playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each round > and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. > > One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks > with in hand and in dummy: > > AJ Qx > Jx -- > xx KJx > xx AQx > > saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs were > indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the reason > for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. > It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and > declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one > trick already). > > At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had > decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we > would have won. > Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of > this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The > only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at > this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent > David. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 23:17:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:17:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: Ton asked: [snip] >The only way to loose this contract is to demand >declarer to play the spade J at this moment. So the >question the AC has to answer now is whether playing >that card at this moment should be considered normal >play. [snip] Under current Law, playing a spade Jack - which has been stated by declarer as a winner - would not only be a David Burn ruling, but would also be an Edgar Kaplan ruling (according to Kaplan's article on claims in his Appeals Committee series published in the Bridge World). I understand that an early draft of the 2005 Laws (discussed in published minutes of the ACBL LC) tried to amend the claim rules, mandating a particular order of play of cards, if the order was unspecified in the claim. Therefore, in 2003 as TD I would rule one off, but in 2005 the Laws may require me to rule that the contract makes. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 14 23:26:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:26:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: >AG : do you mean that this information needs to >be pre-alerted ? I would have thought that "never" >in the "psyches" box of the CC would be enough. Some CCs, such as the Australian CC, do not have "psyches" boxes. In my possibly faulty recollection, the ACBL CC used to have "psyches" boxes, but the boxes were removed when the ACBL redesigned the CC. This was with a motive of discouraging psychic bidding, by not giving psyches free advertising on the CC. Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Wed May 14 23:41:58 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:41:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 May 2003 08:26:00 +1000." Message-ID: <200305142241.PAA16151@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > In my possibly faulty recollection, the ACBL CC > used to have "psyches" boxes, but the boxes were > removed when the ACBL redesigned the CC. Correct. > This was > with a motive of discouraging psychic bidding, by > not giving psyches free advertising on the CC. Perhaps. It's possible that not seeing this on the card has led to some players not even thinking of the possibility of psyching. I'm not sure that players who *are* aware that it's possible to psych would be deterred by the mere absence of this section from the card, any more than players would think they aren't allowed to play Grand Slam Force or Three-Way Reverse Finkelstein because this convention isn't shown anywhere on the CC. I think one of the ACBL's motives in removing this section from the card was to make it clear that since psyching is supposed to occur outside partnership agreements, a partnership isn't supposed to have agreements about how often the partnership psychs or what kind of psychs they can make. I think another possible motive was that psychs have already been declining for some time, and they figured the limited space on the CC was better used for something else. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 00:35:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:35:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] >psyching is supposed to occur outside partnership >agreements, a partnership isn't supposed to have >agreements about how often the partnership psychs [snip] This is not strictly true. Anyone who partners Jeff Rubens has an implicit agreement that Rubens never psyches. By never psyching, is Rubens acting unLawfully? Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Thu May 15 00:44:03 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 00:44:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 In-Reply-To: <3EC244AE.5060608@skynet.be> References: <3EC244AE.5060608@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3EC244AE.5060608@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of >> this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The >> only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at >> this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing >> that card at this moment should be considered normal play. >> >> I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent >> David. >> > > >Considering that you are appealing the decision it is not hard to >guess what your opinion is. > >Sorry Ton, for me it's one off. contract makes. R J Fleet as referee did something similar in the England trials when I'd ruled 1 off. I think he was right and I wrong. > > >> ton >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 00:48:18 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:48:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4 Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] >It does however mean that East was attempting a >double shot. A good result or a (potentially) >successsful protest. > >Though I don't like them, I can't find anything >in the Laws that outlaws this. [snip] I, on the other hand, have found a Law that seems to specifically legalise double shots (although not legalising irrational, wild or gambling double shots). Law 72A4 - "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." Of course, as discussed in an earlier thread, the term double shot has no universally agreed meaning amongst blmlers. Some define double shot so narrowly that their double shots are always irrational, wild or gambling, and therefore always illegal. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed May 14 23:18:29 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:18:29 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: <200305142241.PAA16151@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 May 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote, about the psych box being removed from the ACBL convention card: > I think one of the ACBL's motives in removing this section from the > card was to make it clear that since psyching is supposed to occur > outside partnership agreements, a partnership isn't supposed to have > agreements about how often the partnership psychs or what kind of > psychs they can make. I think another possible motive was that psychs > have already been declining for some time, and they figured the > limited space on the CC was better used for something else. Sufficiently old ACBL cards had a blank line under the "frequency of psyching" checkbox to describe any controls used. That line needed removed as soon as all such became illegal. Removing the space to describe your tendencies was probably removed because of the partnership-agreement thing. The checkboxes themselves seemed like a good idea to me. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 01:01:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:01:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] False explanation corrected after UI Message-ID: Peter Eidt asked: [big snip] >Are we as a TD supposed to find a non-making contract >at the Level of 6 NT or higher (because Semiforcing >+ opening values gives slam) Yes. This is a clearcut case of Law 16 unauthorised information. It would have been in North's best interests to remain quietly impassive when South gave the wrong explanation - perhaps South would have remembered the partnership agreement before the bidding reached disastrous heights. However, once North unLawfully corrected the explanation during the auction, South is no longer entitled to remember the actual partnership agreement. South *must* bid to a slam that South now (unLawfully) knows is ridiculous. If South unLawfully stops in a partscore or game, then the TD must adjust the score to a failing slam. As TD, I would also apply a Procedural Penalty to North - unless North is a novice who did not know what proper procedure is. Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Thu May 15 01:06:31 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:06:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 May 2003 09:35:01 +1000." Message-ID: <200305150006.RAA17590@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > [snip] > > >psyching is supposed to occur outside partnership > >agreements, a partnership isn't supposed to have > >agreements about how often the partnership psychs > > [snip] > > This is not strictly true. Anyone who partners > Jeff Rubens has an implicit agreement that Rubens > never psyches. But isn't everyone supposed to act as if their partners never psyched? In other words, no matter how often your partner has psyched in the past, even if your partner's initials are J(MD)P, you shouldn't treat his bid as a psych unless he does something completely unsystemic (such as passing a forcing bid). Isn't this, *in* *effect*, the same as having an "implicit agreement" that your partner never psychs? I could be wrong about whether the authorities believe it's improper to field partner's psychs (other than in the obvious cases I mentioned above). Certainly, if you field them too often, you're putting yourself in the position of being charged with having a concealed partnership agreement and possibly playing an illegal convention. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Thu May 15 01:15:43 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:15:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 May 2003 14:18:29 -0800." Message-ID: <200305150015.RAA17732@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > Sufficiently old ACBL cards had a blank line under the "frequency of > psyching" checkbox to describe any controls used. They also had a checkbox in BOLD red letters that said "Systemic". The letters used here were fatter than any other red letters on the CC. This was for partnerships who had an agreement that, say, 0-3 point hands at certain seats/vulnerabilities were often or always opened. (I had some friends who played that way, in the early 1980s.) Eventually the ACBL ruled that such agreements were illegal conventions. There were actually two blank lines below the checkboxes: "Controls" and "Describe", with the latter being used to describe what sorts of psychs were made. To me, having an agreement that described what types of psychs are allowed smacks even more of a partnership agreement than simply agreeing on "occasional" or "rare" psychs or whatever. > That line needed removed as soon as all such became illegal. So was the "Systemic" box. When the Controls line was removed, they simply made the Describe portion two lines---certainly a waste of good space. > Removing the space to describe your > tendencies was probably removed because of the partnership-agreement > thing. The checkboxes themselves seemed like a good idea to me. Perhaps beside the point, but I think the checkboxes were sometimes misused. I remember when a friend and I first started playing duplicate, the experienced players in the club recommended that we check "Rare" instead of "Never" to protect ourselves in case one of us misbid. (The ACBL Bulletin later tried to make it clear that that was not the purpose of the boxes.) -- Adam From toddz@att.net Thu May 15 03:20:45 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:20:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Bower > Subject: Re: [blml] Put up or shut up > > Sufficiently old ACBL cards had a blank line under the > "frequency of > psyching" checkbox to describe any controls used. As a favor, do you think you (or anyone else with the necessary items) could scan old ACBL convention cards and put their images on a website. I did a google search, but with no luck, but I'm not the best web surfer around. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 05:21:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:21:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] >even if your partner's initials are J(MD)P, you shouldn't treat >his bid as a psych unless he does something completely unsystemic >(such as passing a forcing bid). [snip] Case 1 My partner has AI that I am a pedantic nerd, who never forgets our agreed methods. I pass a forcing bid. Pard treats my previous bid as a psyche. An opponent treats my previous bid as a psyche, re-enters the auction, and gets a good result because my previous bid was, in fact, a psyche. Case 2 Jeff Rubens's partner has AI that Jeff Rubens is a disciplined bidder, who never psyches. Jeff Rubens passes a forcing bid. JR's partner treats Jeff Rubens' pass as a forgetting of their agreed methods. An unknowing opponent treats JR's previous bid as a psyche, re-enters the auction, and gets -1100, because JR's previous bid was, in fact, legitimate. Therefore, if your partner knows that you never psyche, but the opponents are not aware of this fact, then is this a CPU which infracts Law 40B? Best wishes Richard From Peter Newman" Message-ID: <016501c31a9c$f9292730$3c11ac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Ton and others. # I am not a fan of the current claim laws. I would much prefer 'stricter' claims... The current interpretation of the laws (appears to me) to be that if you claimed the last 5 tricks with AKQJx you would get 5 tricks unless the x wasn't good on the fifth round - in which case you would get 4 - regardless of whether you said top down or not. Obviously we don't have the other hands but there are no doubt some clubs and diamonds lurking out there and quite probably some of them are higher than the 3rd round 'x' that are the claimed winners. No one has objected to the fact that 3 diamonds and 3 clubs implies cashing top down (and reasonably enough I suppose with the current interpretations of the law). ISTM in the same way SAJ the only way to play is SA then SJ and so if there really is singleton SK that is just good luck to you. (but see (2) below) So with the current claim laws as I understand them to be implemented the contract would make. A few notes: (1) I don't understand 1 off. To go one off would mean that you played SJ before SA - RHO probably has more winners to cash at this point - without the full hand I can't be sure but I can't see how there isn't a heart winner(s) for the defense (2) If the LHO had spade K singleton then this would be a case which I would hate... we could come to a 2 card ending of AJ oppposite Qx lead in dummy At this point I think some would argue that it would be irrational not to finesse as you need two tricks for your slam and so 2 off would be the result...others would not agree..and the result at any one table depends on the DIC. Not very sensible. [Of course RHO with singleton K the K will appear when lead from dummy and so it would be irrational not to win] Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:13 PM Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 > We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All between > clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 > oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the > highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is > playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each round > and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. > > One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks > with in hand and in dummy: > > AJ Qx > Jx -- > xx KJx > xx AQx > > saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs were > indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the reason > for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. > It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and > declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one > trick already). > > At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had > decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we > would have won. > Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of > this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The > only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at > this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent > David. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 07:20:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 16:20:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: In WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4, Harald wrote: [snip] >2. You have an obligation to the rest of the >field, whose results on this board, and final >standings, are affected by your opponents result >on this board. [snip] An Aussie case study in "obligation to the rest of the field" occurred a dozen years ago. Now the rule is that Doubles are self-alerting - that is, doubles *must not* be alerted in Australia. Back then, a more primitive rule applied - all unusual Doubles had to be alerted. In the second last round of a Swiss Teams, the bidding went - South West North East 1H 1S Dble(1) Pass Pass Pass (1) Not alerted NS +800 East-West called for the TD when they found that North's Double was a penalty Double. East-West argued that the Double was so unusual that it should have been alerted. If so, East-West could have successfully wriggled to a minor. North-South argued that the Double was naturally penalties, so an alert was not required. The WBF vp scale was being used. If the TD ruled in favour of North-South, their team would win 25vps to 4vps. If the TD ruled in favour of East-West, their team would have a more respectable loss of 7vps to 23vps. The TD cowardly and illegally ruled in favour of both sides - 25vps to North-South, and 7vps to East-West. 25vps in this second-last Swiss match was just enough to guarantee first place for the North- South team, no matter what happened in the final match. 23vps would not have been good enough to guarantee first place if their last match was unlucky. Did the North-South team have an obligation to the rest of the field, whose results on this board, and final standings, were affected by the opponents getting 7vps instead of 4vps - when an unsuccessful appeal could have seen the North-South team lose its currently guaranteed first place, and drop to second place? Best wishes Richard From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu May 15 08:00:13 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:00:13 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B0A0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard wrote: In WBU Appeals 2002 - number 4, Harald wrote: [snip] >2. You have an obligation to the rest of the >field, whose results on this board, and final >standings, are affected by your opponents result >on this board. [snip] An Aussie case study in "obligation to the rest of the field" occurred a dozen years ago. Now the rule is that Doubles are self-alerting - that is, doubles *must not* be alerted in Australia. Back then, a more primitive rule applied - all unusual Doubles had to be alerted. In the second last round of a Swiss Teams, the bidding went - South West North East 1H 1S Dble(1) Pass Pass Pass (1) Not alerted NS +800 East-West called for the TD when they found that North's Double was a penalty Double. East-West argued that the Double was so unusual that it should have been alerted. If so, East-West could have successfully wriggled to a minor. North-South argued that the Double was naturally penalties, so an alert was not required. The WBF vp scale was being used. If the TD ruled in favour of North-South, their team would win 25vps to 4vps. If the TD ruled in favour of East-West, their team would have a more respectable loss of 7vps to 23vps. The TD cowardly and illegally ruled in favour of both sides - 25vps to North-South, and 7vps to East-West. 25vps in this second-last Swiss match was just enough to guarantee first place for the North- South team, no matter what happened in the final match. 23vps would not have been good enough to guarantee first place if their last match was unlucky. Did the North-South team have an obligation to the rest of the field, whose results on this board, and final standings, were affected by the opponents getting 7vps instead of 4vps - when an unsuccessful appeal could have seen the North-South team lose its currently guaranteed first place, and drop to second place? ----- My comment was put to postings by Eric and Gordon concerning appeals to reduce the opponent's score where the appeal couldn't affect your own (bad)score. Richards example is something quite different; the TD has awarded a good result for both sides. Theoretically, an appeal now could reduce your own score. Actually, as North-South, I might appeal this ruling, which is absolutely crazy to me. I might need to have some experience with the at the time current aussie alert rules and AC decisions, to make this decision. If this double should indeed have been alerted, it's=20 quite astonishing to me. I know of no other jurisdiction=20 where a classical penalty double should ever be alerted. If this double should have been alerted (and a negative doble not?), then the ruling most probably should have been in East-West's favour. And they should appeal the TD's ruling. It's a question of morale whether Nort-South *should* appeal this ruling, knowing that the TD has awarded them a to good result. The laws say nothing about this. Law 72A2 is so specific that you can't take that into consideration. Regards, Harald ----- Best wishes Richard _______________________________________________ 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 Thu May 15 08:05:59 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:05:59 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B0A2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Peter wrote: Hi Ton and others. # I am not a fan of the current claim laws. I would much prefer 'stricter' claims... The current interpretation of the laws (appears to me) to be that if you claimed the last 5 tricks with AKQJx you would get 5 tricks unless the x wasn't good on the fifth round - in which case you would get 4 - regardless of whether you said top down or not. Obviously we don't have the other hands but there are no doubt some clubs and diamonds lurking out there and quite probably some of them are higher than the 3rd round 'x' that are the claimed winners. No one has objected to the fact that 3 diamonds and 3 clubs implies cashing top down (and reasonably enough I suppose with the current interpretations of the law). ISTM in the same way SAJ the only way to play is SA then SJ and so if there really is singleton SK that is just good luck to you. (but see (2) below) So with the current claim laws as I understand them to be implemented the contract would make. A few notes: (1) I don't understand 1 off. To go one off would mean that you played SJ before SA - RHO probably has more winners to cash at this point - without the full hand I can't be sure but I can't see how there isn't a heart winner(s) for the defense (2) If the LHO had spade K singleton then this would be a case which I would hate... we could come to a 2 card ending of AJ oppposite Qx lead in dummy At this point I think some would argue that it would be irrational not to finesse as you need two tricks for your slam and so 2 off would be the result...others would not agree..and the result at any one table depends on the DIC. Not very sensible. [Of course RHO with singleton K the K will appear when lead from dummy and so it would be irrational not to win] ----- In this case it seems that declarer believes the spade king has been played. (No previous play has been given, so this is not absolutely certain.) If this is the case, it's absolutely rational to lead the jack of spades fr= om hand. If this enables the opponents to cash heart trick(s), they will do so. So I would rule a number of tricks down, depending on how many heart tricks can be cashed. Regards, Harald ----- Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:13 PM Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 > We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All between > clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 > oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the > highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is > playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each round > and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. > > One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks > with in hand and in dummy: > > AJ Qx > Jx -- > xx KJx > xx AQx > > saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs were > indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the reason > for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. > It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and > declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one > trick already). > > At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had > decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we > would have won. > Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of > this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The > only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at > this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent > David. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** 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 Thu May 15 08:14:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:14:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 References: <3805916.1052920026218.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3EC33E49.5080800@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >>>Sorry Ton, for me it's one off. >>> > > >>David will be surprised about you once more I assume. >> > > Not in the least. Herman and I have this in common: we think some of the rules are bonkers, but we know what they are. Unless the jurisdiction in which this event is conducted specifies that "top down within suits" is the only "normal" line of play, the contract is... well, one down under the current bonkers laws; however many down it would be after losing SK and playing misere thereafter under sensible laws. > Well, let's say it like this: SJ now, hearts winners after, on which claimer lets go of the smallest cards. If there are so many hearts that claimer has to bare a suit in both hands, he does so with the wrong one, and then again, so he loses all tricks. But no, he does not play misere and throws aces. That's just plain silly, David. > Note: the EBU L&E has just enacted the "top down" guidance. It's my Committee, and I'll cry if I want to. > Top down is just as silly as a general rule. high cards before low ones, yes. And discarding low cards before high ones, yes. And ruffing low rather than high unless fearing an overruff. > 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 larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 15 07:55:46 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:55:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 References: <3805916.1052920026218.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004401c31ab2$d4f78d00$33c14c51@pc> I would cry too if it happened to me........ (showing your age David) > Note: the EBU L&E has just enacted the "top down" guidance. It's my Committee, and I'll cry if I want to. > > David Burn > London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu May 15 08:22:06 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:22:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: > > Ton asked: > > [snip] > > >The only way to loose this contract is to demand > >declarer to play the spade J at this moment. So the > >question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > >that card at this moment should be considered normal > >play. > > [snip] > > Under current Law, playing a spade Jack - which has > been stated by declarer as a winner - would not only > be a David Burn ruling, but would also be an Edgar > Kaplan ruling (according to Kaplan's article on > claims in his Appeals Committee series published in > the Bridge World). Interesting remark. I do have those series of articles at home and don't remember a similar case was described there. Could you give the example he used? That is a much more convincing approach than just mentioning (a)name(s), even when it it a famous one. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu May 15 08:38:44 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:38:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: Peter: > > So with the current claim laws as I understand them to be > implemented the > contract would make. > > A few notes: > (1) I don't understand 1 off. To go one off would mean that > you played SJ > before SA - RHO probably has more winners to cash at this > point - without > the full hand I can't be sure but I can't see how there isn't a heart > winner(s) for the defense I can't either but do you want my team to correct the TD on such point when the opponents don't have an objection and the final result (KO) of the match isn't influenced by the number of undertricks? > > (2) If the LHO had spade K singleton then this would be a > case which I would > hate... > we could come to a 2 card ending of AJ oppposite Qx lead in dummy > At this point I think some would argue that it would be > irrational not to > finesse as you need two tricks for your slam and so 2 off would be the > result...others would not agree..and the result at any one > table depends on > the DIC. Not very sensible. [Of course RHO with singleton K the K will > appear when lead from dummy and so it would be irrational not to win] > Let us not talk about Kx when the K was bare. There isn't a hair on my head thinking of appealing when the K hadn't been bare. Of course declarer can start playing the A of spades and will not make his contract. ton From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu May 15 09:01:40 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:01:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up References: Message-ID: <002e01c31ab8$a9278530$1e55e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Put up or shut up > > Therefore, if your partner knows that you > never psyche, but the opponents are not > aware of this fact, then is this a CPU which > infracts Law 40B? > +=+ A psychic call, as defined in the Law Book, is only illegal if it is a matter of partnership understanding and the understanding is not disclosed as Law 40 requires, or again if, the understanding being duly announced, the method is excluded by the system regulations for the tournament. See, for example, the appendix on psychic action attached to the WBF Systems Policy, in which it is clear that certain psychic calls are permitted in all WBF tournaments and others are subject to the regulations for Brown Sticker conventions. Since the regulations are the governing factor there is no universal rule. But whilst 40 A & B require disclosure of the use of calls and not of their non-use, I suppose it may be argued that under 40E1 the SO may prescribe disclosure on the convention card of an agreement (sic) not to psyche. Additionally there is, of course, the ruling, anathema to some, that psyches of conventional calls may be prohibited under Law 40D, whether a matter of agreement or not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From caseyk@es.co.nz Thu May 15 08:41:14 2003 From: caseyk@es.co.nz (B.Kelly) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:41:14 +1200 Subject: [blml] re alerting doubles Message-ID: <3EC3449A.7000100@es.co.nz> Harald Skjaran wrote If this double should indeed have been alerted, it's quite astonishing to me. I know of no other jurisdiction where a classical penalty double should ever be alerted. In New Zealand the rule is that a double at the 1 or 2 level must be alerted if it is for penalty and not takeout,except for a double of a NT bid which must be alerted if it does not show strength and a desire for penalty From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Thu May 15 09:44:25 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal 'against opps' References: <015801c31a63$a6600160$7c3a4451@Default> Message-ID: <007501c31abe$30e30a80$451afac1@olivier> > > > Eric sayeth: > > > > > >Appeals brought by players who ask for no > > > >redress, but are simply trying to deny the > > > >other side the windfall created by their > > > >infraction, serve nobody, and we would do > > > >well to eliminate them. > > > The very use of the word windfall is a very good argument that the above is > rubbish. Come on. If the TD gives a nice split score of say 80-80 at pairs > or +10-+10 at teams nobody at the table will appeal but the others will cry > foul. This is extreme (but I remember some infamous cases) but it is a well > known problem. A contender (someone who might win the tournament) against a > non-contender. The non-contender doesn't care, just goes home or so, and the > contenders win their appeal in a very 'nice' way (with consequences for the > overall ranking). Now a good non-contender might go to the AC hearing and > will even appeal if requested be other contenders (those that lose their > 1st, 2nd, 3th place or whatever by the ruling). In real life you seldom can > expect the non-contenders to do so. IMO a TD should appeal against himself > in such a case (as long as the real contenders have no right to appeal). > > But even more general. If someone thinks the ruling is wrong why the hell is > it a good idea 'to eliminate them'. It serves nobody? Are you crazy? It > serves all the other pairs in the room that are damaged if the ruling is no > good. > > Jaap Demat, Could you imagine why in the new code there is a new sentence at the end of L83? "... he ... may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu May 15 10:22:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 05:22:47 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B0A0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: On 5/15/03, Skjaran, Harald wrote: >Did the North-South team have an obligation to >the rest of the field, whose results on this board, >and final standings, were affected by the opponents >getting 7vps instead of 4vps - when an unsuccessful >appeal could have seen the North-South team lose >its currently guaranteed first place, and drop to >second place? I ran into this "obligation to the field" noise the other day in a pairs game. At the previous table, NS put the travellers in the wrong board, with the effect that at our table, we looked at the traveller for a board we had not yet played, when scoring the board we had just finished. We called the TD, who ruled the board whose traveller we'd seen unplayable, and awarded avg+ to both sides. North objected on the grounds that this was "unfair to the field". North wanted to play the board. TD said we could play it "for fun" if we had time. Then he left the table. In fact, we did play it, and the result was the same as at least half of the other results - iow, our knowledge of what was on the traveller did not seem to affect the play of the board. North reiterated his opinion about the adjusted score being "unfair to the field", and suggested to us (EW) that if we weren't going to place anyway (and we weren't) that it didn't matter to us what score we got, but we "had an obligation to the field". I allowed as how I didn't care one way or the other about the score per se, but I believed (and still believe) it to be illegal to do as he suggested. Nonetheless, I discovered after the session that he had gone back to the TD and reiterated his "unfair to the field" opinion - but did *not* tell the TD what I had said to him regarding my opinion of the legality of what he wanted. I dunno what the TD actually did - when I asked him about it all he said was "I'll look into it" - but I did see that we got 1 matchpoint out of 7 on that board - which is inconsistant with both "average plus" and with our understanding that we got something approaching average on the board as we played it. Bottom line: I can find nothing in the laws that either explicitly or implicitly says that a contestant has any "obligation to the field". A contestant's obligation, it seems to me, is to bid and play their best possible game on any given hand - IOW to strive to achieve the "par" result or better - and to let the field take care of itself. "Obligation to the field", then, it seems to me, is a crock. 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 jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Thu May 15 10:49:03 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:49:03 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <016a01c31a66$4f4341a0$7c3a4451@Default> Message-ID: <00cc01c31ac7$3b35c6e0$eb284451@Default> I said: > I would like to enforce my 'blml claim rule', please give the full hand, the > bidding and the early play. Of course I have no authority but I really think > it is better for all involved. Anyway if you want to appeal this in Holland > you cannot present the case like that as you very well know. Like this it > will be thrown out. So why do you do so on blml. Look at the thread so far. All kind of comments with "we don't know ...", "what about the minor spots" etc. Once again PLEASE give the full hand and the bidding and the early play. Even Ton K. But now the FROM THE TOP principle. AKQJ2 opposite xxx. The guy claims for 5 tricks (at trick one to keep it simple). This means first AKQJ and then the 2. Everybody interprets it like that. The only discussion in this case is whether or not he is allowed to see the 5-0 split. Or whether or not he is forced 'to cash' a losing 2 at an inconvenient time. AQ opposite xx (or AJ in this case). The guy claims for 2 tricks (late in the play, there is no marked finesse or so, there is no real reason to expect the K to drop, etc). If the reason for this claim is or might be that the guy forgot about the the K then he treats this holding as equals. It is like AK in his mind. It is a far cry from irrational to play the K first or the Q or the J. It is actually quite normal and it happens quite often. Just suppose declarer would call for a spade at this moment (quite normal and frequent). This means he just played the lowest spade and the guy really doesn't care because they are all good (in his mind). So FROM THE TOP has only a meaning if you still need to establish some tricks (like the 2 from AKQJ2). FROM THE TOP has no meaning when applied to equals and thus has no meaning when applied to virtual/imaginairy or whatever species of equals wanders around in claimers mind. Anyway David has a point in often ruling more than one down (if this is possible). Because if the guy is cashing his 'winners' in random order he might cash 'the losing winner' at an silly moment (not the same as playing misere). Anyway it is IMO ridiculous to rule this slam made. Nothing irrational about cashing the SJ if you think it is a winner. Thanks to Ton we have not enough info.But I am not sure Ton's claim that only playing the SJ now leads to down. If these minors are claimable (hard to believe) then maybe dummy has a minor reentry. But more relevant, if he is capable of forgetting about the SK he might have forgotten about the HQ or HK as well (lets assume both of them are still out). He reals off all his minor winners and at trick 12 LHO discards a big heart. Such a brilliant player might now discard the SJ and try to cash the HJ. Or what about if the HJ was good (or not but he thought it to be good) but the guy didn't bother about it because he had the rest anyway (in his mind only of course). Anyway it is so much easier NEVER to give a claimer a contract when the claim is no good (meaning there is a logical error, I am not that strict about clumsy wording). And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, give the full hand for the next claim. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Kooijman, A." ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim n+n+1 > Dear Ton, > > I would like to enforce my 'blml claim rule', please give the full hand, the > bidding and the early play. Of course I have no authority but I really think > it is better for all involved. Anyway if you want to appeal this in Holland > you cannot present the case like that as you very well know. Like this it > will be thrown out. So why do you do so on blml. > > But to break my own rule immediatly, it seems a real nonsense n+n+n case > where we will disagree like we always do because there is no consensus about > the laws. So better fix those laws. But then we probably don't agree how to > fix them. And some (you ?) might even claim they don't need any fixing. > Anyway you yourself do not take the current laws seriously anymore, I > remember quite well you said in public that you don't want to use the word > irrational anymore. A fair POV but it happens to be essential wording of the > current laws. So with which laws are we going to judge this time. Yours, > mine, Davids, Dutch, American, French, English, British or do we stick to > the text of that silly WBF booklet. > > Of course I am joking, but I am dead serious at the same time. > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:13 AM > Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 > > > > We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All > between > > clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 > > oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the > > highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is > > playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each > round > > and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. > > > > One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks > > with in hand and in dummy: > > > > AJ Qx > > Jx -- > > xx KJx > > xx AQx > > > > saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs > were > > indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the > reason > > for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. > > It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and > > declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one > > trick already). > > > > At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had > > decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we > > would have won. > > Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member > of > > this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. > The > > only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J > at > > this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > > that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > > > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent > > David. > > > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 15 11:08:43 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:08:43 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: Message-ID: <3EC3672B.1020607@skynet.be> Ed is throwing two similar notions together. In Ed's case, the "field" might be damaged by there being a total score of 120% on the board in question. That is rather silly. In Harald's case (or was it someone previous?) the problem is more direct. A pair, not in contention, believes their opponents have scored something they ought not have, and wants to protect the (unknown to him) opponents of his opponents for a score which he believe to be too high. I do believe a player has a certain amount of duty towards "the field" to insure that his opponents don't score too much. However, an EBL AC has decided that such a duty, if it exists, is not enough to warrant restitution of money for an otherwise frivoulous appeal. But Ed's case is not even that. When the board is cancelled, Ed's opponents should realize that Ed is entitled to Av+. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 5/15/03, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > >>Did the North-South team have an obligation to >>the rest of the field, whose results on this board, >>and final standings, were affected by the opponents >>getting 7vps instead of 4vps - when an unsuccessful >>appeal could have seen the North-South team lose >>its currently guaranteed first place, and drop to >>second place? >> > > I ran into this "obligation to the field" noise the other day in a pairs > game. At the previous table, NS put the travellers in the wrong board, > with the effect that at our table, we looked at the traveller for a > board we had not yet played, when scoring the board we had just > finished. We called the TD, who ruled the board whose traveller we'd > seen unplayable, and awarded avg+ to both sides. North objected on the > grounds that this was "unfair to the field". North wanted to play the > board. TD said we could play it "for fun" if we had time. Then he left > the table. In fact, we did play it, and the result was the same as at > least half of the other results - iow, our knowledge of what was on the > traveller did not seem to affect the play of the board. North reiterated > his opinion about the adjusted score being "unfair to the field", and > suggested to us (EW) that if we weren't going to place anyway (and we > weren't) that it didn't matter to us what score we got, but we "had an > obligation to the field". I allowed as how I didn't care one way or the > other about the score per se, but I believed (and still believe) it to > be illegal to do as he suggested. Nonetheless, I discovered after the > session that he had gone back to the TD and reiterated his "unfair to > the field" opinion - but did *not* tell the TD what I had said to him > regarding my opinion of the legality of what he wanted. I dunno what the > TD actually did - when I asked him about it all he said was "I'll look > into it" - but I did see that we got 1 matchpoint out of 7 on that board > - which is inconsistant with both "average plus" and with our > understanding that we got something approaching average on the board as > we played it. > > Bottom line: I can find nothing in the laws that either explicitly or > implicitly says that a contestant has any "obligation to the field". A > contestant's obligation, it seems to me, is to bid and play their best > possible game on any given hand - IOW to strive to achieve the "par" > result or better - and to let the field take care of itself. "Obligation > to the field", then, it seems to me, is a crock. > > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 14 16:50:21 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:50:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: <2831715.1052927421554.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_75342_6268041.1052927421550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herman wrote: >That one I am not willing to debate. i have just shown you how it works. No, you have not. You have just shown me that it does not work. For it cannot be correct that my rights and my legal position are different depending on which side of the screen I am on. If East tells me a bid is forcing, but West passes it, I know that something has happened (and can deduce readily enough from partner's failure to open and my own weakish hand that what has happened is that West has forgotten, not that West has psyched). Do I have the right to know this? Yet, if I am on the other side of the screen, West has told me that East's bid was not forcing (an untruth), and then passed it. Now, I do not know something I would know if I were a party to East's explanation instead of (or as well as) West's, and this lack of knowledge may jeopardise my position. Perhaps redress will be granted me if this occurs, but perhaps it will not. And this is silly; one's position with respect to entitlement under the laws cannot be held to vary with the orientation of a piece of wood. >You have shown no such thing. I did not understand your proof above. Information to which one is not entitled is extraneous, yes? Extraneous information is unauthorised, yes? You said that I am not entitled to know what East thinks his bid means, only what his methods are. But if East and I share a screen, then he is going to tell me what he thinks his bid means, whether or not he is speaking the truth about his methods. When East's thoughts do not correspond with East's methods, the information I have received from East is information to which, according to you, I am not entitled; hence, it is by definition extraneous, unauthorised. David Burn London, England ------=_Part_75342_6268041.1052927421550-- From svenpran@online.no Thu May 15 11:39:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:39:27 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c31ace$4291ea70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ...........=20 > Bottom line: I can find nothing in the laws that either explicitly or > implicitly says that a contestant has any "obligation to the field". A > contestant's obligation, it seems to me, is to bid and play their best > possible game on any given hand - IOW to strive to achieve the "par" > result or better - and to let the field take care of itself. = "Obligation > to the field", then, it seems to me, is a crock. The intention with appeals is to give a contestant the possibility to = obtain a second view on a situation where he is unsatisfied with a Director's ruling. (That is at least how I see it). The major question in this thread is whether a contestant who really = does not care for himself in a particular case still should appeal a ruling = which he believes is unjust favorable to his opponents. This would not have been any problem if all rulings were announced to = all contestants (together with the official publishing of the results) and = any contestant were allowed to appeal any ruling which directly or = indirectly affected his own result. But only the contestants at the table where a ruling was made may appeal this ruling. So if a director makes a terrible ruling resulting in the offending side winning the competition with a small margin over second place while if = the ruling had been correct they would have ended second; who is to make an appeal in order to restore equity? Should we accept that a contestant who has no interest in the result on = that particular board (for instance because he already has "secured" the last place with an enormous margin) does not bother to appeal? I see an analogy: The same contestant sure of ending last begins playing wild and gambling like bidding 7NT on no values "just for fun". We do = not accept that but consider it "contempt of the game". What is the = difference (except for the magnitude)? In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in certain cases an "obligation = to the field". And if someone really thinks a law support for such an = obvious matter is necessary they may look to Law 74B1 for a starter. This law applies equally to every contestant whether they fight for a top = placement or already have secured a bottom. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 15 12:31:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:31:51 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <016a01c31a66$4f4341a0$7c3a4451@Default> <00cc01c31ac7$3b35c6e0$eb284451@Default> Message-ID: <3EC37AA7.5090606@skynet.be> For once, I am utterly and completely in agreement with Jaap. I just thought it needed saying. (small remark though, Jaap - I had interpreted Ton's post as saying that claimer thought the SK had gone) Jaap van der Neut wrote: [snipped completely, lest I find some small thing to comment on] > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu May 15 13:00:29 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:00:29 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: Herman: > > For once, I am utterly and completely in agreement with Jaap. > I just thought it needed saying. > (small remark though, Jaap - I had interpreted Ton's post as saying > that claimer thought the SK had gone) > That is what I said and what he thought yes. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 15 13:16:14 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:16:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up In-Reply-To: References: <200305142241.PAA16151@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030515081103.022a0c80@pop.starpower.net> At 06:18 PM 5/14/03, Gordon wrote: >On Wed, 14 May 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote, about the psych box being >removed from the ACBL convention card: > > > I think one of the ACBL's motives in removing this section from the > > card was to make it clear that since psyching is supposed to occur > > outside partnership agreements, a partnership isn't supposed to have > > agreements about how often the partnership psychs or what kind of > > psychs they can make. I think another possible motive was that psychs > > have already been declining for some time, and they figured the > > limited space on the CC was better used for something else. > >Sufficiently old ACBL cards had a blank line under the "frequency of >psyching" checkbox to describe any controls used. That line needed removed >as soon as all such became illegal. Removing the space to describe your >tendencies was probably removed because of the partnership-agreement >thing. The checkboxes themselves seemed like a good idea to me. At about the same time, the ACBL was mounting a major campaign, spearheaded by Don Oakie (who was President of the ACBL for part of this period), to convince its membership that psyching, although technically legal, was unsportsmanlike and evil. I suspect they realized, perhaps not quite consciously, that removing the boxes from the CC would keep the masses from understanding that psyching was an entirely legitimate part of the game despite what the ACBL was preaching at the time. Whether or not that was their intention, it did have that effect. 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 May 15 13:18:07 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:18:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up References: <2831715.1052927421554.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3EC3857F.2010509@skynet.be> Well David, you have actually answered your own question: dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>That one I am not willing to debate. i have just shown you how it works. >> > David: No, you have not. You have just shown me that it does not work. For it cannot be correct that my rights and my legal position are different depending on which side of the screen I am on. If East tells me a bid is forcing, but West passes it, I know that something has happened (and can deduce readily enough from partner's failure to open and my own weakish hand that what has happened is that West has forgotten, not that West has psyched). Do I have the right to know this? H: Yes, you have that right, and I will put you back into this same position in the next case: David: Yet, if I am on the other side of the screen, West has told me that East's bid was not forcing (an untruth), and then passed it. Now, I do not know something I would know if I were a party to East's explanation instead of (or as well as) West's, and this lack of knowledge may jeopardise my position. Perhaps redress will be granted me if this occurs, but perhaps it will not. And this is silly; one's position with respect to entitlement under the laws cannot be held to vary with the orientation of a piece of wood. H: indeed, and I will put you in the same position as the one above. Or rather, a better one. In the first case, you will have received correct information and you will have to live with your decision. If you do decide to lift them and push them to a making game, then so be it. But in the second case, I will award you the better result of each of the possible things you might do. If you are placed left of the screen, and I decide that the information you receive is an incorrect one, I will redress to the same thing that could have happened if you were to the right side of the screen. What I will not do is to give you redress to a position you might reach if you hear both explanations. > >>You have shown no such thing. I did not understand your proof above. >> > > Information to which one is not entitled is extraneous, yes? Extraneous information is unauthorised, yes? You said that I am not entitled to know what East thinks his bid means, only what his methods are. But if East and I share a screen, then he is going to tell me what he thinks his bid means, whether or not he is speaking the truth about his methods. When East's thoughts do not correspond with East's methods, the information I have received from East is information to which, according to you, I am not entitled; hence, it is by definition extraneous, unauthorised. > > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 15 14:27:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:27:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] re alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <3EC3449A.7000100@es.co.nz> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030515152520.01d3b880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:41 15/05/2003 +1200, B.Kelly wrote: >Harald Skjaran wrote > >If this double should indeed have been alerted, it's quite astonishing to >me. I know of no other jurisdiction where a classical penalty double >should ever be alerted. > >In New Zealand the rule is that a double at the 1 or 2 level must be >alerted if it is for penalty and not takeout,except for a double of a NT >bid which must be alerted if it does not show strength and a desire for penalty AG: in Belgium, no double is alertable (bad rule !). In France, the default meaning of a double of an opening bid below game is "takeout" ; else it must be alerted. The test for alertability is not "is it natural ?", but "is it expected" ? If you play penalty doubles of 1-level opening bids, that is indeed unexpected, therefore alertable. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu May 15 14:33:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:33:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up References: <2831715.1052927421554.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3EC3970D.9080406@skynet.be> David, I was replying to your post and then got interrupted by an interesting program about a volcanic explosion on Krakatoa in 535AD. Which is why I have not yet replied to your last paragraph. You make another small error: (IMO) dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > D: Information to which one is not entitled is extraneous, yes? H: Yes and no. The source defines the extraneosity of the information, not the entitlement. D: Extraneous information is unauthorised, yes? H: No. Mannerism of opponents is described in L16 as authorized. The same law speaks of "other extraneous information". So L16B does not apply. Some extraneous information is authorized. D: You said that I am not entitled to know what East thinks his bid means, only what his methods are. H: Yes, you are not entitled to that information, but if you have it, you are authorized to use it. D: But if East and I share a screen, then he is going to tell me what he thinks his bid means, whether or not he is speaking the truth about his methods. H: Yes, and you should interpret that as what his methods are, not his thoughts. D: When East's thoughts do not correspond with East's methods, the information I have received from East is information to which, according to you, I am not entitled; hence, it is by definition extraneous, unauthorised. H: no, as explained before. If you are sitting on the same side of the misbidder, and he tells you the wrong meaning of his bid, then you should be put into the position of him telling you the true meaning, without adding that he misbid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu May 15 14:54:02 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:54:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: Herman: > > If you are sitting on the same side of the misbidder, and he > tells you > the wrong meaning of his bid, then you should be put into the > position > of him telling you the true meaning, without adding that he misbid. Why in England is David giving Herman the opportunity to give his very personal opinion about this subject every month again? No fear at all that somebody else likes this approach so much that he joins Herman in his very personal opinion? ton From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu May 15 16:04:27 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 16:04:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] re alerting doubles References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030515152520.01d3b880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c31af3$480e2ed0$58e41e3e@mikeamos> In EBU land any double of a natural suit bid, 1C through 3S if partner has not bid or only passed, is assumed to be takeout if not alerted Doubles of NT or higher bids are assumed to be penalty if unalerted much the same as France I guess So penalty doubles of Weak twos and three level openers are alertable if penalty mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re alerting doubles > At 19:41 15/05/2003 +1200, B.Kelly wrote: > >Harald Skjaran wrote > > > >If this double should indeed have been alerted, it's quite astonishing to > >me. I know of no other jurisdiction where a classical penalty double > >should ever be alerted. > > > >In New Zealand the rule is that a double at the 1 or 2 level must be > >alerted if it is for penalty and not takeout,except for a double of a NT > >bid which must be alerted if it does not show strength and a desire for penalty > > AG: in Belgium, no double is alertable (bad rule !). In France, the > default meaning of a double of an opening bid below game is "takeout" ; > else it must be alerted. > > The test for alertability is not "is it natural ?", but "is it expected" ? > If you play penalty doubles of 1-level opening bids, that is indeed > unexpected, therefore alertable. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 15 17:22:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:22:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] re alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <001101c31af3$480e2ed0$58e41e3e@mikeamos> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030515152520.01d3b880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030515182108.01d35d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:04 15/05/2003 +0100, mamos wrote: >In EBU land any double of a natural suit bid, 1C through 3S if partner has >not bid or only passed, is assumed to be takeout if not alerted AG : I can live with this straightforward and reasonable rule, but ... 1S p 1N p 2S p 2N p 3S X does anybody think this could be T.O. ? >Doubles of NT or higher bids are assumed to be penalty if unalerted > >much the same as France I guess > >So penalty doubles of Weak twos and three level openers are alertable AG : and even optional doubles (ie showing a balanced hand and easily left in) From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu May 15 18:03:52 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:03:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 References: <3805916.1052920026218.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004401c31ab2$d4f78d00$33c14c51@pc> Message-ID: <001701c31b03$f63758a0$58e41e3e@mikeamos> i find this top down in suits very odd and completely contradictory to the Law as it is written ok ok I have no problem with the man who claims with AKQJ2 I dont expect him to start with the 2 BUT AJ when I have I have the Q and I think the K has gone ??? I know as a player I always play the top of touching honours when Im declarer -- its daft I know its just what I do (Sh*t i shouldnt have told you that ) one of my regular partners plays them at random (but then she does that with most of her cards) (lucky Sue doesnt read blml) One nice lady on a bridge holidy always played the K when she had AK -- very sensible she might forget if the K was a winner but the A was likely to stand a good chance - Sorry Ton two three or however many off it is RFTLB mike :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "LarryBennett" To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim n n 1 > I would cry too if it happened to me........ (showing your > age David) > > > Note: the EBU L&E has just enacted the "top down" > guidance. It's my Committee, and I'll cry if I want to. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 23:27:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:27:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: Richard asserted: [snip] >>but would also be an Edgar Kaplan ruling (according >>to Kaplan's article on claims in his Appeals >>Committee series published in the Bridge World). Ton asked: >Interesting remark. I do have those series of >articles at home and don't remember a similar case >was described there. Could you give the example he >used? That is a much more convincing approach than >just mentioning (a)name(s), even when it it a famous >one. > >ton Richard replied: I will track down the relevant Kaplan article. This will take a few days, given the usual chaotic condition of my personal bridge library. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 15 23:55:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:55:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: David Burn wrote: [snip] >one's position with respect to entitlement under the >laws cannot be held to vary with the orientation of a >piece of wood. [snip] >When East's thoughts do not correspond with East's >methods, the information I have received from East is >information to which, according to you, I am not >entitled; hence, it is by definition extraneous, >unauthorised. Richard Hills replied: David Burn is *entitled* by Law 40/Law 75 to know the opposing partnership's understandings/agreements. There is a difference between "extraneous" and "unauthorised". Law 16 and Law 73D1 state that it is authorised to use information provided by an extraneous action of an opponent. But neither Law 16 nor Law 73D1 say that you are *entitled* to use information provided by an extraneous action of an opponent, if that information was not received due to the orientation of a piece of wood. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 16 00:15:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:15:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: Grant Sterling wrote: >I agree that declarer's claim was irrational. >However, we are not legally allowed to enforce >irrational _play_ on declarer, even if it was >irrational of him to claim. Richard Hills replied: Disagree. If the irrational play is a consequence of the irrational claim, then the irrational play must be enforced. Grant Sterling continued: >I maintain that it is irrational to play the J of >a suit before the A, absent some compelling reason >[you're leading the J in order to overtake in hand >with the K, or something like that.] Richard Hills replied: By that logic, you are arguing that with AK in the same suit, it is rational to first play the A, but irrational to first play the K. From declarer's irrational claim, declarer believed that the AJ was equivalent to an AK. Grant Sterling continued: >I agree that it is sometimes done, but it is >irrational all the same. Richard Hills argued: Given that it is sometimes done with significant frequency, that would empirically suggest that playing bottom up rather than top down is merely careless, not irrational. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 16 00:43:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:43:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] re alerting doubles Message-ID: The big problem with an SO requiring that specific doubles be alerted, is that many partnerships have highly fuzzy understandings as to when a double is negative or penalties. Therefore, the alert or non-alert of a double by the doubler's partner gives UI to the doubler on how the double is being interpreted. The ABF consequently regulates that a double may *never* be alerted, no matter what the meaning of the double is. The ABF protects opponents from being disadvantaged by this regulation. Firstly, the opponents are permitted to enquire about the double as if it had been alerted. (In Australia, doubles, redoubles, cuebids and above-3NT calls are technically defined as self-alerting calls.) Secondly, if a pair is playing an unusual style of doubling, their doubling agreement must be listed in the Pre-Alert section of the ABF System Card. Since the vast majority of Aussies play negative doubles, my style of playing penalty doubles of the opponents' overcalls appears in my System Card's Pre-Alert section. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 16 00:56:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:56:20 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: Sven asked: [snip] >So if a director makes a terrible ruling >resulting in the offending side winning >the competition with a small margin over >second place while if the ruling had been >correct they would have ended second; who >is to make an appeal in order to restore >equity? [snip] Richard replied: My answer is that there is no obligation for the other side to appeal, if such an appeal would not assist their own personal result in the competition. In my opinion, the obligation is rather on the Law & Ethics Committee of the Sponsoring Organisation to either re-educate or replace a director who can make a terrible ruling. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 16 01:09:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:09:50 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: [snip] >In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in >certain cases an "obligation to the field". >And if someone really thinks a law support >for such an obvious matter is necessary >they may look to Law 74B1 for a starter. This >law applies equally to every contestant >whether they fight for a top placement or >already have secured a bottom. > >Sven TD: Are you appealing my ruling? NOS: No, appealing will not improve our score. TD: OK, because my ruling was so terrible, I now rule that you committed an infraction of Law 74B1 by not appealing my previous terrible ruling. I fine you a PP of three tops. NOS: Now we are appealing! Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 16 01:27:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:27:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: In the thread Put up or shut up, Grattan decreed: [big snip] >But whilst 40 A & B require disclosure of the >use of calls and not of their non-use, [snip] The artist Escher played with the concepts of "figure" and "background". In many of Escher's works, the "figures" were also "backgrounds", and "backgrounds" were also "figures". Whenever I provide explanations to my opponents of my complex relay system, I am meticulously careful to explain the "backgrounds" of calls that were not used in the current sequence. Furthermore. Law 20F1 refers to "relevant calls available but not made". So, I am not convinced that Laws 40 A & B merely refer to the "figures" of use of calls, and do not refer to the "backgrounds" of non-use of calls. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 16 01:45:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:45:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spam and approvals Message-ID: I wish to congratulate Henk for providing a superb spam-free service (with amazing archiving as a bonus). Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Fri May 16 05:43:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 06:43:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c31b65$a1558890$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > [snip] > > >In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in > >certain cases an "obligation to the field". > >And if someone really thinks a law support > >for such an obvious matter is necessary > >they may look to Law 74B1 for a starter. This > >law applies equally to every contestant > >whether they fight for a top placement or > >already have secured a bottom. > > > >Sven > > TD: Are you appealing my ruling? > NOS: No, appealing will not improve our score. > TD: OK, because my ruling was so terrible, I > now rule that you committed an infraction > of Law 74B1 by not appealing my previous > terrible ruling. I fine you a PP of three > tops. > NOS: Now we are appealing! > > Best wishes AC: This appeal is dismissed with reference to Law 91A! It is time to calm down and decide on still another point what we want of our game. (But in the scenario above, why shouldn't the Director use Law 83 and "appeal" his own ruling?) Sven From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Fri May 16 07:46:07 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:46:07 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: Message-ID: <001c01c31b76$feb6f580$bf3a4451@Default> Richard, Great, but it is more practical for the TD to appeal his decision himself. I remember a case in Holland where a (world class) TD selfappealed a ruling (a pair that might win against a pair without chances) to let the AC (meaning players of the top level event) do the bridge judging just in case it would affect the overall result. 1. When dealing with this kind of appeal I prefer to have the TD present at the AC discussion (I tend to do this anyway) because it is more that we help him with bridge judgement (the only thing we do better than this level of TD). And the TD is always a great help to us because of rules knowledge and, the most important, the facts of the case. He was at the table, we were not. And also to protect ourselves, we are playing in the same event, we might also win, so I prefer the TD to check on us even when we turn from players to members of the AC for a few moments. In this kind of situations I tend to let the TD have a big say in the final ruling after we have told him that 'diamonds is a normal lead' or '4H was not a LA' or whatever. In the end the TD is the referee and the AC members are also participants. It is easy to abuse the almost unlimited powers of being AC, I try to avoid this trap. 2. With a lot at stake the TD will be covered if the ruling will decide the tournament (and the prize money) in the end. It is a small world you know, better share the responsability for a close call. Besides when it is really about bridge judgement, top level players will accept a peer ruling much better than a ruling by even the best of TD's who in the end is not competing in the event because he simply lacks the bridge skills to do so (there are some exceptions but it doesn't happen very often that the TD has the same level as the players of a top event). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 2:09 AM Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field > > [snip] > > >In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in > >certain cases an "obligation to the field". > >And if someone really thinks a law support > >for such an obvious matter is necessary > >they may look to Law 74B1 for a starter. This > >law applies equally to every contestant > >whether they fight for a top placement or > >already have secured a bottom. > > > >Sven > > TD: Are you appealing my ruling? > NOS: No, appealing will not improve our score. > TD: OK, because my ruling was so terrible, I > now rule that you committed an infraction > of Law 74B1 by not appealing my previous > terrible ruling. I fine you a PP of three > tops. > NOS: Now we are appealing! > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri May 16 07:46:06 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 07:46:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: Message-ID: <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 1:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > Furthermore. Law 20F1 refers to "relevant calls > available but not made". > > So, I am not convinced that Laws 40 A & B merely > refer to the "figures" of use of calls, and do > not refer to the "backgrounds" of non-use of > calls. > +=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning that the player does not use. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 15 17:16:46 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Put up or shut up Message-ID: <200305151616.MAA28156@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > Supppose there was a screen. And suppose that West, my screenmate, told > me that 2H was not forincg because that is what he thinks, when > systemically it was forcing. Am I not "entitled" to that explanation? You are entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership agreements. You are not entitled to know what hands your opponents hold. I trust we all agree on these two things. The perhaps controversial question is whether you are entitled to know what the opponents believe their agreements to be. > It is an infraction to act upon information to which one is not > entitled, Where do you get this? There is a "middle" that is not excluded. Herman calls it "allowed" information, but we all agree it exists. If an opponent shows you one of his cards, or pauses or grunts in such a way that you know what he holds, don't you agree that you are allowed to use the information he has given you? Yet surely you wouldn't argue that you are "entitled" to have him give you the information. There are three categories of information, regardless of what you want to call them: 1. Information the opponents are obliged to give you. 2. Information you may use if you get it but no one is obliged to supply. 3. Information you are not allowed to use. The first two categories we call AI, and the third UI. Herman calls the first category "entitled," which seems quite a good name to me. He calls the second category "allowed," which is maybe not quite so good. Maybe a better name would avoid confusion. "Authorized but not entitled" is clear enough but cumbersome. Any other suggestions? There may be an argument as to which information is in which category, but it does no good to predicate "logic" on the premise that only two categories exist or to pretend Herman's "entitled" means both 1 and 2. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 15 16:58:00 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > So FROM THE TOP has only a meaning if you still need to establish some > tricks (like the 2 from AKQJ2). FROM THE TOP has no meaning when applied to > equals... Obviously not everyone agrees with this. "Always top down" is certainly a simpler rule than "sometimes top down, sometimes not." I don't think the way people actually play has any relevance. > Anyway it is IMO ridiculous to rule this slam made. What is ridiculous is that we can argue about the question. I don't much care which way the ruling goes, but it sure would be nice if we could be sure it would always go the same way, no matter who is directing. FWIW, in the ACBL I would expect "slam made" to be the ruling, but one cannot be certain of anything over here. If you do rule the slam down, I'd expect it to be down more than one unless the defender with S-K has no winners to cash in any rational line. If the S-K is stiff, though, he ought to have an extra card somewhere. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri May 16 12:14:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 13:14:49 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3EC4C829.30303@skynet.be> The problem with this case is now becoming clear to me: Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Jaap van der Neut" >>So FROM THE TOP has only a meaning if you still need to establish some >>tricks (like the 2 from AKQJ2). FROM THE TOP has no meaning when applied to >>equals... >> > > Obviously not everyone agrees with this. "Always top down" is > certainly a simpler rule than "sometimes top down, sometimes not." I > don't think the way people actually play has any relevance. > Of course that has relevance - how would we rule what "normal" means otherwise. > >>Anyway it is IMO ridiculous to rule this slam made. >> > > What is ridiculous is that we can argue about the question. I don't > much care which way the ruling goes, but it sure would be nice if we > could be sure it would always go the same way, no matter who is > directing. > indeed. > FWIW, in the ACBL I would expect "slam made" to be the ruling, but one This is the crux. The ACBL has written down "top down" and people think this applies also to this case. I think we should be more precise. The rule is "normal" not "top down". "top down" is an abbreviation. It implies that from AKQJ2 one does not play the 2 first. "top down" does not imply that from that same holding the A is played before the J. That is what is wrong with the claim rulings. People are looking for easy rules, when there are no such (except David's). Yes, we do need some concertation, and stating that from AKQJ2 the 2 is not played is such concertation. But abbreviating it to "top down" and then use that rule to decide that AQJ is also played ace first, is going too far. > cannot be certain of anything over here. If you do rule the slam down, > I'd expect it to be down more than one unless the defender with S-K has > no winners to cash in any rational line. If the S-K is stiff, though, > he ought to have an extra card somewhere. > of course, and I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that one down meant "exactly one down". Since we don't know the rest of the lay-out, we don't know how many down, but that is not important in this discussion. > _______________________________________________ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 16 15:44:31 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: <200305161444.KAA25417@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Given that it is sometimes done with significant > frequency, that would empirically suggest that > playing bottom up rather than top down is merely > careless, not irrational. Here's a good illustration of the logical flaw in ruling claims according to "what the player might do." The claim laws require us to separate the "irrational" from all else (which the laws confusingly call "normal"). Defining "irrational" is not an empirical matter. Part of the benefit of claiming is that you are protected against irrational plays, even if you would sometimes make them were you to play on. (Not everyone approves of this.) I don't think there is any simple way to clarify the claim laws -- certainly not one that will satisfy everybody. A combination of better language in the laws, written guidelines of the type Kaplan offered, and approved examples is probably the best we can do unless we are willing to adopt David B.'s approach. From cfgcs@eiu.edu Fri May 16 15:58:07 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:58:07 -0500 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <3EC4C829.30303@skynet.be> References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030516092538.029c9b70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 01:14 PM 5/16/03 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >The problem with this case is now becoming clear to me: > >Steve Willner wrote: > >>>From: "Jaap van der Neut" >>>So FROM THE TOP has only a meaning if you still need to establish some >>>tricks (like the 2 from AKQJ2). FROM THE TOP has no meaning when applied to >>>equals... >>Obviously not everyone agrees with this. "Always top down" is >>certainly a simpler rule than "sometimes top down, sometimes not." I >>don't think the way people actually play has any relevance. > >Of course that has relevance - how would we rule what "normal" means >otherwise. "Normal" does not mean normal--I would have hoped that everyone concerned with this debate would have agreed with that by now. For example, in some circumstances is it decidedly abnormal to be careless--and yet the Law requires us to consider careless lines as "normal". OTOH, there are times when it is normal to be irrational, and yet we are explicitly told that irrational lines are not "normal". Indeed, this is practically true by definition. Since "normal" includes lines of play that are careless or inferior for the class of player involved, then by definition it contains lines of play that that class of player infrequently follows. [It is too paradoxical in my mind to suggest that you can indentify the class of player I belong to while at the same time saying that I normally follow lines that are inferior to the lines that class of player follows!] OTOH, as I have said elsewhere in this thread, it is clearly irrational to play the A from AJ, even if you have the Q and _believe_ the K to be gone. Nonetheless, I agree that that sort of thing is done on some occasions, and perhaps even often enough to call it normal. [It is not, however, done more-often-than-not, which is one meaning of normal.] So, "normal" does not mean "anything that is ever done by anybody", because irrational plays are not "normal" and yet people do sometimes do all sorts of horridly irrational things. So I reject outright any argument about claims that uses "I once saw so-and-so do such-and-such, therefore it's normal." "Normal" does not mean "what people usually do", because careless and inferior-for-their-class plays are not the plays people usually make, and yet we are told they are "normal". Neither, I think, does "normal" mean "plays that are made with some [unspecified] degree of frequency", because again there are irrational plays that are made with some degree of frequency, and careless and inferior ones that aren't. Now you may debate if you like whether "normal" ought to mean normal, and if so which of these three meanings of normal [or some other one] it should mean, but I don't see how you can claim that it _does_ mean that, given the footnote. {Unless you prefer to argue that "careless, inferior, and irrational" do none of them mean careless, inferior or irrational. :)} >>>Anyway it is IMO ridiculous to rule this slam made. >>What is ridiculous is that we can argue about the question. I don't >>much care which way the ruling goes, but it sure would be nice if we >>could be sure it would always go the same way, no matter who is >>directing. > >indeed. I disagree. I mean, I agree that it would be _nice_ if it would, but not that it is ridiculous or horrid that it shouldn't. Again, I can only speak for the game as it is played in my area, but in my area there would be far more disruptions, hurt feelings, and seemingly-unjust rulings from making claim laws tighter and more regimented than there are from cases where different TDs make judgments and judge differently. >>FWIW, in the ACBL I would expect "slam made" to be the ruling, but one > >This is the crux. The ACBL has written down "top down" and people think >this applies also to this case. > >I think we should be more precise. The rule is "normal" not "top down". >"top down" is an abbreviation. It implies that from AKQJ2 one does not >play the 2 first. "top down" does not imply that from that same holding >the A is played before the J. > >That is what is wrong with the claim rulings. People are looking for easy >rules, when there are no such (except David's). Yes, we do need some >concertation, and stating that from AKQJ2 the 2 is not played is such >concertation. But abbreviating it to "top down" and then use that rule to >decide that AQJ is also played ace first, is going too far. Well, this is an excellent point, Herman, but it directly contradicts your last assertion. If what we're aiming for in claim rulings is consistency, then we need rules that are so easy that no two TDs could possibly apply them differently. In that case, 'top down' must mean 'always top down, no exceptions'. If what we're aiming at is to capture the Laws as written [including the definition in the footnote], then we ought to be aiming at defining what sorts of plays are irrational, and what ones are merely careless, and whether there are any plays that are not irrational but are still abnormal. If what we're aiming at is to make "normal" normal, then we should delete the footnote, define "normal" in one of the three ways I suggested above, and we don't need rules at all. >>cannot be certain of anything over here. If you do rule the slam down, >>I'd expect it to be down more than one unless the defender with S-K has >>no winners to cash in any rational line. If the S-K is stiff, though, >>he ought to have an extra card somewhere. > >of course, and I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that one down >meant "exactly one down". Since we don't know the rest of the lay-out, we >don't know how many down, but that is not important in this discussion. This I agree with--the slam will be down some unspecified number, probably 1+cashable hearts. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant From john@asimere.com Fri May 16 15:54:45 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:54:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott> References: <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott> Message-ID: <8iAuUIA1uPx+Ew9E@asimere.com> In article <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >" A professor is someone who talks in >someone else's sleep." [W.H. Auden] >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 1:27 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > >> >> Furthermore. Law 20F1 refers to "relevant calls >> available but not made". >> >> So, I am not convinced that Laws 40 A & B merely >> refer to the "figures" of use of calls, and do >> not refer to the "backgrounds" of non-use of >> calls. >> >+=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning >that the player does not use. > all the same, if I know my partner could have made a call instead of the one that he did, I'd explain both the call made and the call not made and my expectation (agreement) of the difference. Since I know it, why shouldn't my opponents? cheers John > ~ G ~ +=+ > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gester@lineone.net Fri May 16 16:15:37 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:15:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott> <8iAuUIA1uPx+Ew9E@asimere.com> Message-ID: <001401c31bbf$11f9e880$c62a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > In article <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott > writes > > > >Grattan Endicott >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >" A professor is someone who talks in > >someone else's sleep." [W.H. Auden] > >============================== > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 1:27 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > > > > >> > >> Furthermore. Law 20F1 refers to "relevant calls > >> available but not made". > >> > >> So, I am not convinced that Laws 40 A & B merely > >> refer to the "figures" of use of calls, and do > >> not refer to the "backgrounds" of non-use of > >> calls. > >> > >+=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. > >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning > >that the player does not use. > > > all the same, if I know my partner could have > made a call instead of the one that he did, I'd > explain both the call made and the call not made > and my expectation (agreement) of the difference. > Since I know it, why shouldn't my opponents? > > cheers John > +=+ If it is a call that your system includes and another call was used instead, then it was 'available' and you should then explain why you chose one rather than the other. But if it is a call that is excluded from your methods then it was not 'available'. It was not an option. I take it you would not think of explaining why you have not used a call from someone else's system? ~ G ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Fri May 16 16:22:17 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:22:17 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001501c31bbf$12bbb1e0$c62a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > What is ridiculous is that we can argue about the question. > +=+ The argument would not have arisen if sanity had prevailed and the player had cashed Ace before claiming. When you have a gappy suit, and think it good it is a very ordinary precaution to cash the highest card of equals before claiming; I was taught to do this about sixty-five years ago. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri May 16 17:20:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:20:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 In-Reply-To: <001701c31b03$f63758a0$58e41e3e@mikeamos> References: <3805916.1052920026218.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004401c31ab2$d4f78d00$33c14c51@pc> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030516180808.02467e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:03 15/05/2003 +0100, mamos wrote: >BUT AJ when I have I have the Q and I think the K has gone ??? I know as a >player I always play the top of touching honours when Im declarer -- its >daft I know its just what I do (Sh*t i shouldnt have told you that ) one of >my regular partners plays them at random (but then she does that with most >of her cards) (lucky Sue doesnt read blml) AG : it may depend of whether dummy is present, ie if not you'll reach for the smallest of equals because it's nearer. >One nice lady on a bridge holidy always played the K when she had AK -- very >sensible she might forget if the K was a winner but the A was likely to >stand a good chance - AG : that's excellent advice to give. There are also players who have some pattern depending on circumstances of the deal - eg playing Cooper echoes. All this indeed means that if you believe cards to be equals then you might play them in any order. And we have agreed that a player who tables and says that his cards are high is in that specific state of mind. Yes, there are cases where a player reaches for the Jack rather than the Ace, if he believes them to be equals. Now for a linked topic. AQ 42 AK xx Qxx AKx -- -- NT contract. I table saying "playing everything but the SQ. You get 1 trick" (BTW I often do so) Say that a defender has been serendipitously squeezed, and his SK is now bare. Do you allow me all the tricks ? I'd say yes, because when playing the way I've said, I can't fail to make all tricks, *though I didn't state the exact order of the cards* But do the Laws support this view, namely "when many lines are consistent with the statement, and all lead to X tricks, even if other lines lead to Y tricks, grant declarer X tricks" ? And why ? Best regards, Alain. From cfgcs@eiu.edu Fri May 16 17:24:32 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:24:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030516095856.029ec0d0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 09:15 AM 5/16/03 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > > >I agree that declarer's claim was irrational. > >However, we are not legally allowed to enforce > >irrational _play_ on declarer, even if it was > >irrational of him to claim. > >Richard Hills replied: > >Disagree. If the irrational play is a consequence >of the irrational claim, then the irrational play >must be enforced. Certianly if the irrational play was _part of the claim statement_, then it must be accepted. [Note that even this has been denied by some on this list, since it has been argued that, for example, if the claim statement requires a revoke, we can't make claimer revoke!] But I know of no other meaning of "consequence of an irrational claim" that could apply here. Now perhaps what you mean is this--the claimer claimed based on certain beliefs about the hand, in this case including the belief that the K was gone. {BTW, I can't remember from the original if it is certain that declarer thought the K was gone, or if this was merely surmised.} Given those beliefs, it would not be irrational to play the J before the A, and before cashing any minor suit winners. Ergo, the claim makes the play rational. However, even given this, it is a play that can never gain but can sometimes lose [if one of your beliefs is false, which must be admitted as possible.] Ergo, I would call it irrational. If you prefer the definition of irrational I proposed once long ago, namely "for the purposes of claim law 'irrational' lines are those that are clearly inferior in quality and are followed only very seldom by players of this claimer's class", I think it fails to meet this standard, too, although the cas eis much more open to debate. People do indeed _sometimes_ play the J from AJ, but not in my experience very often. So I hold to my earlier position--playing this way does indeed sometimes occur, but it is irrational nonetheless. >Grant Sterling continued: > > >I maintain that it is irrational to play the J of > >a suit before the A, absent some compelling reason > >[you're leading the J in order to overtake in hand > >with the K, or something like that.] > >Richard Hills replied: > >By that logic, you are arguing that with AK in the >same suit, it is rational to first play the A, but >irrational to first play the K. From declarer's >irrational claim, declarer believed that the AJ >was equivalent to an AK. I disagree. Psychologically, there is a difference, and this results in [based purely on my own experience] a _much_ greater likelihood that someone will play K from AK than J from AJ {or Q from AQ} even if he thinks they're all high. Strategically, playing K will never lose a trick, while playing J will lose a trick on the rare occasions when you have mistaken beliefs about missing K's. So whether you wish to define "irrational" in terms of frequency or game theory, either way it's not irrational to play the K, but it is to play the J. IMHO. >Grant Sterling continued: > > >I agree that it is sometimes done, but it is > >irrational all the same. > >Richard Hills argued: > >Given that it is sometimes done with significant >frequency, that would empirically suggest that >playing bottom up rather than top down is merely >careless, not irrational. Then it seems you are willing to take my suggestion that "irrational" is to mean "inferior and occurring very, very seldom". In that case, we merely disagree on the frequency--I think it is in fact done very, very seldom, you think it is done "with significant frequency". I am quite willing to accept such a disagreement on empirical fact, and accept that if I had made such a claim with you as TD I would be down 'n' tricks, and if you had made such a claim with me as TD you wouldn't. :) >Best wishes > >Richard Respectfully, Grant From cfgcs@eiu.edu Fri May 16 17:31:04 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:31:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030516180808.02467e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <001701c31b03$f63758a0$58e41e3e@mikeamos> <3805916.1052920026218.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004401c31ab2$d4f78d00$33c14c51@pc> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030516112552.02148070@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 06:20 PM 5/16/03 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 18:03 15/05/2003 +0100, mamos wrote: > >All this indeed means that if you believe cards to be equals then you >might play them in any order. I agree with that. Emphasis on _might_. >And we have agreed that a player who tables and says that his cards are >high is in that specific state of mind. >Yes, there are cases where a player reaches for the Jack rather than the >Ace, if he believes them to be equals. > >Now for a linked topic. > >AQ 42 >AK xx >Qxx AKx >-- -- > >NT contract. I table saying "playing everything but the SQ. You get 1 trick" > (BTW I often do so) >Say that a defender has been serendipitously squeezed, and his SK is now bare. >Do you allow me all the tricks ? >I'd say yes, because when playing the way I've said, I can't fail to make >all tricks, *though I didn't state the exact order of the cards* >But do the Laws support this view, namely >"when many lines are consistent with the statement, and all lead to X >tricks, even if other lines lead to Y tricks, grant declarer X tricks" ? >And why ? I think "normal line of play" must always be understood within the context of the claim statement [if any]. Hence, I rule in your favor under L71C. By the same token, had our original claimer stated "I play my minor suit winners first and take the two spades last" I think it would be indisputable that he should be awarded all the tricks, since there are no normal lines of play _consistent with this claim statement_ which give him fewer tricks, even if you think that J from AJ would have been normal otherwise. [This despite the fact that players _do_, on some rare occasions, lead a card from hand and then play the J from the AJ under a K on their left.... :)] >Best regards, > > Alain. Respectfully, Grant From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Fri May 16 17:29:45 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:29:45 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001501c31bbf$12bbb1e0$c62a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <003301c31bc9$1bc86440$a5254451@Default> Grattan: > +=+ The argument would not have arisen if sanity had > prevailed and the player had cashed Ace before claiming. > When you have a gappy suit, and think it good it is a very > ordinary precaution to cash the highest card of equals > before claiming; I was taught to do this about sixty-five > years ago. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 1. Yes, we all agree. 2. The fact that the guy didn't do so should be used against him when resolving the claim. And we should stop protecting this insanity. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:22 PM Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "And finds, with keen discriminating sight, > Black's not so black, - nor white so very > white." > [George Canning] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > > > > What is ridiculous is that we can argue about the question. > > > +=+ The argument would not have arisen if sanity had > prevailed and the player had cashed Ace before claiming. > When you have a gappy suit, and think it good it is a very > ordinary precaution to cash the highest card of equals > before claiming; I was taught to do this about sixty-five > years ago. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Fri May 16 17:35:01 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:35:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 References: Message-ID: <003401c31bc9$1ca11100$a5254451@Default> Dear all, Just for your information. We had to rule this case in Holland because a qualification depended on it. The ruling was 6NT-4 (declarer loses to SK and then they cash 3H). It was beyond doubt that declarer had forgotten about SK and claimed the spades as toptricks. Maybe David wants even more down, but we don't require claimer to dump his winners on the hearts. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 > We play a couple of cup events in the NBB for different levels. All between > clubs and consisting of three teams with the pairs playing against all 6 > oposing pairs (nice format!). One is on the level of teams playing in the > highest group in the region (district we call those). A team of four is > playing the same boards in each round so results are known after each round > and are announced. Very exiting if the match is close. > > One of my mates in another team played 6NT and claimed the last 8 tricks > with in hand and in dummy: > > AJ Qx > Jx -- > xx KJx > xx AQx > > saying: 2spade tricks, 3 diamond and 3 club tricks. Diamonds and clubs were > indeed high but the spade K was still out. Difficult to construct the reason > for this abberation. He had opened 2NT and got a first lead in spades. > It appeared that his RHO had the stiff spade king at that moment and > declarer had won the last trick in his own hand (a pity). (he had lost one > trick already). > > At the end of the evening we had lost with a couple of imps and the TD had > decided this contract to be one off. Had declarer made this contract we > would have won. > Being the chairman of the national appeal committee but also being member of > this team I had a problem. Eventually we decided to appeal the decision. The > only way to loose this contract is to demand declarer to play the spade J at > this moment. So the question the AC has to answer now is whether playing > that card at this moment should be considered normal play. > > I won't take part in that discussion though I have an opinion. Keep silent > David. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From david.barton@boltblue.com Fri May 16 18:34:49 2003 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:34:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott> <8iAuUIA1uPx+Ew9E@asimere.com> <001401c31bbf$11f9e880$c62a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <001201c31bd1$73caef20$0300a8c0@david> > > >> Furthermore. Law 20F1 refers to "relevant calls > > >> available but not made". > > >> > > >> So, I am not convinced that Laws 40 A & B merely > > >> refer to the "figures" of use of calls, and do > > >> not refer to the "backgrounds" of non-use of > > >> calls. > > >> > > >+=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. > > >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning > > >that the player does not use. > > > > > all the same, if I know my partner could have > > made a call instead of the one that he did, I'd > > explain both the call made and the call not made > > and my expectation (agreement) of the difference. > > Since I know it, why shouldn't my opponents? > > > > cheers John > > > +=+ If it is a call that your system includes and > another call was used instead, then it was > 'available' and you should then explain why you > chose one rather than the other. But if it is a call > that is excluded from your methods then it was > not 'available'. It was not an option. > I take it you would not think of explaining > why you have not used a call from someone else's > system? > ~ G ~ +=+ > > If asked about partner's 3D overcall of oppo's 1N, I would include in my explanaition the info that we did not have a natural 2D overcall available. So yes, I would explain why he has not used a call from someone else's system. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From svenpran@online.no Fri May 16 19:04:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 20:04:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <001201c31bd1$73caef20$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000201c31bd5$a04a1720$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > +=3D+ If it is a call that your system includes and > > another call was used instead, then it was > > 'available' and you should then explain why you > > chose one rather than the other. But if it is a call > > that is excluded from your methods then it was > > not 'available'. It was not an option. > > I take it you would not think of explaining > > why you have not used a call from someone else's > > system? > > ~ G ~ +=3D+ > > > > >=20 > If asked about partner's 3D overcall of oppo's 1N, I would > include in my explanaition the info that we did not have a > natural 2D overcall available. So yes, I would explain why > he has not used a call from someone else's system. Another example of explaining a call that was available but not used, or rather the effect of such a call, is a very common error when explaining = the 1D opening bid in strong club systems: The 1D opening bid is frequently alerted and explained as "can be down = to two diamonds only". This is _not_ a correct explanation! The correct explanation is: He either has a normal opening hand with at least four diamonds; or he has a NT shaped hand with strength that falls outside the range for a 1NT opening bid (because he did not open in = 1NT). The follow-up answer is then of course to explain (exactly) what 1NT = would have shown had that opening bid been used. Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri May 16 19:28:35 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:28:35 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] claim n n 1 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030516180808.02467e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 May 2003, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AQ 42 > AK xx > Qxx AKx > -- -- > > NT contract. I table saying "playing everything but the SQ. You get 1 trick" > (BTW I often do so) > Say that a defender has been serendipitously squeezed, and his SK is now bare. > Do you allow me all the tricks ? If he has *already* been serendipitously squeezed, yes. (And almost all players I know would admit to it being a singleton and offer you the last trick.) If, on a slightly different layout, you claim all but the last, but *would* squeeze someone in the process of cashing your winners, you are held to your stated line, and won't get to cash your your non-spade that sets up when the defence saves its SK for the last trick. (Say, this same deal but with a club in your hand instead of the 2nd small diamond.) GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 16 22:23:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 17:23:58 -0400 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <3EC4C829.30303@skynet.be> References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030516170751.025f99b0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:14 AM 5/16/03, Herman wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >>>From: "Jaap van der Neut" >>>So FROM THE TOP has only a meaning if you still need to establish some >>>tricks (like the 2 from AKQJ2). FROM THE TOP has no meaning when >>>applied to >>>equals... >>Obviously not everyone agrees with this. "Always top down" is >>certainly a simpler rule than "sometimes top down, sometimes not." I >>don't think the way people actually play has any relevance. >Of course that has relevance - how would we rule what "normal" means >otherwise. We would -- and should -- use the footnote to L69-71 which redefines "'normal'" to mean "...not irrational". Yes, for some players it is normal to play irrationally, but we don't really care what's normal; we care only what's "normal" as the footnote (in contradiction to the dictionary) defines it. We wouldn't be debating this if L69-71 had used the word "foofy" instead of the word "normal", and the footnote had said, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'foofy' includes play that..." >>>Anyway it is IMO ridiculous to rule this slam made. >>What is ridiculous is that we can argue about the question. I don't >>much care which way the ruling goes, but it sure would be nice if we >>could be sure it would always go the same way, no matter who is >>directing. >indeed. > >>FWIW, in the ACBL I would expect "slam made" to be the ruling, but one > >This is the crux. The ACBL has written down "top down" and people >think this applies also to this case. > >I think we should be more precise. The rule is "normal" not "top >down". "top down" is an abbreviation. It implies that from AKQJ2 one >does not play the 2 first. "top down" does not imply that from that >same holding the A is played before the J. > >That is what is wrong with the claim rulings. People are looking for >easy rules, when there are no such (except David's). Yes, we do need >some concertation, and stating that from AKQJ2 the 2 is not played is >such concertation. But abbreviating it to "top down" and then use that >rule to decide that AQJ is also played ace first, is going too far. People haven't read what the ACBL has written far enough. The rule isn't "top down always"; it is "top down when cashing out". When we adjudicate a claimer's (unspecified) presumptive choice between trying for the tricks he claimed by either cashing out or by doing something else, we give him the worst of the "normal" lines. The rule does not say he will always try for his tricks by cashing; if it did, that would be equivalent to "top down always". For instance, it is usually "normal" to try for two tricks with AQ by either cashing or finessing; if he doesn't specify which he will do, he loses a trick, under ACBL guidelines, unless the K is stiff onside. But if he says "cashing out for n tricks", and n tricks requires a trick with the Q, then he gets if it the K is stiff on either side. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 17 01:27:31 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 01:27:31 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <001501c31bbf$12bbb1e0$c62a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <59168170-87FE-11D7-B9E5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 04:22 PM, wrote: > +=+ The argument would not have arisen if sanity had > prevailed and the player had cashed Ace before claiming. > When you have a gappy suit, and think it good it is a very > ordinary precaution to cash the highest card of equals > before claiming; I was taught to do this about sixty-five > years ago. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If players didn't do foolish things, there are many situations in which poorly-drafted laws wouldn't trouble us. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu May 15 19:24:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:24:14 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: <000301c31ace$4291ea70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 5/15/03, Sven Pran wrote: >The intention with appeals is to give a contestant the possibility to >obtain a second view on a situation where he is unsatisfied with a >Director's ruling. (That is at least how I see it). With this I agree. >In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in certain cases an >"obligation to the field". And if someone really thinks a law support >for such an obvious matter is necessary they may look to Law 74B1 for >a starter. This law applies equally to every contestant whether they >fight for a top placement or already have secured a bottom. With this I do not. The reference to Law 74B1 in particular is *way* too big a stretch for me to accept. And it may be obvious to you; it is most certainly not obvious to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From svenpran@online.no Sat May 17 09:10:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 10:10:35 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c31c4b$cb845c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> So you consider the following two situations acceptable and according to = the current understanding of the Laws? In both cases the event is qualifying = for some big-shot event so the difference between winning the first or the second place is crucial. Two participants A and B are in the position to compete for the top place. Somehow A becomes aware of an irregularity performed by B (at some other table). As a result of the irregularity B obtains such a favorable result that B wins the event while otherwise A would have won. 1: Nobody at the table summons the Director; however A having noticed = the irregularity notifies him. The Director investigates and awards an = assigned adjusted score for that board so that equity is restored. This is his = duty under Law 81C6, and the result is that A wins the event. 2: The Director is summoned to the table but doesn't do his job; he just lets the obtained result stand. NOS has little interest in their final result and do not appeal so B wins the event. A has no possibility under = any law to get this error rectified. (Not even 82C because with average plus = B will still be the winner). I see two possibilities for A to correctly become the winner: 1: Allowing A to appeal the TD decision, this we do not allow today. 2: Considering "obligation to the field" an existing principle. And please recognize that this scenario is not that "exotic", I have = seen many events where the final result depended upon the Director doing his = job. Regards Sven =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ed > Reppert > Sent: 15. mai 2003 20:24 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field >=20 > On 5/15/03, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >The intention with appeals is to give a contestant the possibility to > >obtain a second view on a situation where he is unsatisfied with a > >Director's ruling. (That is at least how I see it). >=20 > With this I agree. >=20 > >In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in certain cases an > >"obligation to the field". And if someone really thinks a law support > >for such an obvious matter is necessary they may look to Law 74B1 for > >a starter. This law applies equally to every contestant whether they > >fight for a top placement or already have secured a bottom. >=20 > With this I do not. The reference to Law 74B1 in particular is *way* = too > big a stretch for me to accept. >=20 > And it may be obvious to you; it is most certainly not obvious to me. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Ed >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Sat May 17 11:09:42 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 12:09:42 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: <000701c31c4b$cb845c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EC60A66.2040007@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > 2: The Director is summoned to the table but doesn't do his job; he just > lets the obtained result stand. NOS has little interest in their final > result and do not appeal so B wins the event. A has no possibility under any > law to get this error rectified. (Not even 82C because with average plus B > will still be the winner). > > I see two possibilities for A to correctly become the winner: > 1: Allowing A to appeal the TD decision, this we do not allow today. > 2: Considering "obligation to the field" an existing principle. > I have seen cases in which A asks the NOS to appeal, which they do. I would accept such an appeal from NOS, even if they have no direct interest, and would not use that knowledge in my deciding on frivolity. (A would be quite willing to pay the deposit anyway) But I do not allow A to appeal or to attend the appeal, not even as "lawyer" of NOS. > And please recognize that this scenario is not that "exotic", I have seen > many events where the final result depended upon the Director doing his job. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat May 17 11:14:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 12:14:38 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030516092538.029c9b70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <3EC60B8E.40106@skynet.be> Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> That is what is wrong with the claim rulings. People are looking for >> easy rules, when there are no such (except David's). Yes, we do need >> some concertation, and stating that from AKQJ2 the 2 is not played is >> such concertation. But abbreviating it to "top down" and then use that >> rule to decide that AQJ is also played ace first, is going too far. > > > Well, this is an excellent point, Herman, but it > directly contradicts your last assertion. If what we're > aiming for in claim rulings is consistency, then we need > rules that are so easy that no two TDs could possibly apply > them differently. In that case, 'top down' must mean 'always > top down, no exceptions'. If what we're aiming at is to > capture the Laws as written [including the definition in the > footnote], then we ought to be aiming at defining what sorts > of plays are irrational, and what ones are merely careless, > and whether there are any plays that are not irrational but > are still abnormal. If what we're aiming at is to make "normal" > normal, then we should delete the footnote, define "normal" in > one of the three ways I suggested above, and we don't need > rules at all. > Well Grant, if you don't understand what I mean, I'll try again. Yes, we need concertation. Yes, we need to form a common understanding on how to rule AKQJ2. Yes, we have this common understanding (even David agrees about this case under the present laws). Yes, we _could_ abbreviate that principle as "top down". But No, that does _not_ mean that the common understanding is "top down". Or that the common understanding is "ace first from AQJ2". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sat May 17 11:21:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 12:21:43 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: <3EC60A66.2040007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c31c5e$1d14c5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > 2: The Director is summoned to the table but doesn't do his job; he = just > > lets the obtained result stand. NOS has little interest in their = final > > result and do not appeal so B wins the event. A has no possibility = under > any > > law to get this error rectified. (Not even 82C because with average = plus > B > > will still be the winner). > > > > I see two possibilities for A to correctly become the winner: > > 1: Allowing A to appeal the TD decision, this we do not allow today. > > 2: Considering "obligation to the field" an existing principle. > > >=20 >=20 > I have seen cases in which A asks the NOS to appeal, which they do. > I would accept such an appeal from NOS, even if they have no direct > interest, and would not use that knowledge in my deciding on > frivolity. (A would be quite willing to pay the deposit anyway) > But I do not allow A to appeal or to attend the appeal, not even as > "lawyer" of NOS. This is all very fine, but what if NOS refuse to appeal (on the ground = that they have no interest in the board)? Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat May 17 16:50:57 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 11:50:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Re: FROM THE TOP Message-ID: <200305171550.LAA10533@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Yes, we _could_ abbreviate that principle as "top down". > But No, that does _not_ mean that the common understanding is "top down". > Or that the common understanding is "ace first from AQJ2". I don't think anyone is suggesting "ace first from AQJ2" is the only rational play. In general the finesse is not irrational if there are entries to take it. What some of us are suggesting is that queen first, jack first, and deuce first from this holding are irrational. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 17 20:56:36 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 20:56:36 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: <000801c31c5e$1d14c5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001b01c31cae$b430f360$407087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field < This is all very fine, but what if NOS refuse to appeal (on the ground that they have no interest in the board)? Sven +=+ We were explicit in 1984-7 when entering the words "at his table" in Law 92A, to reflect that a contestant does not have any rights in relation to a ruling at a table at which the contestant was not involved in the play. There is no obligation upon a side to appeal if it is not inclined to do so. There is no duty in Law to have regard for 'the field'; if there were a perceived duty it were a perception of morality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat May 17 21:33:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 16:33:06 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: <000001c31b65$a1558890$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 5/16/03, Sven Pran wrote: >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> [snip] >> >> TD: Are you appealing my ruling? >> NOS: No, appealing will not improve our score. >> TD: OK, because my ruling was so terrible, I >> now rule that you committed an infraction >> of Law 74B1 by not appealing my previous >> terrible ruling. I fine you a PP of three >> tops. >> NOS: Now we are appealing! > >AC: This appeal is dismissed with reference to Law 91A! Pfui. This is not a DP; 91A does not apply. Fine the committee! >It is time to calm down and decide on still another point what we want >of our game. (But in the scenario above, why shouldn't the Director >use Law 83 and "appeal" his own ruling?) Because, as he has already shown, he's an idiot. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat May 17 21:36:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 16:36:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <003a01c31b76$e8e68c20$d628e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 5/16/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning >that the player does not use. > ~ G ~ +=+ This makes no sense. The laws say that a player must disclose the meanings of "relevant calls available but not made", yet you here seem to say we should ignore that, so that when a player didn't make a "relevant call" he need not disclose its meaning. That directly contravenes the law, it seems to me. 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat May 17 21:46:59 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 13:46:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: FROM THE TOP References: <200305171550.LAA10533@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000c01c31cb5$786be0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: Herman De Wael > > Yes, we _could_ abbreviate that principle as "top down". > > But No, that does _not_ mean that the common understanding is "top down". > > Or that the common understanding is "ace first from AQJ2". > > I don't think anyone is suggesting "ace first from AQJ2" is the only > rational play. In general the finesse is not irrational if there are > entries to take it. What some of us are suggesting is that queen > first, jack first, and deuce first from this holding are irrational. > Which reminds me of the time when, on Goren's live TV show, Peter Leventritt successfully finessed the queen in a suit contract, but later led to the ace and discarded a loser on the jack, for down one. His usually unflappable partner, Helen Sobel, said, "Oh, Peter, how could you?" Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat May 17 21:53:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 13:53:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: Message-ID: <001101c31cb6$61f0c320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > On 5/16/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. > >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning > >that the player does not use. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > This makes no sense. The laws say that a player must disclose the > meanings of "relevant calls available but not made", yet you here seem > to say we should ignore that, so that when a player didn't make a > "relevant call" he need not disclose its meaning. That directly > contravenes the law, it seems to me. > That's L20F1.."(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made.)" You have to ask, evidently. Let's not quote partial sentences, Ed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sat May 17 22:12:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 23:12:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <001101c31cb6$61f0c320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c31cb8$ff071400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French=20 > From: "Ed Reppert"=20 > > On 5/16/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >+=3D+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. > > >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning > > >that the player does not use. > > > ~ G ~ +=3D+ > > > > This makes no sense. The laws say that a player must disclose the > > meanings of "relevant calls available but not made", yet you here = seem > > to say we should ignore that, so that when a player didn't make a > > "relevant call" he need not disclose its meaning. That directly > > contravenes the law, it seems to me. > > > That's L20F1.."(questions may be asked about calls actually made or = about > relevant calls available but not made.)" >=20 > You have to ask, evidently. Let's not quote partial sentences, Ed. Can we safely assume that when explaining an auction the explanation is = not complete unless it includes specifications of those hand types that = should have resulted in the use of a call different from the one actually used? Take for example the 1D opening bid in strong club systems; IMO the explanation is not complete by just informing that the length of the = diamond suit can be down to two unless it includes the information that with = less than four diamonds the hand must be a 1NT hand type (4333, 4432 or 5332) except that the hand strength is outside the limits for a 1NT opening = bid. L20F1 clearly allows us to ask what 1NT would have shown, but it should = not be necessary to ask this question in order to obtain a full description = of 1D opening bids. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat May 17 22:31:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 17:31:18 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: On 5/17/03, Sven Pran wrote: >So you consider the following two situations acceptable and according >to the current understanding of the Laws? Any situation in which the director does not do his job is not "according to the current understanding of the Laws". IMO, if a director does not do his job, you find out why. If he made a mistake through ignorance, educate him. If he willfully disregarded his duties, or proves incapable of learning to do his job properly, fire him. Neither of these, of course, makes contestant A very happy in situation 2, as he's still lost the event. But your solution reads into the laws something that is not there. That's no good either. Aside from that, while objectively what you have A doing in situation 1 seems both legal and ethical under the laws of bridge, I am uncomfortable with A doing it. It just doesn't *feel* right to me. 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun May 18 00:21:16 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 16:21:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <000001c31cb8$ff071400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c31ccb$05737f60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > Marvin French > From: "Ed Reppert" > > On 5/16/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >+=+ I think 'available' means 'available for use'. > > >I see no requirement in this to disclose a meaning > > >that the player does not use. > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > This makes no sense. The laws say that a player must disclose the > > meanings of "relevant calls available but not made", yet you here seem > > to say we should ignore that, so that when a player didn't make a > > "relevant call" he need not disclose its meaning. That directly > > contravenes the law, it seems to me. > > > That's L20F1.."(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about > relevant calls available but not made.)" > > You have to ask, evidently. Let's not quote partial sentences, Ed. [sp]Can we safely assume that when explaining an auction the explanation is not complete unless it includes specifications of those hand types that should have resulted in the use of a call different from the one actually used? [mlf] That could result in a very long litany, if I have your syntax right. [sp]Take for example the 1D opening bid in strong club systems; IMO the explanation is not complete by just informing that the length of the diamond suit can be down to two unless it includes the information that with less than four diamonds the hand must be a 1NT hand type (4333, 4432 or 5332) except that the hand strength is outside the limits for a 1NT opening bid. [mlf] Yes indeed, the call itself must fully explained. That is not explaining (except by inference) the meaning of other calls available but not made. [sp] L20F1 clearly allows us to ask what 1NT would have shown, but it should not be necessary to ask this question in order to obtain a full description of 1D opening bids. [mlf] Agreed, fully. But I think Ed was saying that the meaning of 1NT has to be supplied along with the meaning of 1D, without being asked for it. L20F1 doesn't say that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun May 18 04:25:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 04:25:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: Message-ID: <003801c31ced$7d246570$f70be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > The laws say that a player must disclose the > meanings of "relevant calls available but not made", > yet you here seem to say we should ignore that, so > that when a player didn't make a "relevant call" he > need not disclose its meaning. That directly > contravenes the law, it seems to me. > +=+ This hinges upon the understanding of the word 'available' which I construe as meaning available to the player as part of his methods. Where a player's methods incorporate two different possibilities in the same auction I think he must explain the basis for choosing one rather than the other. I do not think there is any obligation to mention a call that might be available to some other player(s) but which is not included within the methods agreed by the partnership. His duty is to explain what is happening in the present auction; if asked about a method that is not available to him I think it is a complete answer to say it is not available within the partnership understandings, but there is no obligation to disclose the non-use of such a call up front other than by not including it in the full disclosure of his methods under Law 40B. As I have hinted, I also consider it muddled thinking to suppose that such an obligation could exist since, taken at the flood, it would require a listing of all the negatives - of all the non-possibilities that some other players might have available to them in the said auction. I think the obligation is to disclose the positive items that are available to the player in the present partnership, to disclose the methods not the non-methods, to inform as to the calls based upon a partnership understanding that are available for use. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 18 06:18:54 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 06:18:54 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001501c31bbf$12bbb1e0$c62a2850@pacific> <003301c31bc9$1bc86440$a5254451@Default> Message-ID: <005101c31cfe$c6b92840$ddf3193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; "blml" Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:29 PM Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > 2. The fact that the guy didn't do so should be used against > him when resolving the claim. And we should stop protecting > this insanity. > > Jaap > +=+ The aspect of the contested claims law with which I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes of player in identifying what is irrational. For me irrationality is an absolute philosophical truth, not a variable. In truth we do not mean 'irrational' and we translate it as though the footnote referred to what we could not believe of the player in question. However, a majority of my colleagues in the WBFLC, possibly nearly all of them, think and have decreed the distinction. Naturally I protect that decision loyally. However, it would be my preference that the resolution of a contested claim should pursue as closely as possible a mechanical course universal to all tables. For the present it is open to any AC to determine that for the class of player involved it would be unthinkable (i.e.' irrational') to proceed without the simple precaution that is ingrained in my learning of the game, presumably therefore any player of my ability and education or greater - perhaps less - in situations where he believes a gappy suit is 'high'. I could live with a law that allowed the Director to apply the benefit of sound logic and best practice for every claimant. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon May 19 02:01:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 21:01:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <003801c31ced$7d246570$f70be150@endicott> Message-ID: On 5/18/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: >This hinges upon the understanding of the word >'available' which I construe as meaning available to the >player as part of his methods. A lot in this game seems to hinge on understanding the meanings of various seemingly ordinary words in the laws. [snip] >I think the obligation is to disclose the positive items that are >available to the player in the present partnership, to disclose the >methods not the non-methods, to inform as to the calls based upon a >partnership understanding that are available for use. A priori, dealer has available, at his first turn to call, 36 possible calls. In theory, no hand should be describable by two of those calls. But not every bidding system is theoretically sound in that area, I suppose. In any case, I would not expect dealer's partner, having been asked the meaning of the one call dealer chose, to have to explain the meanings of all 35 other options. For one thing, most of them are not relevant. For example, a player who makes a "normal opening bid" obviously doesn't have a hand he considers preemptive. For another, the meanings of many of those options are available through "general bridge knowledge". If the opening one bid is described as having a minimum of x points, then "pass" would suggest a hand absent suit length and other factors which would suggest a preempt. So "pass" need not be explained. But if there is some matter of special partnership understanding which would, if it were present, have led to a different call, then I think that understanding should be disclosed. If my thinking is muddied, I would appreciate clarification. 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 May 19 01:45:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 20:45:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <000301c31ccb$05737f60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/17/03, Marvin French wrote: >[mlf] Agreed, fully. But I think Ed was saying that the meaning of 1NT >has to be supplied along with the meaning of 1D, without being asked >for it. L20F1 doesn't say that. The dealer has 36 calls available to him on his first bid. If his system is such that 1NT has a certain range, and balanced hands with a different range, but not "too strong" (whatever that is), are opened with one of a suit, then I suppose if you know your opponents' 1NT range, general bridge knowledge should inform you that he might have a balanced hand not suitable for a 1NT opening if he opens one of a suit. In the precision case, though, the description "could be short" is *not*, IMO, adequate disclosure. That has nothing really to do with other bids in the system, it does not adequately describe the 1D bid itself. I would think an adequate description would be something like "about 11-15 HCP, balanced or unbalanced. If unbalanced the hand would have primary diamonds *or* diamonds with longer clubs, usually 4-5. If balanced, the hand might have as few as two diamonds and, because our NT range is 13-15, only 11-12 HCP". Of course, that's how *I* played it (and described it) when I played Precision. Others may have different agreements. The point is that if (a) the meaning of a call is affected by the meanings of other possible calls, and (b) the effect is a matter of "special agreement" of which the opponents are unlikely to be aware (because it is not "general bridge knowledge") then I think the meanings of those other calls are disclosable under L20F1. Okay, L20F1 says that an opponent may *ask* about such calls, not that a player must volunteer the information. This brings up two questions: (1) how is the opponent supposed to know that some other call is relevant, if the player doesn't tell him? (2) What of the principle of full disclosure? 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 Mon May 19 02:34:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:34:12 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: [snip] >(But in the scenario above, why shouldn't the Director >use Law 83 and "appeal" his own ruling?) > >Sven I agree that the TD should use their own initiative to automatically forward their doubtful rulings to an AC. However, another semi-authoritive voice strongly disagrees. The semi-official editor of the EBU 2002 Appeals booklet semi-officially editorialised, Appeal 9: ".....The suggestion of the TD taking it to appeal is just not right. Either the TD feels she has made the right ruling, or she would have ruled differently. England does not want to revert to the approach by TDs and ACs of North America in the eighties where TDs relied on ACs to do their job for them." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 19 02:52:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:52:49 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >Two participants A and B are in the position to >compete for the top place. Somehow A becomes >aware of an irregularity performed by B (at some >other table). As a result of the irregularity B >obtains such a favorable result that B wins the >event while otherwise A would have won. > >1: Nobody at the table summons the Director; >however A having noticed the irregularity notifies >him. The Director investigates and awards an >assigned adjusted score for that board so that >equity is restored. This is his duty under Law >81C6, and the result is that A wins the event. [second Sven scenario snipped] Richard replied: I am unsure whether A has acted legally. It seems to me that A, not being a participant at B's table, is technically a spectator to B's irregularity, so therefore A is prohibited from drawing the TD's attention to the irregularity by Law 76B. Alternatively, suppose that A is not defined by Law as a spectator, given that A is a contestant. However, further suppose that A "becomes aware of" B's irregularity by a real spectator unLawfully infracting Law 76B by blabbing to A. If A then consequently informs the TD, is A an accessory to the infraction of Law 76B? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 19 04:53:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:53:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: Grattan wrote: [snip] >there is no obligation to disclose the non-use of such >a call up front other than by not including it in the >full disclosure of his methods under Law 40B. [snip] A strong American team of the 1930s (as I recall, the team was named The Four Aces) had an agreement to *never* bid a grand slam. This was due to the total- point scoring then in use, and the undeveloped bidding methods of the 1930s in the slam zone. If a pair today had an agreement for non-use of the seven-level, this would affect their opponents' strategy when deciding whether or not to sacrifice over a small slam. Slam-level sacrifices are a much safer option if *knowing* that a save will not push the other side into a making grand slam. Therefore, is a non-use of the seven-level agreement an up-front obligation to disclose under Law 40B? Or are opponents required to inferentially deduce this non-use agreement, by noticing the absence of the 5NT grand-slam force convention? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon May 19 06:45:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 07:45:33 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c31dc9$dd8615d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven wrote: > > [snip] > > >Two participants A and B are in the position to > >compete for the top place. Somehow A becomes > >aware of an irregularity performed by B (at some > >other table). As a result of the irregularity B > >obtains such a favorable result that B wins the > >event while otherwise A would have won. > > > >1: Nobody at the table summons the Director; > >however A having noticed the irregularity notifies > >him. The Director investigates and awards an > >assigned adjusted score for that board so that > >equity is restored. This is his duty under Law > >81C6, and the result is that A wins the event. > > [second Sven scenario snipped] > > Richard replied: > > I am unsure whether A has acted legally. It seems > to me that A, not being a participant at B's table, > is technically a spectator to B's irregularity, so > therefore A is prohibited from drawing the TD's > attention to the irregularity by Law 76B. A is a spectator to B's irregularity, no problem. Law 76B regulates what a spectator may and may not do at the table; but it does not prevent a spectator from informing the Director of anything he notices (after leaving the table, he must not in any way inform the players at that table). I certainly hope you do not consider it a violation of Law 76B when a journalist, after kibitzing a table, reports what he have seen of calls, plays and irregularities? Regards Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 19 07:00:23 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:00:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: Message-ID: <001601c31dcb$f6a3c380$0fb54351@noos.fr> > ".....The suggestion of the TD taking it to appeal is > just not right. Either the TD feels she has made the > right ruling, or she would have ruled differently. > England does not want to revert to the approach by TDs > and ACs of North America in the eighties where TDs > relied on ACs to do their job for them." I doubt whether this EBU view of the ACBL is really correct (there is some truth but put like this it is a little over the top to me). Anyway I think both are very wrong. > Either the TD feels she has made the > right ruling, or she would have ruled differently. Somebody who can write/feel this needs to be dismissed immediatly. Anyone who has relevant TD/AC experience knows that it happens quite often that you have to make a decision but you have no idea what to do. Of course we do our best and a good TD/AC gets it right far more often than wrong but the above is a little 'the pope has spoken so whatever he said today is the ultimate truth'. But now more constructive. 1. Of course the TD is supposed the TD and he should do his work without relying on a AC. 2. I really like the possibility that a TD can appeal himself. Not only because of the well known problem that he just made a crucial ruling, crucial for the final result but not crucial to the pair at the table. But also when he makes a ruling and he feels the bridge judgement involved is over his head. And also if given some time to think it over he thinks he got it wrong. And don't worry, in Holland where we consider an TD appeal normal it happens very rarely. When I turn to an AC: I think an AC has way too much power (I can say so because I am an AC-guy and not a complaining TD). In a way it is ridiculous we train our TD's but let them be overruled by AC's for which membership there are often no formal requirements. One cricial task of an AC is to help the TD with bridge judgement (assuming the AC contains players not officials). For this task it is not necessary that an AC is 'higher' than a TD, it also works fine if the AC is just a advisor of the TD. A TD should respect the AC's bridge judgement but will make the final decision. The second critical task of an AC is protection against the TD gone berserk. Most will agree to this. The next question however will be, who is protecting players AND the TD against an AC gone berserk. And the third degree is, who is protecting all of us against the terrible quality of the current laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:34 AM Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field > > [snip] > > >(But in the scenario above, why shouldn't the Director > >use Law 83 and "appeal" his own ruling?) > > > >Sven > > I agree that the TD should use their own initiative to > automatically forward their doubtful rulings to an AC. > > However, another semi-authoritive voice strongly > disagrees. The semi-official editor of the EBU 2002 > Appeals booklet semi-officially editorialised, Appeal 9: > > ".....The suggestion of the TD taking it to appeal is > just not right. Either the TD feels she has made the > right ruling, or she would have ruled differently. > England does not want to revert to the approach by TDs > and ACs of North America in the eighties where TDs > relied on ACs to do their job for them." > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon May 19 07:01:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:01:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c31dcc$092290e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > The point is that if (a) the meaning of a call is affected by the > meanings of other possible calls, and (b) the effect is a matter of > "special agreement" of which the opponents are unlikely to be aware > (because it is not "general bridge knowledge") then I think the = meanings > of those other calls are disclosable under L20F1. Okay, L20F1 says = that > an opponent may *ask* about such calls, not that a player must = volunteer > the information. This brings up two questions: (1) how is the opponent > supposed to know that some other call is relevant, if the player = doesn't > tell him? (2) What of the principle of full disclosure? When you have asked a question on a call or (preferably) of the auction = so far, "full disclosure" is only given by an explanation that does not = leave any need for clarifying question(s).=20 I used the 1D opening bid in precision as an example. It may be argued = that the (extra) restraints upon the opening hand shape and strength if the diamond suit is short follows from "general bridge knowledge", but this = is one place where I consider the inclusion of inference from not using = another call (1NT) an essential part of an explanation.=20 Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 19 07:06:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:06:52 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: Sven wrote: >A is a spectator to B's irregularity, no problem. > >Law 76B regulates what a spectator may and may not >do at the table; but it does not prevent a spectator >from informing the Director of anything he notices >(after leaving the table, he must not in any way >inform the players at that table). I disagree. So does one of Australia's CTDs, who ejected a kibitzer who left the table to report an irregularity to the CTD. >I certainly hope you do not consider it a violation >of Law 76B when a journalist, after kibitzing a >table, reports what he have seen of calls, plays and >irregularities? In my opinion, the journalist is safe because - also in my opinion - the Law 76B prohibition on spectators calling attention to irregularities expires at the same time as the expiry of the Law 79C correction period. If the WBF LC is of the same opinion, then perhaps the WBF LC could insert a specific reference to Law 79C in the 2005 version of Law 76B. Another item for Grattan's notebook? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon May 19 07:27:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:27:51 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c31dcf$c62b7b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > >A is a spectator to B's irregularity, no problem. > > > >Law 76B regulates what a spectator may and may not > >do at the table; but it does not prevent a spectator > >from informing the Director of anything he notices > >(after leaving the table, he must not in any way > >inform the players at that table). >=20 > I disagree. So does one of Australia's CTDs, who > ejected a kibitzer who left the table to report an > irregularity to the CTD. Well, in my opinion that CTD was way out of order, and didn't he = overlook the sentence: ..."of which he becomes aware in any manner".... in Law = 81C6? >=20 > >I certainly hope you do not consider it a violation > >of Law 76B when a journalist, after kibitzing a > >table, reports what he have seen of calls, plays and > >irregularities? >=20 > In my opinion, the journalist is safe because - also > in my opinion - the Law 76B prohibition on spectators > calling attention to irregularities expires at the > same time as the expiry of the Law 79C correction > period. If that is what they really intend - yes, but I doubt it. Drawn to the extreme: This means for instance that a spectator who = notices a card apparently belonging to one of the boards being lost on the floor = is prohibited from notifying anybody on the staff of this fact until after = the correction period has expired? Nonsense. (He must of course not = "disturb" the players) Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 19 07:46:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:46:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: Jaap asked: [big snip] >The next question however will be, who is >protecting players AND the TD against an AC >gone berserk. [snip] In theory, ACs are hobbled from berserking by the provision in Law 93B3: ".....the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law....." However, this did not stop an EBU AC from berserking right through the Laws in order to give Ave+ to the offending side. (EBU Appeals 2002 booklet, Appeal number 10) Technically that EBU AC was not "overruling" the TD on Law, it merely made up the Laws to suit itself. At least one of Australia's CTDs has a policy of _checking_ AC decisions when they are returned to the CTD for forwarding to the appellants and defendants. If the AC ruling is unLawful, the CTD asks the AC to reconvene. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 19 08:23:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:23:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: Message-ID: <3EC8865D.9030500@skynet.be> Ehm, sorry Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > ".....the committee may not overrule the > Director on a point of law....." > > However, this did not stop an EBU AC from > berserking right through the Laws in order to > give Ave+ to the offending side. (EBU Appeals > 2002 booklet, Appeal number 10) > Read that appeal again. You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they chose to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. This was not a L12C2 adjustment of Av+. I'm not commenting on the correctness of the decision, just on its legality. There is nothing illegal about this ruling. I'm sure DWS wrote "Av+ to OS" just as a joke. > Technically that EBU AC was not "overruling" > the TD on Law, it merely made up the Laws to > suit itself. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 19 10:27:38 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:27:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8865D.9030500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <21CD37ED-89DC-11D7-8CE2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 08:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ehm, sorry Richard, > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> ".....the committee may not overrule the >> Director on a point of law....." >> However, this did not stop an EBU AC from >> berserking right through the Laws in order to >> give Ave+ to the offending side. (EBU Appeals >> 2002 booklet, Appeal number 10) > > > Read that appeal again. I've read that appeal again and it says: "Appeals Committee decision" Artificial score awarded: Average minus to N/S, Average plus to E/W Deposit returned" > You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they > chose to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. I don't see L12C3 mentioned in the appeal. > This was not a L12C2 adjustment of Av+. I wonder why they used the phrases "Average minus" & "Average plus"? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon May 19 10:43:20 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:43:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: <3869939.1053337400657.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Gordon wrote: {HdW] >You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they chose to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. [GR] > I don't see L12C3 mentioned in the appeal. [HdW] > This was not a L12C2 adjustment of Av+. [GR] > I wonder why they used the phrases "Average minus" & "Average plus"? This *was* a L12C2 adjustment of average plus, and a singularly criminal one it was as well. It is never the case that an AC "decides on a L12C3 adjustment which it chooses to express in % of MP". It is frequently the case, however, that in order to cover up a massive blunder by an AC, someone will claim that this is what the AC has done. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 19 11:29:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:29:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <21CD37ED-89DC-11D7-8CE2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EC8B20B.4040100@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 08:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Ehm, sorry Richard, >> >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> ".....the committee may not overrule the >>> Director on a point of law....." >>> However, this did not stop an EBU AC from >>> berserking right through the Laws in order to >>> give Ave+ to the offending side. (EBU Appeals >>> 2002 booklet, Appeal number 10) >> >> >> >> Read that appeal again. > > > I've read that appeal again and it says: > OK, so have I, now. > "Appeals Committee decision" > Artificial score awarded: > Average minus to N/S, Average plus to E/W > Deposit returned" > So they do. >> You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they >> chose to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. > > > I don't see L12C3 mentioned in the appeal. > indeed not, however: "The Committee did not want to rule against the TD's decision but felt NS -200 was too generous. The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for N/S." I see this as "varying" the score, as L12C3 permits >> This was not a L12C2 adjustment of Av+. > > > I wonder why they used the phrases "Average minus" & "Average plus"? > > Bad reporting ? The point remains that this committee did nothing illegal. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon May 19 11:45:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:45:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8B20B.4040100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c31df3$bd379220$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for N/S." You have lost me; please explain how this can be termed a _split_ score? > I see this as "varying" the score, as L12C3 permits L12C3 permits varying an assigned adjusted score, but isn't the above a typical artificial adjusted score (which is not available under L12C3)? Do you claim that an AC can "vary" an assigned adjusted score by replacing it with an artificial adjusted score? I don't get it. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon May 19 12:35:38 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:35:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <200305171550.LAA10533@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030519133359.01d34ba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:50 17/05/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > Yes, we _could_ abbreviate that principle as "top down". > > But No, that does _not_ mean that the common understanding is "top down". > > Or that the common understanding is "ace first from AQJ2". > >I don't think anyone is suggesting "ace first from AQJ2" is the only >rational play. In general the finesse is not irrational if there are >entries to take it. What some of us are suggesting is that queen >first, jack first, and deuce first from this holding are irrational. AG : leading the deuce, Q or J could be perfectly rational. How do you handle AQJx / 10xx for three tricks, being in dummy ? From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 19 12:20:45 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:20:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8B20B.4040100@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 08:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Ehm, sorry Richard, >>> >>> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>>> ".....the committee may not overrule the >>>> Director on a point of law....." >>>> However, this did not stop an EBU AC from >>>> berserking right through the Laws in order to >>>> give Ave+ to the offending side. (EBU Appeals >>>> 2002 booklet, Appeal number 10) >>> >>> >>> >>> Read that appeal again. >> I've read that appeal again and it says: > > > OK, so have I, now. > > >> "Appeals Committee decision" >> Artificial score awarded: >> Average minus to N/S, Average plus to E/W >> Deposit returned" > > > So they do. > > >>> You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they >>> chose to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. >> I don't see L12C3 mentioned in the appeal. > > > indeed not, however: > > "The Committee did not want to rule against the TD's decision but felt > NS -200 was too generous. > The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for N/S." > > I see this as "varying" the score, as L12C3 permits This was not the ruling, it was a subsequent comment from the AC (perhaps trying to cover their tracks, mindful of the reaction their actual ruling would create). > > >>> This was not a L12C2 adjustment of Av+. >> I wonder why they used the phrases "Average minus" & "Average plus"? > > > Bad reporting ? The whole world's out of step, but Herman. > > The point remains that this committee did nothing illegal. Apart from awarding an artificial adjusted score when a table result had been achieved. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon May 19 12:44:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:44:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8865D.9030500@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030519133716.01d36470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:23 19/05/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ehm, sorry Richard, > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>".....the committee may not overrule the >>Director on a point of law....." >>However, this did not stop an EBU AC from >>berserking right through the Laws in order to >>give Ave+ to the offending side. (EBU Appeals >>2002 booklet, Appeal number 10) > > >Read that appeal again. >You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they chose >to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. AG : yes, they did. And this is unlawflul. The adjustment should be expressed as a total points score, or weighted proportions of total points scores. And we've seen the reason for this : to avoid confusion with artificial scores. Another reason to look at this : There are two kinds of modified scores : - when the deal was played, an adjusted score - when it couldn't be, an artificial score The main difference is that the first kind is sensible to *other adjustments* (ie, their value in IMPs or MPs varies if another score is adjusted) while the second one is fixed once and for all. The score given in this case was of the second kind, which was wrong. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 19 12:56:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:56:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <000b01c31df3$bd379220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EC8C681.4080905@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> > ......... > >>The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for N/S." >> > > You have lost me; please explain how this can be termed a _split_ score? > bad reporting? > >>I see this as "varying" the score, as L12C3 permits >> > > L12C3 permits varying an assigned adjusted score, but isn't the above a > typical artificial adjusted score (which is not available under L12C3)? > > Do you claim that an AC can "vary" an assigned adjusted score by replacing > it with an artificial adjusted score? I don't get it. > Well, it has been done before. I guess that if the laws permit a L12C2 score to be given in MP (and so also in % of a top), L12C3 permits that too. The EBL AC have also already awarded L12C3 scores in %. That does not make it a L12C1 score, though. I don't believe this score should be written down as Av+, and I don't believe L88 applies to this score. > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 19 12:58:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:58:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: Message-ID: <3EC8C6DC.1080300@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> "The Committee did not want to rule against the TD's decision but felt >> NS -200 was too generous. >> The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for N/S." >> >> I see this as "varying" the score, as L12C3 permits > > > This was not the ruling, it was a subsequent comment from the AC > (perhaps trying to cover their tracks, mindful of the reaction their > actual ruling would create). > No, it was the AC Comment. Must be from the time itself. >> >> The point remains that this committee did nothing illegal. > > > Apart from awarding an artificial adjusted score when a table result had > been achieved. > Which, according to L12C2, is legal. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 19 13:33:28 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:33:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8C6DC.1080300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <17C6DC7C-89F6-11D7-8CE2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 12:58 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> The point remains that this committee did nothing illegal. >> Apart from awarding an artificial adjusted score when a table result >> had been achieved. > > > Which, according to L12C2, is legal. > It doesn't seem that way to me: the law only allows that "an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity" - it doesn't allow for it to replace the assigned adjusted score with an artificial adjusted score. Furthermore, 12C2 when talking about assigned adjusted scores comments: "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing". It doesn't seem to be allowed to award the score as a percentage. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 19 13:39:15 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:39:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8C681.4080905@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, it has been done before. > I guess that if the laws permit a L12C2 score to be given in MP (and > so also in % of a top), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ but it doesn't! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Mon May 19 14:12:50 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:12:50 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >[snip] > >>(But in the scenario above, why shouldn't the Director >>use Law 83 and "appeal" his own ruling?) >> >>Sven > >I agree that the TD should use their own initiative to >automatically forward their doubtful rulings to an AC. > >However, another semi-authoritive voice strongly >disagrees. The semi-official editor of the EBU 2002 >Appeals booklet semi-officially editorialised, Appeal 9: > >".....The suggestion of the TD taking it to appeal is >just not right. Either the TD feels she has made the >right ruling, or she would have ruled differently. >England does not want to revert to the approach by TDs >and ACs of North America in the eighties where TDs >relied on ACs to do their job for them." > there have been a small number of occasions, usually in club games where, having consulted with a few chair legs, I am still not sure of a ruling. I tend then to apply 12C2, and take it to AC for a 12C3 adjustment, if they think it appropriate. cheers John >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 hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 19 14:26:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:26:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <17C6DC7C-89F6-11D7-8CE2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EC8DB8E.9060404@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > It doesn't seem that way to me: the law only allows that "an appeals > committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve > equity" - it doesn't allow for it to replace the assigned adjusted score > with an artificial adjusted score. > it should include changing a legal L12C2 score with another one. > Furthermore, 12C2 when talking about assigned adjusted scores comments: > "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be > assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score > prior to matchpointing". It doesn't seem to be allowed to award the > score as a percentage. > Well, what is the difference between awarding 36 MP and "60% of the available MP"? Nothing (if the top is 60). So awarding 60% of available MP should be legal under L12C3. Which is of course not the same as awarding Av+, and I agree that the AC was wrong when writing that was what they would give. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon May 19 15:06:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:06:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: Message-ID: <3EC8E4DF.10406@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Well, it has been done before. >> I guess that if the laws permit a L12C2 score to be given in MP (and >> so also in % of a top), > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > but it doesn't! > Gordon, if I can award 36 MP, then surely I can award 60% of 60MP ! And I do believe the players would prefer it if I said 60% than 36MP. 60% is understandable - 36MP is not. > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 19 15:13:56 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:13:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8E4DF.10406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20C9EA75-8A04-11D7-8CE2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 03:06 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Well, it has been done before. >>> I guess that if the laws permit a L12C2 score to be given in MP (and >>> so also in % of a top), >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> but it doesn't! > > > Gordon, if I can award 36 MP, then surely I can award 60% of 60MP ! I think Alain has clearly explained the reason why not, and this case is evidence of the sort of confusion that could arise if it were permitted. > > And I do believe the players would prefer it if I said 60% than 36MP. > > > 60% is understandable - 36MP is not. Who are these players who find the concept of matchpoints difficult to grasp? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon May 19 15:25:31 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:25:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: <3503444.1053354331935.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Gordon, if I can award 36 MP, then surely I can award 60% of 60MP ! You can, but this almost never happens. If you award "60%", this is normally shorthand for "60% or session average"; I cannot recall an instance of a contestant being awarded exactly 60% of a top regardless of his eventual session score. > And I do believe the players would prefer it if I said 60% than 36MP. They would not. If you are giving them 36 matchpoints, they would like to know why. If you cannot explain this by saying: "Well, we think you would have defended 3H doubled some of the time and 2H doubled some of the time", or words to that effect, then they will not understand what you are doing at all (largely because you are not doing anything that makes sense). >60% is understandable - 36MP is not. 60%, in the context of an artificial result awarded when a bridge result has been obtained, is not understandable. 36 matchpoints is understandable, if it means "50% of plus 500 from 3H doubled (48 matchpoints) and 50% of plus 200 from 2H doubled (24 matchpoints)." But here was an AC that did not do what it was supposed to do, and then attempted to disguise the fact by awarding a score that it was not supposed to award. Its actions were just plain wrong, as is any post-facto justification of those actions. David Burn London, England From gester@lineone.net Mon May 19 15:32:09 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:32:09 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: Message-ID: <002801c31e13$9b04c9a0$63242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 7:06 AM Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field > > > If the WBF LC is of the same opinion, then perhaps > the WBF LC could insert a specific reference to Law > 79C in the 2005 version of Law 76B. > > Another item for Grattan's notebook? > +=+ See WBFLC minutes - item 11 of 28 Oct 2001. A journalist is a spectator, not a participant or official. I agree that the practical end of period for Law 76B, which is open-ended, is when an appeal may no longer be entered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon May 19 15:33:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:33:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8C681.4080905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c31e13$aa128c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > ......... > > > >>The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for = N/S." > >> > > > > You have lost me; please explain how this can be termed a _split_ = score? > > >=20 >=20 > bad reporting? So you lost me for a reason! ....... > > Do you claim that an AC can "vary" an assigned=20 > > adjusted score by replacing it with an artificial > > adjusted score? I don't get it.=20 >=20 > Well, it has been done before. > I guess that if the laws permit a L12C2 score to be given in MP (and > so also in % of a top), L12C3 permits that too. > The EBL AC have also already awarded L12C3 scores in %. > That does not make it a L12C1 score, though. > I don't believe this score should be written down as Av+, and I don't > believe L88 applies to this score. To which I fully agree. My understanding of L12C2 and L12C3 is that the Director (or the AC as = the case may be) when applying these laws is bound to assess the most = favorable result that was at all likely for NOS and the most unfavorable result = that was at all probable for OS. (Almost a direct quote from L12C2) If the Director (or AC) selects to express such results directly in = match points that must be because he deems it impossible to assess any = "probable" or "likely" score "had the irregularity not occurred".=20 I have a tremendous problem trying to imagine what kind of events could = lead to such a situation? Sven=20 From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 19 16:06:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:06:02 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001501c31bbf$12bbb1e0$c62a2850@pacific> <003301c31bc9$1bc86440$a5254451@Default> <005101c31cfe$c6b92840$ddf3193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000901c31e18$2de2ea00$0fb54351@noos.fr> Dear Grattan, Here you get to the heart of the problem. Grattan > I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes > of player in identifying what is irrational. Of course this poses a big problem. But we cannot deny good players claim more often and in a different way than weak players. This should be tackled IMO by resolving in two steps. 1. What did he actually claim? 2. Something is logically/materially wrong with the claim. Whether we like it or not, at step one there will be language issues, cultural issues, level of play issues, etc. Good players claim more and different from weak players. In Europe we have other habits than in the ACBL. Etc. Here we need to be lenient in my view. The game needs to stay playable. But once we reach stage two it should be as mechanical as possible and the same for everybody (as much as possible anyway). To achieve this we have to drop the notion that we try to guess what would have happened if play had continued or in other words that the TD/AC is playing the hand for the claimer. And why not. Nobody requires you to claim at a stage where there are still decisions to take or problems to solve. And if you claim anyway you just have to make sure you mention those decisions and problems. If not they go against you. Then the resolve rules I like. They are based on: - he gets what he asked for - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the claim So if a player claims n tricks, which are available, he gets n tricks whatever the breaks are. We don't bother checking if he would 'always' make one more. And why should we. If he could have made more he should have played out the hand or have mentioned it in the claim. 'Eight tricks and nine when the HJ drops' or 'Eight tricks and testing hearts' is an ok claim for me. I don't really mind how he phrases it but he has to make clear there might be an extra H trick. I don't even mind declarer at 3NT saying 'I cash my 9 tricks and if something special happens I might make some overtricks'. This is a clear line of play, declarer clearly knows how many tricks he has, and declarer realises there might be some special breaks (but it excludes to stop cashing to organize a squeeze or throw-in). Anyway this type of claims never poses a problem. Same if a player claims n tricks but due to a trick counting error there are only m tricks. He gets m tricks, full period. If he would 'always' have made n (or more) tricks given the existing breaks just bad luck to him and a good lesson to claim more carefully in the future. In a way there are no breaks anymore. Just imagine the software Bridge-Master that adapts the breaks to your line of play. Now the famous case he forgot about certain cards or trumps or didn't cater for bad breaks. If declarer claims n winners (which are not all winners) then he will cash his presumed winners in the most damaging order (he will play 'suits' from the top but this doesn't apply to presumed equals). He will not see any bad breaks anymore (he should have mentioned it at claim time). Any subsequent guess will go wrong but he is not required to play 'misere ouvert'. Trumps. If you don't mention what you do with outstanding trumps you will always get it wrong. You will (attempt to) draw them when you should not and the other way round. Blocks. Everything that can block and was not mentioned will block. This one might be tricky from time to time because there are blocks that good players won't even 'see' (as claimer or opponent) but witch mrs. G might get wrong. Then you have to think of blocks that don't really exist but might be created. But once again, if there is any doubt bad luck for claimer. Now before everyone starts attacking the details, this is just a concept and I don't pretend this is complete or coherent at this stage. Please start on the principles: Once the common language of a claim has been translated to a formal claim (line of play, number of tricks, etc.) and there is a material/logical error then there is a 'mechanical' resolve based on: - he gets what he asked for - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the claim By the way 1. There needs to be a limited complication rule (like max one or two conditional statements) to stop double squeezes and the like from being claimed. 2. I think that we don't need different rules when opps want to cancel their acceptance of a claim within the correction period. They might have missed something at the table, but in such a situation the claimer should remain responsible, he took the initiative. 3. I think the above rules are fair and that all normal claims remain possible. In the end claims are meant to stop playing when there is nothing to play anymore. And when there is nothing to play anymore it is hard to see how anyone can produce a claim with a material error. Anyway I wonder how far or close I am to Burn claims. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:18 AM Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > When asked to state his 'criterion' of philosophical > correctness, (J,L. Austin) replied "well, if you could > get a collection of more or less cantankerous > colleagues all to accept something after an argument, > that would be a bit of a criterion." > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; "blml" > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:29 PM > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > > > 2. The fact that the guy didn't do so should be used against > > him when resolving the claim. And we should stop protecting > > this insanity. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ The aspect of the contested claims law with which > I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes > of player in identifying what is irrational. For me irrationality > is an absolute philosophical truth, not a variable. In truth > we do not mean 'irrational' and we translate it as though the > footnote referred to what we could not believe of the player > in question. > However, a majority of my colleagues in the WBFLC, > possibly nearly all of them, think and have decreed the > distinction. Naturally I protect that decision loyally. However, > it would be my preference that the resolution of a contested > claim should pursue as closely as possible a mechanical > course universal to all tables. For the present it is open to any > AC to determine that for the class of player involved it would > be unthinkable (i.e.' irrational') to proceed without the > simple precaution that is ingrained in my learning of the > game, presumably therefore any player of my ability and > education or greater - perhaps less - in situations where he > believes a gappy suit is 'high'. > I could live with a law that allowed the Director to apply > the benefit of sound logic and best practice for every > claimant. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon May 19 16:23:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:23:08 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <000901c31e18$2de2ea00$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000101c31e1a$8d851d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Just to tell you that I fully agree with you but I have one additional argument associated with the "class of player" term: The higher "class = of player" we have involved the more we shall expect him to point out everything relevant with his claim. So when Mrs G. does not mention it she is unaware of the fact. And when Mr. World champion doesn't mention it he is unaware of the importance. In both cases we rule against the claimer on anything he hasn't declared with his claim. Regards Sven Jaap van der Neut > Sent: 19. mai 2003 17:06 > To: grandeval; blml > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) >=20 > Dear Grattan, >=20 > Here you get to the heart of the problem. >=20 > Grattan > > I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes > > of player in identifying what is irrational. >=20 > Of course this poses a big problem. But we cannot deny good players = claim > more often and in a different way than weak players. This should be > tackled > IMO by resolving in two steps. > 1. What did he actually claim? > 2. Something is logically/materially wrong with the claim. >=20 > Whether we like it or not, at step one there will be language issues, > cultural issues, level of play issues, etc. Good players claim more = and > different from weak players. In Europe we have other habits than in = the > ACBL. Etc. Here we need to be lenient in my view. The game needs to = stay > playable. >=20 > But once we reach stage two it should be as mechanical as possible and = the > same for everybody (as much as possible anyway). To achieve this we = have > to > drop the notion that we try > to guess what would have happened if play had continued or in other = words > that the TD/AC is > playing the hand for the claimer. And why not. Nobody requires you to > claim > at a stage where there are still decisions to take or problems to = solve. > And > if you claim anyway you just have to make sure you mention those = decisions > and problems. If not they go against you. >=20 > Then the resolve rules I like. They are based on: > - he gets what he asked for > - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant > - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in = the > claim >=20 > So if a player claims n tricks, which are available, he gets n tricks > whatever the breaks are. We don't bother checking if he would 'always' > make > one more. And why should we. If he could have made more he should have > played out the hand or have mentioned it in the claim. 'Eight tricks = and > nine when the HJ drops' or 'Eight tricks and testing hearts' is an ok > claim > for me. I don't really mind how he phrases it but he has to make clear > there > might be an extra H trick. I don't even mind declarer at 3NT saying 'I > cash > my 9 tricks and if something special happens I might make some > overtricks'. > This is a clear line of play, declarer clearly knows how many tricks = he > has, > and declarer realises there might be some special breaks (but it = excludes > to > stop cashing to organize a squeeze or throw-in). Anyway this type of > claims > never poses a problem. >=20 > Same if a player claims n tricks but due to a trick counting error = there > are > only m tricks. He gets m tricks, full period. If he would 'always' = have > made > n (or more) tricks given the existing breaks just bad luck to him and = a > good > lesson to claim more carefully in the future. In a way there are no = breaks > anymore. Just imagine the software Bridge-Master that adapts the = breaks to > your line of play. >=20 > Now the famous case he forgot about certain cards or trumps or didn't > cater > for bad breaks. If declarer claims n winners (which are not all = winners) > then he will cash his presumed winners in the most damaging order (he = will > play 'suits' from the top but this doesn't apply to presumed equals). = He > will not see any bad breaks anymore (he should have mentioned it at = claim > time). Any subsequent guess will go wrong but he is not required to = play > 'misere ouvert'. >=20 > Trumps. If you don't mention what you do with outstanding trumps you = will > always get it wrong. You will (attempt to) draw them when you should = not > and > the other way round. >=20 > Blocks. Everything that can block and was not mentioned will block. = This > one > might be tricky from time to time because there are blocks that good > players > won't even 'see' (as claimer or opponent) but witch mrs. G might get > wrong. > Then you have to think of blocks that don't really exist but might be > created. But once again, if there is any doubt bad luck for claimer. >=20 >=20 > Now before everyone starts attacking the details, this is just a = concept > and > I don't pretend this is complete or coherent at this stage. Please = start > on > the principles: > Once the common language of a claim has been translated to a formal = claim > (line of play, number of tricks, etc.) and there is a material/logical > error > then there is a 'mechanical' resolve based on: > - he gets what he asked for > - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant > - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in = the > claim >=20 > By the way > 1. There needs to be a limited complication rule (like max one or two > conditional statements) to stop double squeezes and the like from = being > claimed. > 2. I think that we don't need different rules when opps want to cancel > their > acceptance of a claim within the correction period. They might have = missed > something at the table, but in such a situation the claimer should = remain > responsible, he took the initiative. > 3. I think the above rules are fair and that all normal claims remain > possible. In the end claims are meant to stop playing when there is > nothing > to play anymore. And when there is nothing to play anymore it is hard = to > see > how anyone can produce a claim with a material error. >=20 > Anyway I wonder how far or close I am to Burn claims. >=20 > Jaap >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "grandeval" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:18 AM > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) >=20 >=20 > > > > Grattan Endicott > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > When asked to state his 'criterion' of philosophical > > correctness, (J,L. Austin) replied "well, if you could > > get a collection of more or less cantankerous > > colleagues all to accept something after an argument, > > that would be a bit of a criterion." > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > To: ; "blml" > > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:29 PM > > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > > > > > > 2. The fact that the guy didn't do so should be used against > > > him when resolving the claim. And we should stop protecting > > > this insanity. > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > +=3D+ The aspect of the contested claims law with which > > I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes > > of player in identifying what is irrational. For me irrationality > > is an absolute philosophical truth, not a variable. In truth > > we do not mean 'irrational' and we translate it as though the > > footnote referred to what we could not believe of the player > > in question. > > However, a majority of my colleagues in the WBFLC, > > possibly nearly all of them, think and have decreed the > > distinction. Naturally I protect that decision loyally. However, > > it would be my preference that the resolution of a contested > > claim should pursue as closely as possible a mechanical > > course universal to all tables. For the present it is open to any > > AC to determine that for the class of player involved it would > > be unthinkable (i.e.' irrational') to proceed without the > > simple precaution that is ingrained in my learning of the > > game, presumably therefore any player of my ability and > > education or greater - perhaps less - in situations where he > > believes a gappy suit is 'high'. > > I could live with a law that allowed the Director to apply > > the benefit of sound logic and best practice for every > > claimant. > > ~ G ~ +=3D+ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon May 19 16:35:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <200305191535.LAA02468@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Where a player's methods > incorporate two different possibilities in the same > auction I think he must explain the basis for choosing > one rather than the other. I do not think there is any > obligation to mention a call that might be available > to some other player(s) It sounds to me as though everyone is saying the same thing in different words. Let me try this way: If a player opens a strong NT, and his partner bids 2H, transfer, the opponents are entitled to know whether responder had other ways to show spades (e.g., via Stayman then 2S, Smolen, immediate 3S, immediate 4H, etc.). If there were other ways, the opponents are entitled to know how those sequences affect the meaning of the 2H bid. The opponents are not entitled to know what 2H would have meant in a weak NT system, even if the opening side plays a weak NT at other vulnerabilities. > From: Ed Reppert > The point is that if (a) the meaning of a call is affected by the > meanings of other possible calls, and (b) the effect is a matter of > "special agreement" of which the opponents are unlikely to be aware > (because it is not "general bridge knowledge") then I think the meanings > of those other calls are disclosable under L20F1. Pretty close. It's not the meanings of the other calls but rather how their existence affects the meaning of the call actually made. Not really much of a distinction in practice. > Okay, L20F1 says that > an opponent may *ask* about such calls, not that a player must volunteer > the information. This brings up two questions: (1) how is the opponent > supposed to know that some other call is relevant, if the player doesn't > tell him? As far as I can tell, this is up to the SO regulations on alerts and CC's. Also, experienced players may know enough to ask in certain common situations. > (2) What of the principle of full disclosure? As I may have written before, I think there are many practical problems, and I am far from sure the theoretical issues are solved. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon May 19 16:44:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:44:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Re: FROM THE TOP Message-ID: <200305191544.LAA03130@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : leading the deuce, Q or J could be perfectly rational. How do you > handle AQJx / 10xx for three tricks, being in dummy ? Indeed so. However, I would never allow a claimer either to benefit or lose from such a line unless it is included in his claim statement. > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > This should be tackled > IMO by resolving in two steps. > 1. What did he actually claim? > 2. Something is logically/materially wrong with the claim. I would rephrase 1 as "What line did he state?" but otherwise this approach makes a lot of sense to me. > If he would 'always' have made > n (or more) tricks given the existing breaks just bad luck to him and a good > lesson to claim more carefully in the future. I don't see this. If the stated line always results in n tricks, why not give n? We don't require players to count the tricks already won. Why require them to count tricks to be won in the future? > Once the common language of a claim has been translated to a formal claim > (line of play, number of tricks, etc.) and there is a material/logical error > then there is a 'mechanical' resolve based on: > - he gets what he asked for How about "He gets what the stated line produces?" > - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant Yes. > - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the > claim Somebody shows out? A high card pops up? I don't think this rule will be acceptable. > 1. There needs to be a limited complication rule (like max one or two > conditional statements) to stop double squeezes and the like from being > claimed. Why would you want to stop that? As long as the line is made clear, what's the problem? Of course if the line is not made clear, doubtful points are ruled against claimer. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon May 19 17:29:24 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:29:24 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <000101c31e1a$8d851d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002f01c31e23$d20a87e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Sven, Thanks for the support. The higher "class of player" we have involved the more we shall expect him to point out everything relevant with his claim. This is tricky. Absolutely true when playing weaker players. I tend to claim less and later in that case. But true in a different way when playing your peers. At a certain level (where players visualise each others hands and where they count everything and where they actually expect you to claim when appropriate) more things are taken for granted. So what might be 'relevant' at a local club might be irrelevant at the championship level. But this (almost) never leads to problems. The main issue is that you claim in a way which is understandable and acceptable for the opponents (who should not misuse this concept). Once again, claims should be correct, but we should allow some leeway for cultural differences in the way claiming is done. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 5:23 PM Subject: RE: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Just to tell you that I fully agree with you but I have one additional argument associated with the "class of player" term: The higher "class of player" we have involved the more we shall expect him to point out everything relevant with his claim. So when Mrs G. does not mention it she is unaware of the fact. And when Mr. World champion doesn't mention it he is unaware of the importance. In both cases we rule against the claimer on anything he hasn't declared with his claim. Regards Sven Jaap van der Neut > Sent: 19. mai 2003 17:06 > To: grandeval; blml > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > Dear Grattan, > > Here you get to the heart of the problem. > > Grattan > > I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes > > of player in identifying what is irrational. > > Of course this poses a big problem. But we cannot deny good players claim > more often and in a different way than weak players. This should be > tackled > IMO by resolving in two steps. > 1. What did he actually claim? > 2. Something is logically/materially wrong with the claim. > > Whether we like it or not, at step one there will be language issues, > cultural issues, level of play issues, etc. Good players claim more and > different from weak players. In Europe we have other habits than in the > ACBL. Etc. Here we need to be lenient in my view. The game needs to stay > playable. > > But once we reach stage two it should be as mechanical as possible and the > same for everybody (as much as possible anyway). To achieve this we have > to > drop the notion that we try > to guess what would have happened if play had continued or in other words > that the TD/AC is > playing the hand for the claimer. And why not. Nobody requires you to > claim > at a stage where there are still decisions to take or problems to solve. > And > if you claim anyway you just have to make sure you mention those decisions > and problems. If not they go against you. > > Then the resolve rules I like. They are based on: > - he gets what he asked for > - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant > - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the > claim > > So if a player claims n tricks, which are available, he gets n tricks > whatever the breaks are. We don't bother checking if he would 'always' > make > one more. And why should we. If he could have made more he should have > played out the hand or have mentioned it in the claim. 'Eight tricks and > nine when the HJ drops' or 'Eight tricks and testing hearts' is an ok > claim > for me. I don't really mind how he phrases it but he has to make clear > there > might be an extra H trick. I don't even mind declarer at 3NT saying 'I > cash > my 9 tricks and if something special happens I might make some > overtricks'. > This is a clear line of play, declarer clearly knows how many tricks he > has, > and declarer realises there might be some special breaks (but it excludes > to > stop cashing to organize a squeeze or throw-in). Anyway this type of > claims > never poses a problem. > > Same if a player claims n tricks but due to a trick counting error there > are > only m tricks. He gets m tricks, full period. If he would 'always' have > made > n (or more) tricks given the existing breaks just bad luck to him and a > good > lesson to claim more carefully in the future. In a way there are no breaks > anymore. Just imagine the software Bridge-Master that adapts the breaks to > your line of play. > > Now the famous case he forgot about certain cards or trumps or didn't > cater > for bad breaks. If declarer claims n winners (which are not all winners) > then he will cash his presumed winners in the most damaging order (he will > play 'suits' from the top but this doesn't apply to presumed equals). He > will not see any bad breaks anymore (he should have mentioned it at claim > time). Any subsequent guess will go wrong but he is not required to play > 'misere ouvert'. > > Trumps. If you don't mention what you do with outstanding trumps you will > always get it wrong. You will (attempt to) draw them when you should not > and > the other way round. > > Blocks. Everything that can block and was not mentioned will block. This > one > might be tricky from time to time because there are blocks that good > players > won't even 'see' (as claimer or opponent) but witch mrs. G might get > wrong. > Then you have to think of blocks that don't really exist but might be > created. But once again, if there is any doubt bad luck for claimer. > > > Now before everyone starts attacking the details, this is just a concept > and > I don't pretend this is complete or coherent at this stage. Please start > on > the principles: > Once the common language of a claim has been translated to a formal claim > (line of play, number of tricks, etc.) and there is a material/logical > error > then there is a 'mechanical' resolve based on: > - he gets what he asked for > - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant > - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the > claim > > By the way > 1. There needs to be a limited complication rule (like max one or two > conditional statements) to stop double squeezes and the like from being > claimed. > 2. I think that we don't need different rules when opps want to cancel > their > acceptance of a claim within the correction period. They might have missed > something at the table, but in such a situation the claimer should remain > responsible, he took the initiative. > 3. I think the above rules are fair and that all normal claims remain > possible. In the end claims are meant to stop playing when there is > nothing > to play anymore. And when there is nothing to play anymore it is hard to > see > how anyone can produce a claim with a material error. > > Anyway I wonder how far or close I am to Burn claims. > > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "grandeval" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:18 AM > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ======================================= > > When asked to state his 'criterion' of philosophical > > correctness, (J,L. Austin) replied "well, if you could > > get a collection of more or less cantankerous > > colleagues all to accept something after an argument, > > that would be a bit of a criterion." > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > To: ; "blml" > > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:29 PM > > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > > > > > > 2. The fact that the guy didn't do so should be used against > > > him when resolving the claim. And we should stop protecting > > > this insanity. > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > +=+ The aspect of the contested claims law with which > > I am wholly uncomfortable is the distinction between classes > > of player in identifying what is irrational. For me irrationality > > is an absolute philosophical truth, not a variable. In truth > > we do not mean 'irrational' and we translate it as though the > > footnote referred to what we could not believe of the player > > in question. > > However, a majority of my colleagues in the WBFLC, > > possibly nearly all of them, think and have decreed the > > distinction. Naturally I protect that decision loyally. However, > > it would be my preference that the resolution of a contested > > claim should pursue as closely as possible a mechanical > > course universal to all tables. For the present it is open to any > > AC to determine that for the class of player involved it would > > be unthinkable (i.e.' irrational') to proceed without the > > simple precaution that is ingrained in my learning of the > > game, presumably therefore any player of my ability and > > education or greater - perhaps less - in situations where he > > believes a gappy suit is 'high'. > > I could live with a law that allowed the Director to apply > > the benefit of sound logic and best practice for every > > claimant. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 adam@tameware.com Mon May 19 17:35:22 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:35:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8865D.9030500@skynet.be> References: <3EC8865D.9030500@skynet.be> Message-ID: At 9:23 AM +0200 5/19/03, Herman De Wael wrote: >Read that appeal again. >You will find that this AC decided on a L12C3 adjustment, which they >chose to express in % of MP, and they decided on 60%. They did not claim to be doing so, at least not in the write-up. You may be remembering my commentary: "The committee thought -200 was "too generous"? By what standard? If the committee does not cite any law we have no reason to believe that their ruling was reasonable. Under Law 12C3 their ruling may be legal, but the write-up gives us no reason to believe that they applied that law or indeed any other. This decision is just one good argument against 12C3, which in effect allows committees to give the force of law to their feelings." >I'm not commenting on the correctness of the decision, just on its >legality. There is nothing illegal about this ruling. I'm sure DWS >wrote "Av+ to OS" just as a joke. I'm certain he did not. He wanted to make sure the panelists and readers realized that the AC had done something even more unusual than awarding Ave+ to the NOS. I agree that 60% is not the same as Average Plus, but that's not the issue David was focusing on. In private correspondence David Stevenson has told me that in the EBU 12C3 can be used only to give weighted adjustments. This was news to me, and it is certainly not implicit in the text of 12C3. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon May 19 18:29:42 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 19:29:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <002001c31e2c$56d379c0$5c053dd4@b0e7g1> > > >there is no obligation to disclose the non-use of such > >a call up front other than by not including it in the > >full disclosure of his methods under Law 40B. > > [snip] > A partnership has the support double as one of the agreements. In a support double situation the player concerned passes. How could the opponents know what the partner knows? Ben From cfgcs@eiu.edu Mon May 19 21:01:27 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:01:27 -0500 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <3EC60B8E.40106@skynet.be> References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030516092538.029c9b70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030519145240.0266d990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 12:14 PM 5/17/03 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >>> >>>That is what is wrong with the claim rulings. People are looking for >>>easy rules, when there are no such (except David's). Yes, we do need >>>some concertation, and stating that from AKQJ2 the 2 is not played is >>>such concertation. But abbreviating it to "top down" and then use that >>>rule to decide that AQJ is also played ace first, is going too far. >> >> Well, this is an excellent point, Herman, but it >>directly contradicts your last assertion. If what we're >>aiming for in claim rulings is consistency, then we need >>rules that are so easy that no two TDs could possibly apply >>them differently. In that case, 'top down' must mean 'always >>top down, no exceptions'. If what we're aiming at is to >>capture the Laws as written [including the definition in the >>footnote], then we ought to be aiming at defining what sorts >>of plays are irrational, and what ones are merely careless, >>and whether there are any plays that are not irrational but >>are still abnormal. If what we're aiming at is to make "normal" >>normal, then we should delete the footnote, define "normal" in >>one of the three ways I suggested above, and we don't need >>rules at all. > > >Well Grant, if you don't understand what I mean, I'll try again. >Yes, we need concertation. >Yes, we need to form a common understanding on how to rule AKQJ2. >Yes, we have this common understanding (even David agrees about this case >under the present laws). >Yes, we _could_ abbreviate that principle as "top down". >But No, that does _not_ mean that the common understanding is "top down". >Or that the common understanding is "ace first from AQJ2". I have no problem with that, but it seems to me it reduces to "we judge each case separately". We don't require the '2' from AKQJ2, but we might require it from AQJ2, or the J from AJ facing Qx. Do we have to lay out every single card combination and situation in order to achieve rulings that will be the same everywhere? If our goal really is to achieve claim laws that will assure that identical claims always get identical rulings, then we need very simple rules. ["Top down", or "worst possible play", or whatever.] If we're willing to allow the TD to apply his judgment to the case, then we'll never have unanimity. I don't mind that--some people do. YMMV. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 19 23:36:02 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:36:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: Richard asserted: [snip] >>but would also be an Edgar Kaplan ruling (according >>to Kaplan's article on claims in his Appeals >>Committee series published in the Bridge World). Ton asked: >Interesting remark. I do have those series of >articles at home and don't remember a similar case >was described there. Could you give the example he >used? That is a much more convincing approach than >just mentioning (a)name(s), even when it it a famous >one. > >ton Richard replied: The Bridge World, January 1983, Page 18: Kaplan gave two relevant examples, going for a middle way between the "always top-down" EBU regulation and the "play misere" David Burn rule. First example - WEST S --- H Q 6 D K C 7 SOUTH S K Q H K D Q C --- South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. Neither does Kaplan Burn South by ruling that South instantly leads the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads the DQ, giving South one trick. Second example - NORTH S --- H 6 4 D A Q T 2 C Q WEST EAST S --- S --- H 7 H Q T 8 3 D J 9 8 3 D 7 C K J C T 4 SOUTH S --- H A K J D K 6 5 4 C --- In a notrump contract, North (dummy) leads a heart, and South successfully finesses the jack. South now claims the rest, overlooking the possibility that diamonds do not break. In the first example, where South thought all cards were *already* winners, Kaplan did not mention the "always top down" rule. Here playing top cards first is relevant, since South claim is based on the fourth round of diamonds *becoming* top after three honours are cashed. On this second example, Kaplan rules that South is not deemed to play the diamond honours in a sensible order, thus revealing the marked finesse. Neither is South deemed to cash the heart honours first, catching West in a minor suit squeeze. On the other hand, Kaplan does not award West three tricks with the DJ, CK and CJ. Kaplan rules that, after declarer sees East show out twice in diamonds and the DJ fail to appear, that it would be irrational for declarer not to then cash HA and HK before playing a fourth diamond. Kaplan therefore rules that West gets only one trick. * * * I agree with Steve Willner that there should be indicative examples in the 2005 claim Laws (as there is already an indicative misbid/misexplanation example in the footnote to Law 75). Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 20 00:36:46 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:36:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <3EC8865D.9030500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c31e60$c87dfee0$154f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) > > This decision is just one good argument against 12C3, > which in effect allows committees to give the force of > law to their feelings." > +=+ To what they consider fair.+=+ < > > I'm certain he did not. He wanted to make sure the > panelists and readers realized that the AC had done > something even more unusual than awarding Ave+ > to the NOS. I agree that 60% is not the same as > Average Plus, but that's not the issue David was > focusing on. > +=+ As I have read the development of this thread my thoughts have been on past accusations of a view being 'legalistic', of suggestions of pedantry, finicality, sophistry, call it what you will. Now I am bemused to read that if a committee decides to award a 12C3 adjustment it matters how it expresses the score, albeit always the same effective adjustment. Committees, Directors, are not, it seems, to be allowed to express it as 60%-40% even if that is the level of the adjustment to be made; no room, it seems, for the convenience of shorthand. Talk of disputing what number of angels can dance on the point of a needle. I do agree that any 12C3 adjustment is not subject to Law 88 since it is, by definition, a variation of an assigned adjusted score. +=+ < > In private correspondence David Stevenson has told > me that in the EBU 12C3 can be used only to give > weighted adjustments. This was news to me, and it > is certainly not implicit in the text of 12C3. > +=+ Of course it wouldn't be, since the concept of a defined weighting is of more recent origin; when the 12C3 procedure was introduced there were 'weighted' scores, but not said to be such and rather indicated to be the committee's assessment of what was a fair settlement of the matter before it. There is no restraint, that I am aware of, on such an assessment by a committee today if that is what it believes a fair variation of an assigned adjusted score. An AC's prime charge in recourse to Law 12C3 is "to do equity" (sic). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 20 01:10:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:10:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>This decision is just one good argument against 12C3, >>which in effect allows committees to give the force of >>law to their feelings." Grattan replied: >+=+ To what they consider fair.+=+ [big snip] This raises an issue of fundamental importance. Which of these two jurisprudential schools is correct? 1. The Kaplan Law School First, an AC should determine what ruling they consider is fair. Second, an AC should try to find a Law they can twist to justify their predetermined consideration of fairness. 2. The Wildavsky Law School First, an AC should determine what ruling is correct according to a non-twisted interpretation of Law (taking the TD's advice on Law if unsure of what Law requires). Second, if non-twisted Law permits an AC to exercise discretion, then an AC uses that discretion in the direction of non-twisted fairness. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 20 01:40:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:40:46 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: >Drawn to the extreme: This means for instance >that a spectator who notices a card apparently >belonging to one of the boards being lost on >the floor is prohibited from notifying anybody >on the staff of this fact until after the >correction period has expired? Nonsense. (He >must of course not "disturb" the players) > >Sven Non-nonsense. If a player has carelessly infracted Law 7B1 by failing to count their cards, and if that player is consequently about to revoke due to Law 14B3, then a spectator *must not* infract Law 76B by assisting that player to resolve their Law 7B1 infraction. If, on the other hand, a player has already called attention to a missing card, then the spectator can Lawfully indicate where the missing card is. Best wishes Richard In a Victor Mollo story a kibitzer picked up a card from another pack off the floor - the Rueful Rabbit scored another triumph when a 14th card proved useful. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue May 20 01:36:40 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 20:36:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC8C681.4080905@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 5/19/03, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, it has been done before. Oh, well, it must be okay, then. 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 Tue May 20 01:32:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 20:32:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <000101c31dcc$092290e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 5/19/03, Sven Pran wrote: >When you have asked a question on a call or (preferably) of the >auction so far, "full disclosure" is only given by an explanation that >does not leave any need for clarifying question(s). > >I used the 1D opening bid in precision as an example. It may be argued >that the (extra) restraints upon the opening hand shape and strength >if the diamond suit is short follows from "general bridge knowledge", >but this is one place where I consider the inclusion of inference from >not using another call (1NT) an essential part of an explanation. Am I correct then in inferring that your answers to my two questions are (1) a player is not expected to know that the meaning of some call other than one an opponent made is relevant to the explanation of the call made, and so the meaning of the relevant call must be volunteered, and (2) full disclosure requires (1)? 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 toddz@att.net Tue May 20 01:44:49 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 20:44:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > This raises an issue of fundamental importance. Which of > these two jurisprudential schools is correct? > > 1. The Kaplan Law School > > 2. The Wildavsky Law School Isn't there at least a third? 3. The Burn Law School Details of what transpired are fed into a Turing machine which faithfully produces the same result repeatedly. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 20 01:56:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:56:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: EBU semi-official editor: >England does not want to revert to the approach by TDs >and ACs of North America in the eighties where TDs >relied on ACs to do their job for them. Richard: The actuality of the ACBL in the 1980s was not exactly TDs relying on ACs to do their job for them, but rather a deliberate ACBL requirement placed on TDs to _automatically_ rule in favour of the NOS. This overly harsh policy against the putative OS resulted in a huge number of appeals clogging ACBL ACs. But the bad experience of 1980s ACBL ACs is not a logically consequential argument against TDs _voluntarily_ referring their doubtful decisions to an AC. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue May 20 02:00:49 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 02:00:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: Message-ID: <009101c31e6b$4149dec0$eb4d27d9@pbncomputer> Todd wrote: > Isn't there at least a third? > 3. The Burn Law School > Details of what transpired are fed into a Turing machine which > faithfully produces the same result repeatedly. No, there is not. There ought to be, of course. But I have the distinct impression that the world is not quite ready for the concept. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue May 20 05:07:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:07:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: On 5/20/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This raises an issue of fundamental importance. Which of >these two jurisprudential schools is correct? Are we voting? If so, I vote for the Wildavsky school. 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 Tue May 20 05:05:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:05:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <000401c31e60$c87dfee0$154f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On 5/20/03, grandeval wrote: >Committees, Directors, are not, it seems, to be allowed to express it >as 60%-40% even if that is the level of the adjustment to be made; no >room, it seems, for the convenience of shorthand. As I see it, the problem is not the shorthand of 60-40, but the fact that the committee (or the TD, for that matter) does not clearly state the law(s) on which the ruling is based. If a committee says "we used L12C3 to arrive at 60-40", that's one thing. If they say simply "adjust to 60-40", or worse, "average plus-average minus" (which I think is what happened in the case under discussion, iirc), and make no mention of L12C3, that's another thing entirely. It leaves open the very real possibility that the ruling is, as some of my younger friends would put it, "horked". 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 adam@tameware.com Tue May 20 05:39:19 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:39:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:10 AM +1000 5/20/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This raises an issue of fundamental importance. Which of >these two jurisprudential schools is correct? > >1. The Kaplan Law School > >First, an AC should determine what ruling they consider is >fair. > >Second, an AC should try to find a Law they can twist to >justify their predetermined consideration of fairness. > >2. The Wildavsky Law School > >First, an AC should determine what ruling is correct >according to a non-twisted interpretation of Law (taking >the TD's advice on Law if unsure of what Law requires). > >Second, if non-twisted Law permits an AC to exercise >discretion, then an AC uses that discretion in the >direction of non-twisted fairness. Surely there are other possibilities! In any case I don't think I belong to this "Wildavsky School". What have I written that led you to that formulation? If I had to state my views as to how things ought to be it would go something like this: "The director or AC should determine the correct ruling under the laws, absent 12C3." "They should make that ruling." I must thank you for the comparison, though. There's no company I'd rather be in. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 20 06:24:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:24:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: Todd wrote: >>Isn't there at least a third? >> >>3. The Burn Law School >>Details of what transpired are fed into a Turing machine which >>faithfully produces the same result repeatedly. David Burn replied: >No, there is not. There ought to be, of course. But I have the >distinct impression that the world is not quite ready for the >concept. Richard continues: The world may be ready for a halfway concept, the Burnt Hills Law School - a Turing machine that faithfully reproduces the same *legal* advice for any AC repeatedly. But any AC is permitted to use variable *judgement* on whether bid X is a logical alternative, or whether play Y is a rational play. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 20 07:23:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:23:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums Message-ID: The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: NORTH S A K Q T 3 H T 9 8 7 D 6 5 4 C K WEST EAST S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 H J 5 4 H --- D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 SOUTH S 8 4 H A K Q 6 3 2 D A 8 2 C A 3 Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, saying, "Pulling trumps." How would you rule? Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* claims the balance with no statement. How would you rule? Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." How would you rule? Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue May 20 07:45:07 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 07:45:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: Message-ID: <000f01c31e9b$6fc4abb0$d504e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) > > 1. The Kaplan Law School > > First, an AC should determine what ruling they consider is > fair. > > Second, an AC should try to find a Law they can twist to > justify their predetermined consideration of fairness. > +=+ However, when it comes to 12C3 the law itself determines that to apply 12C3 the AC must first have conceived of the equity it wishes 'to do'. The EBL was minded to block the introduction of 12C2 if it had not obtained in parallel a deal consenting to the footnote that has since become 12C3. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Tue May 20 08:03:39 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:03:39 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030516092538.029c9b70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030519145240.0266d990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <3EC9D34B.1080601@skynet.be> Grant Sterling wrote: > > I have no problem with that, but it seems to me it > reduces to "we judge each case separately". We don't require > the '2' from AKQJ2, but we might require it from AQJ2, or > the J from AJ facing Qx. Do we have to lay out every single > card combination and situation in order to achieve rulings > that will be the same everywhere? > If our goal really is to achieve claim laws that > will assure that identical claims always get identical rulings, > then we need very simple rules. ["Top down", or "worst > possible play", or whatever.] If we're willing to allow > the TD to apply his judgment to the case, then we'll never have > unanimity. I don't mind that--some people do. YMMV. > My point exactly. Simple rules are impossible. Even Burnian rules are difficult (ever try making as few tricks as possible from a holding?). What we need to stamp out is that clam rules can be made simpler. I read Jaap's post and I thought - why is this way simpler than the current one - and why should it be fairer? Yes indeed, each case should be judged separately - isn't that what we do in UI and MI cases as well? What we need are lots of examples. I believe blml has helped in educating lots of directors already. What we don't need are simple rules that are extracted from examples and then used without considering the context. > >> Herman DE WAEL > > > Respectfully, > Grant > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue May 20 08:10:26 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:10:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <20C9EA75-8A04-11D7-8CE2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EC9D4E2.5070301@skynet.be> Come on Gordon, be serious: Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> >> Gordon, if I can award 36 MP, then surely I can award 60% of 60MP ! > > > I think Alain has clearly explained the reason why not, and this case is > evidence of the sort of confusion that could arise if it were permitted. > That's a different issue - Alain's point was about confusion. By writing Av+, the Welsh AC has created confusion among the readers of blml. But I am certain that the players understood better what they received than had it been expressed as a L12C3 adjustment to ..MP. What I am talking of is legality. Nothing you or Alain have written contradicts my point that this AS is legal. >> >> And I do believe the players would prefer it if I said 60% than 36MP. >> >> >> 60% is understandable - 36MP is not. > > > Who are these players who find the concept of matchpoints difficult to > grasp? So I next tell you that I scored 37 MP on that deal I mentioned last week. Or I tell you I scored 95%. Which is the more helpful message? Sorry Gordon, but this discussion is going nowhere. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 08:14:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:14:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c31e9f$6b23fda0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On 5/19/03, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >When you have asked a question on a call or (preferably) of the > >auction so far, "full disclosure" is only given by an explanation = that > >does not leave any need for clarifying question(s). > > > >I used the 1D opening bid in precision as an example. It may be = argued > >that the (extra) restraints upon the opening hand shape and strength > >if the diamond suit is short follows from "general bridge knowledge", > >but this is one place where I consider the inclusion of inference = from > >not using another call (1NT) an essential part of an explanation. >=20 > Am I correct then in inferring that your answers to my two questions = are > (1) a player is not expected to know that the meaning of some call = other > than one an opponent made is relevant to the explanation of the call > made, and so the meaning of the relevant call must be volunteered, and > (2) full disclosure requires (1)? The short answer is yes. Information is conveyed by data that eliminates alternatives. Formally I would put it this way: The explanation of any call in = response to a question shall be so "complete" that there are no other calls on the repertoire for that pair which may show a hand that fits the (in case incomplete) description given. To use my 1D opening bid example yet another time: 1: "May be down to two diamonds" - Lots of hands fit this description. 2: "Denies 5 cards in any major suit" - Eliminates some of them 3: "Strength between 11 and 19 HCP" - Eliminates a few others 4: "Normal opening strength but with less than four diamonds the = strength is 11-14 or 18-19" - complete(?) Statement 1 is clearly incomplete; statement 2 may more or less be considered part of general bridge inference; but IMO the information in statement 4 is the only one that makes the description complete. Have I made my point? Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue May 20 08:17:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:17:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <000001c31e13$aa128c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EC9D6A5.5030604@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>I guess that if the laws permit a L12C2 score to be given in MP (and >>so also in % of a top), L12C3 permits that too. >>The EBL AC have also already awarded L12C3 scores in %. >>That does not make it a L12C1 score, though. >>I don't believe this score should be written down as Av+, and I don't >>believe L88 applies to this score. >> > > To which I fully agree. > > My understanding of L12C2 and L12C3 is that the Director (or the AC as the > case may be) when applying these laws is bound to assess the most favorable > result that was at all likely for NOS and the most unfavorable result that > was at all probable for OS. (Almost a direct quote from L12C2) > Well, the above is true for L12C2, not for L12C3. There the assessment is more of an "expected value". > If the Director (or AC) selects to express such results directly in match > points that must be because he deems it impossible to assess any "probable" > or "likely" score "had the irregularity not occurred". > > I have a tremendous problem trying to imagine what kind of events could lead > to such a situation? > Well, consider this: W N E 1NT 2He X The double is misexplained. The TD and AC need to assess the probable outcome of the board. They need to consider (especially when applying L12C3) all possible avenues. Do you really think they are going to give a L12C3 score like: 5% of 4HeX= +10% of 4HeX-1 +10% of 3HeX+1 +20% of 3HeX= + 5% of 4Sp+1 +10% of 4Sp= +10% of 4Sp-1 +10% of 3NT= +20% of 3NTX= and it can be made even more difficult. What the AC could do in such a case is decide whether or not the 2He overcall favours or disfavours NS. They can judge the expected score on that basis and award NS 70% or 30% of MP. There are examples of that. I believe it is possible, fair, and legal. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue May 20 08:23:56 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:23:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: <3503444.1053354331935.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3EC9D80C.3000307@skynet.be> Hello David, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Gordon, if I can award 36 MP, then surely I can award 60% of 60MP ! >> > > You can, but this almost never happens. If you award "60%", this is normally shorthand for "60% or session average"; I cannot recall an instance of a contestant being awarded exactly 60% of a top regardless of his eventual session score. > And I have explained to you why that is wrong. 60% is not Av+. L88 should not be of application. I agree that there is confusion, but confusion is no reason to be calling the practice illegal. > >>And I do believe the players would prefer it if I said 60% than 36MP. >> > > They would not. If you are giving them 36 matchpoints, they would like to know why. If you cannot explain this by saying: "Well, we think you would have defended 3H doubled some of the time and 2H doubled some of the time", or words to that effect, then they will not understand what you are doing at all (largely because you are not doing anything that makes sense). > If I were to give them 36MP, then surely I'd need to explain why. But if I give them 60% of a top, surely they understand the reason - which might well be laziness. But no law tells the AC how they should arrive a a L12C3 adjustment. > >>60% is understandable - 36MP is not. >> > > 60%, in the context of an artificial result awarded when a bridge result has been obtained, is not understandable. 36 matchpoints is understandable, if it means "50% of plus 500 from 3H doubled (48 matchpoints) and 50% of plus 200 from 2H doubled (24 matchpoints)." But here was an AC that did not do what it was supposed to do, and then attempted to disguise the fact by awarding a score that it was not supposed to award. Its actions were just plain wrong, as is any post-facto justification of those actions. > I have just explained in a different post when it could be understandable. I don't want to get into a discussion about this particular case. Quite probably this AC did not do a good job. But that's a far cry from suggesting they did something illegal. And even if they never realized that what they were doing was illegal (I do think they though they were giving a L12C1 score, which IS illegal) and never thought about writing it such that it did become legal (as I now have), that does not change the fact that by L12C3 they are allowed to award to a pair (even an OS) 60% of available matchpoints. For some reason they believed such a result to be equitable. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 08:31:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:31:31 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c31ea1$d58ea850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 > >Drawn to the extreme: This means for instance > >that a spectator who notices a card apparently > >belonging to one of the boards being lost on > >the floor is prohibited from notifying anybody > >on the staff of this fact until after the > >correction period has expired? Nonsense. (He > >must of course not "disturb" the players) > > > >Sven >=20 > Non-nonsense. If a player has carelessly infracted > Law 7B1 by failing to count their cards, and if > that player is consequently about to revoke due to > Law 14B3, then a spectator *must not* infract Law > 76B by assisting that player to resolve their Law > 7B1 infraction. Don't you read the posts you are commenting? >=20 > If, on the other hand, a player has already called > attention to a missing card, then the spectator can > Lawfully indicate where the missing card is. And the same question once again. I specifically stated that the spectator must of course not "disturb" = the players. And I said nothing about any player missing the card in = question, nor that a revoke might become possible due to this. Most commonly a situation like what I tried to describe occurs when a = card has been lost on the floor at the time the players return their cards to = the board. As a director I appreciate whoever informs me of such an event provided = they do not give any information to the table involved. My point is that any spectator must at any time be free to inform the Director (!) of any event that the spectator believes is an irregularity = of any kind. What the Director decides to do with that information is then of course entirely up to him. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Tue May 20 08:38:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:38:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums References: Message-ID: <007801c31ea2$caaa4ec0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard, Nice examples. First, Kaplan is crazy in a way the way he handled claims. Because he seemed to rule 'what Kaplan thinks is fair'. This might be ok if Kaplan got to rule all claims in the world which is silly of course. Other Kaplans tend to have (slighty) different views of fairness you know. How can you possible rule this kind of problems without clear claim resolving rules ? I will rule these with my own rules (see my recent mail). 1. In my logic he claimed 13 tricks when just 12 toptricks where available. So one down. I guess Burn agrees. I don't care if any or all normal lines would have produced 13 tricks. I don't play the hand for him. In current laws it is dubious. According to 70E you might finesse so one down. But then you might argue this is not a 'normal' line depending on todays market value of 'normal'. This is what makes current laws so hopeless. 2. At high level 7H just made. His line of play and the moment of the claim makes clear that he will ruff out the 5th spade. At champion level I can not imagine opponents even thinking of objecting because this way of stating your line of play tends to be acceptable. But this way of claiming is extremely dangerous against weak opposition. It is akin to claiming the rest without mentioning 'pulling trumps'. However obvious it might be it is always better to mention something like 'establishing spades'. I have no real problem with a local TD ruling one down because 'here we don't claim like that'. Anyway the law version doesn't matter. This is a cultural question. Is claiming like this acceptable or not. 3. It is impossible to make sense out of the claim. Did he realise or not the S finesse was just for a overtrick (he mentioned #tricks but that is not conclusive evidence). Did he realise or not that the S finesse was dangerous (if so he thought he needed the finesse). Did he realise that you cannot claim 3S and a S finesse at the same time from this holding. Did he realise the hearts were blocking (you need to discard one on the CA, 'easy' but far from automatic). Using Jaap laws, Burn laws or current laws you have to make some assumptions to get started. After a club lead this claim is ok (ignoring the H-block). He crosses to hand and takes his finesse for 12 or 13. Working from this we might say he crosses to hand and takes the spade finesse: 6NT-3. But we might also say he is completely bonkers and claimed 13 tricks with a spade finesse (he thought he was playing 7NT !?). In wich case it is 6NT-7. DA, CK, HA, CA, S finesse after wich the defence has 8 tricks (declarer gets the last trick). Under Burn laws even 6NT-8 because claimer can discard all his winners giving the defence a 9th trick. Probably best to make all assumptions against claimer. His statement is so terrible that he deserves no benefit of any doubt. So I will go for 6NT-7. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums > > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > > How would you rule? > > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* > claims the balance with no statement. > > How would you rule? > > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue May 20 08:47:35 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:47:35 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B1D1@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Emne: Re: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums Richard wrote: The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: NORTH S A K Q T 3 H T 9 8 7 D 6 5 4 C K WEST EAST S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 H J 5 4 H --- D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 SOUTH S 8 4 H A K Q 6 3 2 D A 8 2 C A 3 Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, saying, "Pulling trumps." How would you rule? Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* claims the balance with no statement. How would you rule? Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." How would you rule? ----- Case 1. It's easy to make 13 tricks, draw trumps and ruff out the spade jack to establish dummy's fifth spade. Unluckily, declarer didn't mention anything regarding setting up the spades. Presumably he believed he had 13 top tricks. If so, declarer could easily draw four rounds of trump and cash the club king before turning to spades. One down. Case 2. Declarer didn't mention the need to ruff out the spade jack this time either. But his play shows clearly his intentions. He checked that spades did't break 5-1 just before claiming. 7H made. Case 3. Declarer didn't say anything about blocking. To make the contract he's got to cash the club king before cashing the third heart, to enable him to unblock dummy's blocking heart on the club ace. Not mentioning this in the claim statement, he probably wasn't aware of the problem. So unblokcing is out. Three down. Regards, Harald ----- Best wishes Richard _______________________________________________ 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 Tue May 20 08:50:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:50:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums References: Message-ID: <3EC9DE4C.60105@skynet.be> I'm sure there's still something I've overlooked, but I'm not shying away from my responsabilities: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > > How would you rule? > If I am correct in seeing that a correct line is: -trumps, not noticing that we have to get back into hand -king of clubs -3 spades -spade ruff -ace of clubs -back to table in trumps -spade -diamond ruff Then I am ruling one down for a player of my level of play - far too many chances of getting it wrong. I would not rule DB down, though. > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* > claims the balance with no statement. > > How would you rule? > This is indicative of him noticing that he cannot cope with a 5-1 spade break, but he can cope with a 4-2 break. I assume he has found the line. > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > > How would you rule? > 10 tricks. Any player sees that he needs to play the CK before breaking his communications in hearts. And then block the hearts. Nothing he can do - he must end at the table and hope the SJ falls for 12 tricks - and he gets only 10. > 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue May 20 09:11:16 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:11:16 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B1D3@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Ben wrote: >=20 > >there is no obligation to disclose the non-use of such > >a call up front other than by not including it in the > >full disclosure of his methods under Law 40B. >=20 > [snip] >=20 A partnership has the support double as one of the agreements. In a support double situation the player concerned passes. How could the opponents know what the partner knows? ----- That depends upon alert rules in your jurisdiction. I would=20 alert this pass. Regards, Harald ----- =20 Ben =20 _______________________________________________ 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 May 20 09:16:01 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:16:01 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030516092538.029c9b70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030519145240.0266d990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3EC9D34B.1080601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a701c31ea8$10fc1200$0fb54351@noos.fr> Herman: > Simple rules are impossible.What we need to stamp out is that clam rules can be made simpler. My dear Herman. You are really crazy beyond help. You say here that it is not possible to make claim rules simpler. Do you realise how utterly ridiculous such a statement is. Of course this is possible by defintion. Anything can be made simpler. Herman stamping on it or not. Another question is whether we like it to be simpler. I am sure a big majority would love the claim rules to be simpler. But that is a political question and so open to discussion. We know by now Hermans opinion. > Even Burnian rules are difficult Burnian rules, my rules, or any 'mechanical' rules set is easy. As least way easier than the current nonsense. But any claim resolve will need some bridge analysis from time to time. If you have a problem with that everything will be difficult. > I read Jaap's post and I thought - why is this way simpler than the current one - My laws are way simpler than the current ones because in 90% or so of all cases you just have to count some tricks (one of my mechanical rules is you get the #tricks you claim or the #tricks that are available single dummy (whatever the breaks), full period). Very short my basic principles: - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the claim So you don't have to analyse what might have happend. You don't have to bother whether or not a certain alternative line is 'normal' or 'irrational' whatever that means today. You only deal with the line of play stated by the claimer in a 'mechanical' way. This is a hell of a lot simpler. Now of course this doesn't eliminate all difficulties. Sometimes you have to establish the most damaging order of cashing winners when the guy has forgotton a card. Sometimes it will be hard to understand what he claimed in the first place (try some multiple errors claim statements). But you have a clear guide of how to tackle the problem, and very often no serious bridge analysis is required. > and why should it be fairer? Fair is a difficult concept. I don't know what it means in the current context. I didn't claim my rules are fairer. But I consider mechanical rules fairer than the current AC lottery. But even when saying so I apply a non trivial value system to the concept of 'fair'. Other people will have different views. > Yes indeed, each case should be judged separately - isn't that what we > do in UI and MI cases as well? The fact that we do this in UI and MI cases causes lots of problems. But for the moment we don't know how to solve it. We do use screens and we should improve the stop rule and measures like that. But this tries to avoid UI/MI, once it is there it is clumsy to deal with. But anyway, the fact that we have no good solution for UI/MI resolve doesn't mean we should resolve claims in the same clumsy way if we can think of something better. > What we need are lots of examples. I believe blml has helped in > educating lots of directors already. > What we don't need are simple rules that are extracted from examples > and then used without considering the context. If all the examples lead to different rulings in comparable cases (the situation today) it really doesn't help. And if we tend to rule the same in comparable cases you can and should extract a simple rule. I am sure those poor TD's in need of education (your words) prefer a couple a simple rules rather than analysing a couple of hunderds of examples. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:03 AM Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > > I have no problem with that, but it seems to me it > > reduces to "we judge each case separately". We don't require > > the '2' from AKQJ2, but we might require it from AQJ2, or > > the J from AJ facing Qx. Do we have to lay out every single > > card combination and situation in order to achieve rulings > > that will be the same everywhere? > > If our goal really is to achieve claim laws that > > will assure that identical claims always get identical rulings, > > then we need very simple rules. ["Top down", or "worst > > possible play", or whatever.] If we're willing to allow > > the TD to apply his judgment to the case, then we'll never have > > unanimity. I don't mind that--some people do. YMMV. > > > > > My point exactly. Simple rules are impossible. Even Burnian rules are > difficult (ever try making as few tricks as possible from a holding?). > What we need to stamp out is that clam rules can be made simpler. I > read Jaap's post and I thought - why is this way simpler than the > current one - and why should it be fairer? > Yes indeed, each case should be judged separately - isn't that what we > do in UI and MI cases as well? > What we need are lots of examples. I believe blml has helped in > educating lots of directors already. > What we don't need are simple rules that are extracted from examples > and then used without considering the context. > > > > > >> Herman DE WAEL > > > > > > Respectfully, > > Grant > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue May 20 09:31:55 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:31:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums References: Message-ID: <00d001c31eaa$489984c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Oops. At 3. I read finesse where it says falls. Silly. Good example of what bridge players are capable of. But now once more. There are two blocking suits. H and C. The correct order is clear. CK, HAKQ, CA (heart discard), etc. But you can go wrong in more than one way. So we pick the worst possibility, declarer cashing HAKQ without unblocking CK (blocking both suits). Stupid but I have seen worse (look at me reading this question). Next CK, the H10, and SAKQ. 6NT-3. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums > > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > > How would you rule? > > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* > claims the balance with no statement. > > How would you rule? > > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue May 20 10:31:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:31:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: <3EC9D4E2.5070301@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 08:10 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Come on Gordon, be serious: > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> >>> >>> Gordon, if I can award 36 MP, then surely I can award 60% of 60MP ! >> I think Alain has clearly explained the reason why not, and this case >> is evidence of the sort of confusion that could arise if it were >> permitted. > > > That's a different issue - Alain's point was about confusion. By > writing Av+, the Welsh AC has created confusion among the readers of > blml. But I am certain that the players understood better what they > received than had it been expressed as a L12C3 adjustment to ..MP. Probably not if they ended up with a session score of 65% and wanted their extra 5% on the board. > > What I am talking of is legality. > > Nothing you or Alain have written contradicts my point that this AS is > legal. Apart from the words of the law which I quoted, and which you think can be adjusted to what you see as the equivalent, in spite of the fact that the equivalent has a rather different meaning in widespread use. > > > >>> >>> And I do believe the players would prefer it if I said 60% than 36MP. >>> >>> >>> 60% is understandable - 36MP is not. >> Who are these players who find the concept of matchpoints difficult >> to grasp? > > > So I next tell you that I scored 37 MP on that deal I mentioned last > week. Or I tell you I scored 95%. Which is the more helpful message? I understood the concept of matchpoints as a beginner long before I ever encountered it expressed as a percentage. Certainly 37 matchpoints out of 60 seems easier to understand (and more accurate) than 61.66%. > > Sorry Gordon, but this discussion is going nowhere. We're in agreement about that. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue May 20 10:48:00 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:48:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 Message-ID: Yes, I found those examples myself and decided them not be relevant for the case involved. Not for the hawks anyway, since both examples demonstrate that the approach should be to decide what could have happened had claimer continued play. And real outcomes are taken into consideration, not non-bridge outcomes. Claimer is still allowed to behave rational. I owe you the decision of the Dutch A.C. : it rejected the appeal, apparently saying that playing the SJ now has to be considered normal. ton > > Richard asserted: > > [snip] > > >>but would also be an Edgar Kaplan ruling (according > >>to Kaplan's article on claims in his Appeals > >>Committee series published in the Bridge World). > > Ton asked: > > >Interesting remark. I do have those series of > >articles at home and don't remember a similar case > >was described there. Could you give the example he > >used? That is a much more convincing approach than > >just mentioning (a)name(s), even when it it a famous > >one. > > > >ton > > Richard replied: > > The Bridge World, January 1983, Page 18: > > Kaplan gave two relevant examples, going for a middle > way between the "always top-down" EBU regulation and > the "play misere" David Burn rule. > > First example - > > WEST > S --- > H Q 6 > D K > C 7 > SOUTH > S K Q > H K > D Q > C --- > > South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the > last four tricks (forgetting that the DK is still > outstanding). > > Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual > winners first. > > Neither does Kaplan Burn South by ruling that South > instantly leads the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, > giving South zero tricks. > > Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest > of random (but not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules > that South cashes the HK, then leads the DQ, giving > South one trick. > > Second example - > > NORTH > S --- > H 6 4 > D A Q T 2 > C Q > WEST EAST > S --- S --- > H 7 H Q T 8 3 > D J 9 8 3 D 7 > C K J C T 4 > SOUTH > S --- > H A K J > D K 6 5 4 > C --- > > In a notrump contract, North (dummy) leads a heart, and > South successfully finesses the jack. South now claims > the rest, overlooking the possibility that diamonds do > not break. > > In the first example, where South thought all cards were > *already* winners, Kaplan did not mention the "always > top down" rule. Here playing top cards first is relevant, > since South claim is based on the fourth round of diamonds > *becoming* top after three honours are cashed. > > On this second example, Kaplan rules that South is not > deemed to play the diamond honours in a sensible order, > thus revealing the marked finesse. Neither is South > deemed to cash the heart honours first, catching West in > a minor suit squeeze. > > On the other hand, Kaplan does not award West three tricks > with the DJ, CK and CJ. Kaplan rules that, after declarer > sees East show out twice in diamonds and the DJ fail to > appear, that it would be irrational for declarer not to > then cash HA and HK before playing a fourth diamond. > Kaplan therefore rules that West gets only one trick. > > * * * > > I agree with Steve Willner that there should be indicative > examples in the 2005 claim Laws (as there is already an > indicative misbid/misexplanation example in the footnote > to Law 75). > > Best wishes > > Richard > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue May 20 10:51:41 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:51:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <000101c31e9f$6b23fda0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 08:14 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > To use my 1D opening bid example yet another time: > > 1: "May be down to two diamonds" - Lots of hands fit this description. > > 2: "Denies 5 cards in any major suit" - Eliminates some of them > > 3: "Strength between 11 and 19 HCP" - Eliminates a few others > > 4: "Normal opening strength but with less than four diamonds the > strength is > 11-14 or 18-19" - complete(?) > > Statement 1 is clearly incomplete; statement 2 may more or less be > considered part of general bridge inference; Although I've often heard statement 2, it's probably inaccurate in most cases - unless they open 5-6 or 5-7 hands in canape style. > but IMO the information in > statement 4 is the only one that makes the description complete. Not really - a beginner would have no sense from this explanation that you're talking about a balanced hand when the diamonds are <4. My Precision explanation would be "It's either natural diamonds (possibly with longer clubs) or it's a balanced 11-13 in which case the diamond suit could be as short as two." -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 11:05:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:05:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c31eb7$676c11d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ....... > My Precision explanation would be "It's either natural diamonds > (possibly with longer clubs) or it's a balanced 11-13 in which case the > diamond suit could be as short as two." Yes, I agree. This is better than my #4 statement. Actually when I played precision myself I declared the 1D opening bid as "Either natural with at least four diamonds and 11 to 15 HCP or a NoTrump hand (which can be down to two diamonds) with 11 to 12 HCP" Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue May 20 11:12:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:12:14 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: <200305151558.LAA27185@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030516092538.029c9b70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20030519145240.0266d990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3EC9D34B.1080601@skynet.be> <00a701c31ea8$10fc1200$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3EC9FF7E.7080208@skynet.be> Jaap, I really was not going to comment on your post, but I've been dragged into it. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>Simple rules are impossible.What we need to stamp out is that clam rules >> > can be made simpler. > > My dear Herman. You are really crazy beyond help. You say here that it is > not possible to make claim rules simpler. Do you realise how utterly > ridiculous such a statement is. Of course this is possible by defintion. > Anything can be made simpler. Herman stamping on it or not. Another question > is whether we like it to be simpler. I am sure a big majority would love the > claim rules to be simpler. But that is a political question and so open to > discussion. We know by now Hermans opinion. > I do realize how utterly ridiculous my statement is. My point is that whatever the rules, someone will find them too difficult to apply correctly. Even Burnian laws. As long as the argument against the current laws is that two different TD's will give two different rulings, I will argue that the same will be true regardless of the particular set of laws. You may believe that your set of laws, or David's, is better than the current one, but I refuse to acknowledge that your set of laws will get rid of TD error. > >>Even Burnian rules are difficult >> > Burnian rules, my rules, or any 'mechanical' rules set is easy. As least way > easier than the current nonsense. But any claim resolve will need some > bridge analysis from time to time. If you have a problem with that > everything will be difficult. > And that is my point exactly. Everything will be difficult. > >>I read Jaap's post and I thought - why is this way simpler than the >> > current one - > > My laws are way simpler than the current ones because in 90% or so of all > cases you just have to count some tricks (one of my mechanical rules is you > get the #tricks you claim or the #tricks that are available single dummy > (whatever the breaks), full period). In 100% of the current claims all you have to do is count some tricks. Very short my basic principles: > - play does not continue, what might have happened is irrelevant Baloney. According to you, there should be no difference in the ruling of AQx Jxx, with claimer either believing the K has gone or the K must be well placed. The claim is invalid whenever the K is still there, but in one case the claimer can be judged to draw from top, in the other he will only be judged to finesse. That is the "might have happened". > - claimer has no access to new information unless explicitly stated in the > claim > So you don't have to analyse what might have happend. You don't have to > bother whether or not a certain alternative line is 'normal' or 'irrational' > whatever that means today. You only deal with the line of play stated by the > claimer in a 'mechanical' way. This is a hell of a lot simpler. Now of > course this doesn't eliminate all difficulties. Sometimes you have to > establish the most damaging order of cashing winners when the guy has > forgotton a card. Sometimes it will be hard to understand what he claimed in > the first place (try some multiple errors claim statements). But you have a > clear guide of how to tackle the problem, and very often no serious bridge > analysis is required. > And in what way is that different to how the current laws are? You want to do away with "normal", but you substitute "mechanical". You refuse to rule "Burnian", so you need to tell us what is non-Burnian and what is not. Really Jaap, you just put the problem at a different level. > >>and why should it be fairer? >> > Fair is a difficult concept. I don't know what it means in the current > context. I didn't claim my rules are fairer. But I consider mechanical rules > fairer than the current AC lottery. But even when saying so I apply a non > trivial value system to the concept of 'fair'. Other people will have > different views. > If you don't believe your laws are fairer, then why do you insist on adopting them. Sometimes an AC will come up with an unfair result, but at least you have three people conducting your lottery. > >>Yes indeed, each case should be judged separately - isn't that what we >>do in UI and MI cases as well? >> > > The fact that we do this in UI and MI cases causes lots of problems. But for > the moment we don't know how to solve it. We do use screens and we should > improve the stop rule and measures like that. But this tries to avoid UI/MI, > once it is there it is clumsy to deal with. But anyway, the fact that we > have no good solution for UI/MI resolve doesn't mean we should resolve > claims in the same clumsy way if we can think of something better. > Well, I happen to believe we don't have a good solutioin for claims either. > >>What we need are lots of examples. I believe blml has helped in >>educating lots of directors already. >>What we don't need are simple rules that are extracted from examples >>and then used without considering the context. >> > > If all the examples lead to different rulings in comparable cases (the > situation today) it really doesn't help. And if we tend to rule the same in > comparable cases you can and should extract a simple rule. I am sure those > poor TD's in need of education (your words) prefer a couple a simple rules > rather than analysing a couple of hunderds of examples. > And what if those simple rules are contrary to a concept of fairness - don't you think the TD will very soon drop the simple rule and return to fairness? What about the player who accepts a "fair" claim from one opponent only to see his own, next claim, equally fair, be contested by bridge lawyers who ask the TD to apply simple rules? > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:03 AM > Subject: Re: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > >>Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> >>> I have no problem with that, but it seems to me it >>>reduces to "we judge each case separately". We don't require >>>the '2' from AKQJ2, but we might require it from AQJ2, or >>>the J from AJ facing Qx. Do we have to lay out every single >>>card combination and situation in order to achieve rulings >>>that will be the same everywhere? >>> If our goal really is to achieve claim laws that >>>will assure that identical claims always get identical rulings, >>>then we need very simple rules. ["Top down", or "worst >>>possible play", or whatever.] If we're willing to allow >>>the TD to apply his judgment to the case, then we'll never have >>>unanimity. I don't mind that--some people do. YMMV. >>> >>> >> >>My point exactly. Simple rules are impossible. Even Burnian rules are >>difficult (ever try making as few tricks as possible from a holding?). >>What we need to stamp out is that clam rules can be made simpler. I >>read Jaap's post and I thought - why is this way simpler than the >>current one - and why should it be fairer? >>Yes indeed, each case should be judged separately - isn't that what we >>do in UI and MI cases as well? >>What we need are lots of examples. I believe blml has helped in >>educating lots of directors already. >>What we don't need are simple rules that are extracted from examples >>and then used without considering the context. >> >> >> >>>>Herman DE WAEL >>>> >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> Grant >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 11:37:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:37:15 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <3EC9FF7E.7080208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c31ebb$c7e3d260$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......... > My point is that whatever the rules, someone will find them too > difficult to apply correctly. Even Burnian laws. As long as the > argument against the current laws is that two different TD's will give > two different rulings, I will argue that the same will be true > regardless of the particular set of laws. "Regardless of the particular set of Laws" ? >From the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: Law 41(a): If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number = thereof, he must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete statement = as to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not = voluntarily made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to do so, and thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be settled as this opponent directs. No question of "class of player", no question of "irrational play". I do not say that I prefer this law (although it has its merits), the question was whether a claim law could be made so that different = directors would follow a common line. This law is IMO clear enough to guarantee = that. The point was that if the claimer had not made a complete statement as = to which card he would play in what sequence his plays would be deemed as directed by his opponents regardless how "insane" such play would be. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue May 20 11:44:19 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:44:19 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in almost 80 years. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Verzonden: dinsdag 20 mei 2003 12:37 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: RE: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) > > > > Herman De Wael > .......... > > My point is that whatever the rules, someone will find them too > > difficult to apply correctly. Even Burnian laws. As long as the > > argument against the current laws is that two different > TD's will give > > two different rulings, I will argue that the same will be true > > regardless of the particular set of laws. > > "Regardless of the particular set of Laws" ? > > From the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: > > Law 41(a): If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any > number thereof, he > must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete > statement as > to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not > voluntarily > made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to > do so, and > thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be > settled as this opponent directs. > > No question of "class of player", no question of "irrational play". > > I do not say that I prefer this law (although it has its merits), the > question was whether a claim law could be made so that > different directors > would follow a common line. This law is IMO clear enough to > guarantee that. > > The point was that if the claimer had not made a complete > statement as to > which card he would play in what sequence his plays would be deemed as > directed by his opponents regardless how "insane" such play would be. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 11:53:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:53:10 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c31ebe$00ff3290$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in almost 80 years. > > ton But has the progress been for better or for worse? I ask because of all the debate apparently caused by our present claim laws. Regards Sven > > From the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: > > > > Law 41(a): If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any > > number thereof, he > > must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete > > statement as > > to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not > > voluntarily > > made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to > > do so, and > > thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be > > settled as this opponent directs. > > > > No question of "class of player", no question of "irrational play". > > > > I do not say that I prefer this law (although it has its merits), the > > question was whether a claim law could be made so that > > different directors > > would follow a common line. This law is IMO clear enough to > > guarantee that. > > > > The point was that if the claimer had not made a complete > > statement as to > > which card he would play in what sequence his plays would be deemed as > > directed by his opponents regardless how "insane" such play would be. > > > > Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue May 20 12:04:13 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:04:13 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) References: Message-ID: <005201c31ebf$8c802120$eb4d27d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote: > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in almost 80 years. We have indeed. All of it has been in completely the wrong direction, but at least we have not stood still. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue May 20 12:08:18 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:08:18 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: > > Kooijman, A. > > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in > > almost 80 years. > > > > ton > > But has the progress been for better or for worse? I ask > because of all the > debate apparently caused by our present claim laws. > > Regards Sven > when I use progress it means for better. Not surprisingly since I consider the present claim laws as quite reasonable (another gulf of outbursts). Laws where the result depends on the mood of opponents (shy, polite, coward, hawks) are terrible. That is what I don't like in all these cases where LHO has the option to accept an irregularity. It happens quite often that such a player is hesitating between not accepting and accepting because he believes it not be sportmanslike to claim the penalty. That is why I always tell that if the player thinks it to be to his advantage to accept he could do so. Is that common practice among TD's? It might even be wrong to say so? for better, yes. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 13:29:08 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:29:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim n+n+1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520142249.01d44ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:36 20/05/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Richard asserted: > >[snip] > > >>but would also be an Edgar Kaplan ruling (according > >>to Kaplan's article on claims in his Appeals > >>Committee series published in the Bridge World). > >Ton asked: > > >Interesting remark. I do have those series of > >articles at home and don't remember a similar case > >was described there. Could you give the example he > >used? That is a much more convincing approach than > >just mentioning (a)name(s), even when it it a famous > >one. > > > >ton > >Richard replied: > >The Bridge World, January 1983, Page 18: > >Kaplan gave two relevant examples, going for a middle >way between the "always top-down" EBU regulation and >the "play misere" David Burn rule. > >First example - > >WEST >S --- >H Q 6 >D K >C 7 > SOUTH > S K Q > H K > D Q > C --- > >South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the >last four tricks (forgetting that the DK is still >outstanding). > >Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual >winners first. > >Neither does Kaplan Burn South by ruling that South >instantly leads the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, >giving South zero tricks. AG : this only means that Mr. Kaplan considers that discarding the HK would be irrational : having seen West take the diamond trick, the only "normal " discard to the club (hoping there isn't another) would be a spade. This is surely a reasonable ruling, but nothing really new. It only confirms that irrational plays are still to be discarded, and that there needs to be some judgment as to what is irrational. Only those who don't understand what 'irrational' means in the Laws will disallow such a ruling, and they're wrong. >Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest >of random (but not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules >that South cashes the HK, then leads the DQ, giving >South one trick. > >Second example - > > NORTH > S --- > H 6 4 > D A Q T 2 > C Q >WEST EAST >S --- S --- >H 7 H Q T 8 3 >D J 9 8 3 D 7 >C K J C T 4 > SOUTH > S --- > H A K J > D K 6 5 4 > C --- > >In a notrump contract, North (dummy) leads a heart, and >South successfully finesses the jack. South now claims >the rest, overlooking the possibility that diamonds do >not break. > >In the first example, where South thought all cards were >*already* winners, Kaplan did not mention the "always >top down" rule. Here playing top cards first is relevant, >since South claim is based on the fourth round of diamonds >*becoming* top after three honours are cashed. > >On this second example, Kaplan rules that South is not >deemed to play the diamond honours in a sensible order, >thus revealing the marked finesse. Neither is South >deemed to cash the heart honours first, catching West in >a minor suit squeeze. > >On the other hand, Kaplan does not award West three tricks >with the DJ, CK and CJ. Kaplan rules that, after declarer >sees East show out twice in diamonds and the DJ fail to >appear, that it would be irrational for declarer not to >then cash HA and HK before playing a fourth diamond. >Kaplan therefore rules that West gets only one trick. AG : this one I don't like, but would be ready to discuss. If South claims without coment, one possible interpretation is that South thinks that the DJ is gone. For this reason, having South play all diamonds is not 'irrational' play. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 13:11:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:11:28 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c31ec8$f16311c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. > > > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in > > > almost 80 years. > > > > > > ton > > > > But has the progress been for better or for worse? I ask > > because of all the > > debate apparently caused by our present claim laws. > > > > Regards Sven > > >=20 >=20 > when I use progress it means for better. Not surprisingly since I = consider > the present claim laws as quite reasonable (another gulf of = outbursts). > Laws Well, at least that opinion was clarified. > where the result depends on the mood of opponents (shy, polite, = coward, > hawks) are terrible. That is what I don't like in all these cases = where > LHO > has the option to accept an irregularity. It happens quite often that = such > a > player is hesitating between not accepting and accepting because he > believes > it not be sportmanslike to claim the penalty. That is why I always = tell > that > if the player thinks it to be to his advantage to accept he could do = so. > Is > that common practice among TD's? It might even be wrong to say so? IMO it is your duty under Law 10C2. As is some guidance by the Director = on how they could expect to benefit, particularly when you are dealing with not-so-experienced players. When I inform LHO of his right to accept an irregularity I usually tell = him this is his right but not his obligation. Example after an insufficient bid: "Accepting it will enable you to = legally make your next bid at a lower level; for instance by showing support to = your partners opening in 1S by bidding 1S yourself, but if you accept it = there will be no other penalty". Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 20 13:20:27 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:20:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030520081556.00a4ea10@pop.starpower.net> At 02:23 AM 5/20/03, richard.hills wrote: >The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K >WEST EAST >S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 >H J 5 4 H --- >D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 >C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > >Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, >saying, "Pulling trumps." > >How would you rule? Down one. >Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to >the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* >claims the balance with no statement. > >How would you rule? Making seven. >Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the >diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have >six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one >diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, >otherwise 12." > >How would you rule? Down two. (I judge that declarer has not considered the consequences of hearts 3-0, and will not be "allowed" to discard a heart on the CA: one diamond, two clubs, three spades and four hearts.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 13:37:51 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:37:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520142948.01d47da0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:23 20/05/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K >WEST EAST >S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 >H J 5 4 H --- >D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 >C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > >Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, >saying, "Pulling trumps." > >How would you rule? AG : I would *not* rule that south clashes the Clubs. However, he didn't mention the possible problem in spades, and for this reason could be deemed to play C to K, fourth heart round, spades - not irrational - one down. >Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to >the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* >claims the balance with no statement. > >How would you rule? AG : I already expressed my opinion about this one. The only reason for South to delay claim until now (and not later) was that he wanted to check on the spades. He knows that, if they're split 33 or 42, there will be no problem. And he now knows they are. 7H made. >Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the >diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have >six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one >diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, >otherwise 12." > >How would you rule? AG : more difficult. The claim is more precise, but if the DA goes too early, the hand is blocked. Certainly the following line is possible : C to the K, D to the A, CA, still not realizing the need for an unblock, and discarding a spade. If South had seen it, he should have mentioned it. Two down. Best regards, Alain. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue May 20 13:18:44 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:18:44 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33735ADD-8ABD-11D7-BA55-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Sven wrote: >> From the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: and Ton replied: > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in almost 80 years. > > ton Not all of that progress in the field of simple arithmetic :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 13:47:37 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:47:37 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <000a01c31ec8$f16311c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520144423.01d32dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:11 20/05/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Kooijman, A. > > > > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in > > > > almost 80 years. > > > > > > > > ton > > > > > > But has the progress been for better or for worse? I ask > > > because of all the > > > debate apparently caused by our present claim laws. > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > > > > when I use progress it means for better. Not surprisingly since I consider > > the present claim laws as quite reasonable (another gulf of outbursts). > > Laws > >Well, at least that opinion was clarified. > > > where the result depends on the mood of opponents (shy, polite, coward, > > hawks) are terrible. That is what I don't like in all these cases where > > LHO > > has the option to accept an irregularity. It happens quite often that such > > a > > player is hesitating between not accepting and accepting because he > > believes > > it not be sportmanslike to claim the penalty. That is why I always tell > > that > > if the player thinks it to be to his advantage to accept he could do so. > > Is > > that common practice among TD's? It might even be wrong to say so? > >IMO it is your duty under Law 10C2. As is some guidance by the Director on >how they could expect to benefit, particularly when you are dealing with >not-so-experienced players. > >When I inform LHO of his right to accept an irregularity I usually tell him >this is his right but not his obligation. > >Example after an insufficient bid: "Accepting it will enable you to legally >make your next bid at a lower level; for instance by showing support to your >partners opening in 1S by bidding 1S yourself, but if you accept it there >will be no other penalty". AG : this is too much. You should not suggest any strategy. If the insufficient bid was 1D, you could help LHO by saying "Accepting it will enable you to legally >make your next bid at a lower level, as low as 1H, which will not be >deemed insufficient", but not suggest him that he accept with the intent >of raising economically. Of course, we know that is the main reason for accepting, but that's strategy, not Law. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 13:51:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:51:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030520081556.00a4ea10@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520144807.01d49e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:20 20/05/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:23 AM 5/20/03, richard.hills wrote: > >>The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: >> >> NORTH >> S A K Q T 3 >> H T 9 8 7 >> D 6 5 4 >> C K >>WEST EAST >>S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 >>H J 5 4 H --- >>D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 >>C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 >> SOUTH >> S 8 4 >> H A K Q 6 3 2 >> D A 8 2 >> C A 3 >> >>Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >>queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, >>saying, "Pulling trumps." >> >>How would you rule? AG : I find it very interesting that contributors who have expressed very different theoretical opinions about the handling of claims (Eric, Harald, Herman, Jaap and YT) give nearly uidentical rulings on all three versions of the problem. Just shows that the discussions about handling claims are too theoretical. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue May 20 13:35:22 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:35:22 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: > Sven wrote: > > >> From the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: > > > and Ton replied: > > > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in > almost 80 years. > > > > ton > > Not all of that progress in the field of simple arithmetic :) > > You are not suggesting that I subtracted 1935 from 2003 and came up with a wrong result are you? ton -- > Gordon Rainsford > From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue May 20 13:38:00 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:38:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B1E4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard wrote: At 02:23 AM 5/20/03, richard.hills wrote: >The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K >WEST EAST >S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 >H J 5 4 H --- >D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 >C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > >Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, >saying, "Pulling trumps." > >How would you rule? Down one. >Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to >the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and *now* >claims the balance with no statement. > >How would you rule? Making seven. >Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the >diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have >six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one >diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, >otherwise 12." > >How would you rule? Down two. (I judge that declarer has not considered the consequences=20 of hearts 3-0, and will not be "allowed" to discard a heart on the CA:=20 one diamond, two clubs, three spades and four hearts.) ----- He doesn't reach the club ace if he starts with 4 heart tricks. And goes 3 down. Regards, Harald ----- Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran@online.no Tue May 20 13:45:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:45:13 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520144423.01d32dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c31ecd$a872a340$6900a8c0@WINXP> > >Example after an insufficient bid: "Accepting it will enable you to > legally > >make your next bid at a lower level; for instance by showing support = to > your > >partners opening in 1S by bidding 1S yourself, but if you accept it = there > >will be no other penalty". >=20 > AG : this is too much. You should not suggest any strategy. OK I admit; this was not my best choice of words. Certainly I am very careful about not saying anything that suggests his strategy, but when dealing with inexperienced players you often have to choose examples = that they will easily understand, and present them in a way so they will take = the examples as such rather than as suggestions. > If the insufficient bid was 1D, you could help LHO by saying = "Accepting it > will enable you to legally > >make your next bid at a lower level, as low as 1H, which will not be > >deemed insufficient", but not suggest him that he accept with the = intent > >of raising economically. > Of course, we know that is the main reason for accepting, but that's > strategy, not Law. Fair enough. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 20 17:01:42 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: <200305201601.MAA02844@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > You may believe that your set of laws, or David's, is better than the > current one, but I refuse to acknowledge that your set of laws will > get rid of TD error. The desire for new claim Laws has nothing to do with TD error. The problem is that as things stand now, two TD's can give different rulings with no error involved but just a difference in bridge judgment -- perhaps even different judgment about something as unknowable and irrelevant as "class of player." I don't much care what standard is adopted for judging claims (although like all of us, I have my preference). What I care is that the same claim will be judged the same way, whether I'm the claimer or the claimer's opponent. From john@asimere.com Tue May 20 18:31:45 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:31:45 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Kooijman, A. writes > >> > Kooijman, A. >> > Thanks for showing this, we have made some progress in >> > almost 80 years. >> > >> > ton >> >> But has the progress been for better or for worse? I ask >> because of all the >> debate apparently caused by our present claim laws. >> >> Regards Sven >> > > >when I use progress it means for better. Not surprisingly since I consider >the present claim laws as quite reasonable (another gulf of outbursts). Laws >where the result depends on the mood of opponents (shy, polite, coward, >hawks) are terrible. That is what I don't like in all these cases where LHO >has the option to accept an irregularity. It happens quite often that such a >player is hesitating between not accepting and accepting because he believes >it not be sportmanslike to claim the penalty. That is why I always tell that >if the player thinks it to be to his advantage to accept he could do so. Is >that common practice among TD's? It might even be wrong to say so? I always tell the next to act NOS that it is properly appropriate to take the action which he thinks is best for his side. I believe that the laws actually tell me I *must* do so. regards John > >for better, yes. indeed for better. My 1914 laws tell me that a revoke costs 3 tricks. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue May 20 18:33:57 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:33:57 +0100 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <000b01c31ecd$a872a340$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520144423.01d32dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000b01c31ecd$a872a340$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000b01c31ecd$a872a340$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > >> >Example after an insufficient bid: "Accepting it will enable you to >> legally >> >make your next bid at a lower level; for instance by showing support to >> your >> >partners opening in 1S by bidding 1S yourself, but if you accept it there >> >will be no other penalty". >> >> AG : this is too much. You should not suggest any strategy. > >OK I admit; this was not my best choice of words. Certainly I am very >careful about not saying anything that suggests his strategy, but when >dealing with inexperienced players you often have to choose examples that >they will easily understand, and present them in a way so they will take the >examples as such rather than as suggestions. Indeed 2H (2D) ?, I would explain as "You can accept this and indeed could then bid 2H over it", which seems to work pretty well. regards john > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue May 20 18:40:29 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:40:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> >> This raises an issue of fundamental importance. Which of >> these two jurisprudential schools is correct? >> >> 1. The Kaplan Law School >> >> 2. The Wildavsky Law School > > Isn't there at least a third? > >3. The Burn Law School > >Details of what transpired are fed into a Turing machine which >faithfully produces the same result repeatedly. > >-Todd > and frequently causes the turing machine to feed itself up its own fundament :) > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue May 20 18:43:52 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:43:52 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) In-Reply-To: <000801c31ebb$c7e3d260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 May 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > From the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: > > Law 41(a): If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, he > must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete statement as > to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not voluntarily > made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to do so, and > thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be > settled as this opponent directs. Let me call particular attention to the choice of words here: "he must... make a complete statement." Restoration of "must" to the modern L68C would do more for the current claim situation than anything else. It's claims without statements that give us trouble. When there is a statement we just follow the statement as far as we can, and usually have an easy time of it. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 20 22:30:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:30:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <000101c31e9f$6b23fda0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030520172411.00a49ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:14 AM 5/20/03, Sven wrote: >Ed Reppert > > > > Am I correct then in inferring that your answers to my two > questions are > > (1) a player is not expected to know that the meaning of some call > other > > than one an opponent made is relevant to the explanation of the call > > made, and so the meaning of the relevant call must be volunteered, and > > (2) full disclosure requires (1)? > >The short answer is yes. > >Information is conveyed by data that eliminates alternatives. > >Formally I would put it this way: The explanation of any call in >response to >a question shall be so "complete" that there are no other calls on the >repertoire for that pair which may show a hand that fits the (in case >incomplete) description given. And there may be no way to do that without reference to alternative calls which weren't chosen. For example, in my preferred methods, I would describe 1S-2H (overcall) as "showing at least five hearts, with a minimum of about 5 HCP and, in partner's judgment, not enough to bid 3H, which would be a standard [SA] intermediate jump overcall". 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 May 21 00:06:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:06:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: In the thread Obligation to the rest of the field, Sven wrote: [big snip] >My point is that any spectator must at any time be >free to inform the Director (!) of any event that >the spectator believes is an irregularity of any >kind. Richard replied: Such an assertion is directly contrary to the first phrase of Law 76B "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake," However, I have noted before in my first posting on this Comma thread, how Law 76B is ambiguously worded. It is debatable whether the comma after 76B's first phrase prevents 76B's second phrase from providing an exception to 76B's first phrase. Sven continued: >What the Director decides to do with that information >is then of course entirely up to him. Richard replied: Again I disagree with Sven. In my opinion, it is an infraction for a spectator to call the TD's attention to an irregularity. However, if a spectator does unLawfully call the TD's attention to an irregularity, then it is *not* entirely up to the TD to decide what to do with that information. In my opinion, the TD is required by Law 81C6 to correct the irregularity. In my opinion, the "becomes aware in any manner" clause in 81C6 includes "becomes aware after a Law 76B infraction". Of course, any Law 81C6 correction may be modified by Law 11B if the spectator was attending by the invitation of a particular side. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 21 00:56:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:56:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's claim conundrums Message-ID: Alain wrote: >>AG : I find it very interesting that contributors who >>have expressed very different theoretical opinions >>about the handling of claims (Eric, Harald, Herman, >>Jaap and YT) give nearly identical rulings on all >>three versions of the problem. >> >>Just shows that the discussions about handling claims >>are too theoretical. Richard replied: I respectfully disagree. I had a secret theoretical agenda in starting this thread. Let's take a closer look at Jaap's comment on Case 2. Jaap wrote: >At high level 7H just made. His line of play and the >moment of the claim makes clear that he will ruff out >the 5th spade. [snip] >However obvious it might be it is always better to >mention something like 'establishing spades'. I have >no real problem with a local TD ruling one down because >'here we don't claim like that'. > >Anyway the law version doesn't matter. This is a cultural >question. Is claiming like this acceptable or not? Richard continued: This is the key theoretical question - if it is obvious what line a player intends, but their skills in verbalising their claim details are lacking, should their claim be allowed? Kaplan and many others say Yes, David Burn says No, Jaap straddles the fence. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 21 04:53:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:53:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: Sven axiomised: [snip] >Formally I would put it this way: The explanation of >any call in response to a question shall be so >"complete" that there are no other calls on the >repertoire for that pair which may show a hand that >fits the (in case incomplete) description given. [snip] In some - admittedly rare - circumstances, Sven's axiom is incomplete. For example, in Michael Rosenberg's book "Bridge, Zia, and me", Michael admits that he has deliberately avoided creating a particular partnership agreement with Zia. So, the boundary between Michael's 1C opening bids and Michael's 1D opening bids is partially undefined and therefore cannot be completely described. Michael may call either 1C or 1D with a particular hand, so Zia *cannot* explain that there are no other calls on the repertoire which fit an individual 1C opening bid by Michael. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 21 05:45:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 14:45:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) Message-ID: >+=+ However, when it comes to 12C3 the law itself >determines that to apply 12C3 the AC must first have >conceived of the equity it wishes 'to do'. The EBL was >minded to block the introduction of 12C2 if it had not >obtained in parallel a deal consenting to the footnote >that has since become 12C3. > ~ G ~ +=+ "When I use the word equity," the scrambled AC said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make the word equity mean so many different things." "The question is," said the scrambled AC, "which is to be master -- that's all." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 21 06:25:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:25:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] rtflb Message-ID: In the thread, From The Top, Gordon Bower wrote: >Let me call particular attention to the choice of >words here: "he must...make a complete statement." >Restoration of "must" to the modern L68C would >do more for the current claim situation than >anything else. Richard replied: Incomplete statements are already a "should" infraction (Law 68C + Scope & Interpretation of the Laws). I do not see how changing incomplete statements to a "must" infraction would assist in resolution of the associated incomplete claims. Nor do I see that changing "should" to "must" would result in players consequently reducing their incomplete claim statements, since the vast majority of players never read the fabulous law book. This raises a broader issue - is it effective for bridge to be one of the few sports where the umpire perhaps knows the rules, but the contestants mostly do not? Should the WBF LC grasp the nettle by radically reformatting the 2005 Laws to make rtflb easy for all? Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed May 21 06:44:27 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 22:44:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] Comma References: Message-ID: <001201c31f5c$0d3d9da0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > However, I have noted before in my first posting on > this Comma thread, how Law 76B is ambiguously worded. > It is debatable whether the comma after 76B's first > phrase prevents 76B's second phrase from providing an > exception to 76B's first phrase. > Debatable? I see no ambiguity. It is plain that each phrase, divided by that comma, is entirely independent. To provide the second part's exception to the first part, a second comma would be needed, thus: 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. There is no way to tell for sure whether the writer omitted that second comma deliberately or just didn't realize it was needed to provide the exception to the first part as well as the second. I think deliberately, because it doesn't make sense that a TD would request a spectator to call attention to an irregularity or mistake. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed May 21 07:50:02 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:50:02 +0200 Subject: FROM THE TOP (was Re: [blml] claim n+n+1) Message-ID: ton: > >for better, yes. john: > indeed for better. My 1914 laws tell me that a revoke costs 3 tricks. Davids grandgrandfather must have been involved. Things are clearing up now. ton From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed May 21 07:51:21 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:51:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] rtflb References: Message-ID: <002101c31f65$651f1680$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard HIlls wrote: > > This raises a broader issue - is it effective for > bridge to be one of the few sports where the umpire > perhaps knows the rules, but the contestants mostly > do not? Strange, isn't it? I have friends who play golf and tennis strictly by the rules, but neither know nor follow the rules of bridge despite playing the game regularly for many years. > > Should the WBF LC grasp the nettle by radically > reformatting the 2005 Laws to make rtflb easy for > all? > And get it merchandised. Just try finding the current laws for either duplicate or rubber bridge in any bookstore. You won't succeed. Members of the United States Tennis Association get a little book of the rules when they join. This is a digest of the humongous volume with which referees are expected to be familiar. Bridge could use the same approach: a simple booklet for players and a detailed version for TDs. For duplicate, only the rules need be outlined, with no need to include the penalties for breaking them (which only TDs need know). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed May 21 10:18:18 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:18:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <29031536-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 06:25 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > This raises a broader issue - is it effective for > bridge to be one of the few sports where the umpire > perhaps knows the rules, but the contestants mostly > do not? Ignoring for a moment the "sport" designation, I think the same is true of the golf. I remember my father frequently being consulted as one who (exceptionally) did know the rules. Since this is the first to come to mind, and since I know so little of other sports, I wouldn't be surprised to find others that fall into this category. > > Should the WBF LC grasp the nettle by radically > reformatting the 2005 Laws to make rtflb easy for > all? Of course. But I don't underestimate the task, and I'm not holding my breath. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed May 21 10:20:58 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:20:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: <002101c31f65$651f1680$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <88545A37-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 07:51 AM, Marvin French wrote: > For > duplicate, only the rules need be outlined, with no need to include the > penalties for breaking them (which only TDs need know). > I don't think this approach is likely to encourage an interest in the rules by the players. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 21 12:00:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:00:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <001201c31f5c$0d3d9da0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030521125819.01d444d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:44 20/05/2003 -0700, Marvin French wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > However, I have noted before in my first posting on > > this Comma thread, how Law 76B is ambiguously worded. > > It is debatable whether the comma after 76B's first > > phrase prevents 76B's second phrase from providing an > > exception to 76B's first phrase. > > >Debatable? I see no ambiguity. It is plain that each phrase, divided by >that comma, is entirely independent. To provide the second part's >exception to the first part, a second comma would be needed, thus: > >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. > >There is no way to tell for sure whether the writer omitted that second >comma deliberately or just didn't realize it was needed to provide the >exception to the first part as well as the second. AG : perhaps somebody already pointed this out ... the French version includes a comma at the critical location. Is this an indication of anything ? (there have been wars for less than this. Do you remember Resolution 146 ?) From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 21 12:13:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:13:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: <29031536-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:18 21/05/2003 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 06:25 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>This raises a broader issue - is it effective for >>bridge to be one of the few sports where the umpire >>perhaps knows the rules, but the contestants mostly >>do not? > >Ignoring for a moment the "sport" designation, I think the same is true of >the golf. I remember my father frequently being consulted as one who >(exceptionally) did know the rules. > >Since this is the first to come to mind, and since I know so little of >other sports, I wouldn't be surprised to find others that fall into this >category. AG : try asking local-level batsmen what the ten ways to be called out are. What's more fundamental than this ? I'd take heavy bets that less than half would get them all. Try asking a moderate table tennis player what the rules are about bat measurements. (no, not the wings !) Anyway, I prefer to see people constantly infringe laws because they don't know, or don't understand, them (bridge) than because they don't give them a damn (soccer). Best regards, Alain. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed May 21 12:36:02 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:36:02 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B253@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: At 22:44 20/05/2003 -0700, Marvin French wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > However, I have noted before in my first posting on > > this Comma thread, how Law 76B is ambiguously worded. > > It is debatable whether the comma after 76B's first > > phrase prevents 76B's second phrase from providing an > > exception to 76B's first phrase. > > >Debatable? I see no ambiguity. It is plain that each phrase, divided by >that comma, is entirely independent. To provide the second part's >exception to the first part, a second comma would be needed, thus: > >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. > >There is no way to tell for sure whether the writer omitted that second >comma deliberately or just didn't realize it was needed to provide the >exception to the first part as well as the second. AG : perhaps somebody already pointed this out ... the French version=20 includes a comma at the critical location. Is this an indication of anythin= g ? (there have been wars for less than this. Do you remember Resolution 146 ?) ------ The norwegian verion also has the second comma, the swedish version has the second comma, but not the first, and the danish version has no comma at all. All these have the same effect, though. 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 svenpran@online.no Wed May 21 14:41:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:41:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c31f9e$aa10fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner ......... > Anyway, I prefer to see people constantly infringe laws because they = don't > know, or don't understand, them (bridge) than because they don't give = them > a damn (soccer). Well, soccer has always astonished me: In bridge we consider it unheard of a player who infringes a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to = pay. (Law 73B2) In soccer it is unheard of a (coward) player who refrains from tackling = an opponent illegally if that seems to be the last chance avoiding a = dangerous situation in front of his own goal. (The red cards have softened this a = bit, but not much) Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 21 15:43:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:43:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <5366369.1053528217579.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> I do not know what sort of "ambiguity" is supposed to exist here. Law 76B says: 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. This means: (1) A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake. (2) A spectator may not speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. It does not mean that a spectator may call attention to an irregularity or mistake by request of the Director. If it meant that, it would say: 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. I do not know whether Norwegian punctuation rules are different from English ones, but if the Norwegian version translates the second English sentence above and not the first, it is an error. Of course, the wording in the 1997 Laws is the usual cockup; there ought to be two sentences. Maybe in 2007... David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed May 21 16:34:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 17:34:55 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B253@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030521172926.01d4bd80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:36 21/05/2003 +0200, Skjaran, Harald wrote: >The norwegian verion also has the second comma, the swedish version has the >second comma, but not the first, and the danish version has no comma at all. >All these have the same effect, though. AG : wait a minute ! We know that, in English, using one ore two commas gives two differing interpretations. It would be the same in French (those two languages have similar rules for interpolated clauses). Yet, the english version apparently has only one comma, the French one has two. This means two differing interpretations. Embarrassing ... We don't know whether : a) the lawmakers intended to apply the exception of the second case to the first, and forgot to write down a comma, but did it in French and in Norwegian (what about the Bokmal version ?). or b) the lawmakers intended the exception to apply only to the last case, and the French and Norwegian translations are wrong. From svenpran@online.no Wed May 21 17:38:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 18:38:22 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030521172926.01d4bd80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c31fb7$650d9110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > Skjaran, Harald wrote: >=20 > >The Norwegian version also has the second comma, > >the Swedish version has the second comma, but not > >the first, and the Danish version has no comma at > >all. > >All these have the same effect, though. >=20 > AG : wait a minute ! We know that, in English, using=20 > one or two commas gives two differing interpretations. > It would be the same in French (those two languages > have similar rules for interpolated clauses). > Yet, the english version apparently has only one comma, > the French one has two. This means two differing > interpretations. Embarrassing ... >=20 > We don't know whether : > a) the lawmakers intended to apply the exception of the > second case to the first, and forgot to write down a comma, > but did it in French and in Norwegian (what about the Bokmal > version ?). > or b) the lawmakers intended the exception to apply only to > the last case, and the French and Norwegian translations are=20 > wrong. Many questions here. My own understanding has always been that your alternative b) above is the only one that really makes sense and is the = one intended. =20 You can hardly ever expect a situation where a spectator calls attention = to an irregularity _at the request of the Director_. However, a situation where the Director will consult a top capacity authorized director who happens to be watching a table or even just = being present in the rooms can not be that uncommon. Norwegian / Bokmal? The Norwegian language legally includes two forms of = the language: Bokmal and Nynorsk. At least 90% of the Norwegian you meet in everyday use will be Bokmal, and so is the Norwegian translation of the Bridge laws. (The fact that we have maybe hundreds of dialects across = the country does not alter this situation) Punctuation in Norwegian (as I learned it in school long time ago) is = much more syntactic than interpretative oriented. The existence or absence of = a comma does not necessarily change the meaning of the complete sentence. = (I believe that will be approximately the same in Swedish and Danish). For instance some of the syntax rules on comma in Norwegian:=20 If a subordinate clause precedes a main clause they shall be separated = by a comma, the other way round a comma is only used "when the subordinate = clause is redundant for understanding the main clause".=20 The word "but" shall always be preceded by a comma (if not by a full = stop). The words "and", "or" and "for" shall always be preceded by a comma when they connect two separate clauses which both are either main clauses or subordinate clauses. A comma can also be used to indicate a place "where a small break will = come natural when reading the text". Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue May 20 08:09:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:09:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) References: Message-ID: <000601c31fc3$79c58f20$c92fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Berserk ACs (was Obligation to the field) > > As I see it, the problem is not the shorthand of 60-40, > but the fact that the committee (or the TD, for that matter) > does not clearly state the law(s) on which the ruling is > based. < +=+ I believe there is general agreement that it is desirable to state the Law on which a decision is based. All this requires is to put '12C3' as the law applied. In the absence of a statement and of a contra-indication, however, the assumption should be that the Director/AC is acting lawfully. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed May 21 19:26:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B253@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <003a01c31fc6$b5ee39e0$c92fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:36 PM Subject: SV: [blml] Comma > >There is no way to tell for sure whether the writer omitted that > second comma deliberately or just didn't realize it was > needed to provide the exception to the first part as well as > the second. AG : perhaps somebody already pointed this out ... the French version includes a comma at the critical location. Is this an indication of anything ? (there have been wars for less than this. Do you remember Resolution 146 ?) ------ The norwegian verion also has the second comma, the swedish version has the second comma, but not the first, and the danish version has no comma at all. All these have the same effect, though. +=+ The official final text of the 1997 Laws, as promulgated in English, has a comma after the word 'mistake' in Law 76B. There is no other comma present in Law 76B. Any translation that does not convey the meaning exactly of the official English text is erroneous. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nancy@dressing.org Wed May 21 15:18:47 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:18:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] New club policy Message-ID: <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C31F82.5DAF6090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This message was sent by our new club owner re game policy. = Comments???? ".....In the future we will strive to use an optimum of 24 boards per = game and tighten up on the timing of rounds. We will no longer award = late plays, but will remove boards from slow players and ask the = computer to assign a score for that board that is equal to the % of the = game each pair is having. These two changes should allow us to keep our = games under 3 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a 3 hour game. " Thanks,=20 Nancy --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://www.giantcompany.com ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C31F82.5DAF6090 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This message was sent by our new club = owner re game=20 policy.  Comments????
".....In the future we will strive to = use an=20 optimum of 24 boards per game and tighten up on the timing of = rounds.  We=20 will no longer award late plays,  but will remove boards from slow = players=20 and ask the computer to assign a score for that board that is equal to = the % of=20 the game each pair is having.  These two changes should allow us to = keep=20 our games under 3 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a 3 hour=20 game. "
Thanks,
Nancy
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------= -----
"Are=20 you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a = solution!"
 
Protected by GIANT Company's Spam = Inspector
The=20 most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C31F82.5DAF6090-- From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed May 21 21:19:08 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:19:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B253@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <003a01c31fc6$b5ee39e0$c92fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <000a01c31fd6$3ec3fd40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > ------ > The norwegian verion also has the second comma, the > swedish version has the second comma, but not the first, and > the danish version has no comma at all. All these have the > same effect, though. Yes, all are mistranslations leading to an identical but incorrect effect. > > +=+ The official final text of the 1997 Laws, as promulgated in > English, has a comma after the word 'mistake' in Law 76B. > There is no other comma present in Law 76B. > Any translation that does not convey the meaning exactly > of the official English text is erroneous. Exactly. A spectator may *never* call attention to any irregularity or mistake. And why not? Because it leads to an uneven playing field, as does the correction of a bidding or play irregularity by a TD who has not been called to the table. But that is allowed, unfortunately. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed May 21 21:26:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:26:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000401c31fd7$5279ce90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Nancy T Dressing This message was sent by our new club owner re game policy.=A0 = Comments???? ".....In the future we will strive to use an optimum of 24 boards per = game and tighten up on the timing of rounds.=A0 We will no longer award late = plays, =A0but will remove boards from slow players and ask the computer to = assign a score for that board that is equal to the % of the game each pair is having.=A0 These two changes should allow us to keep our games under 3 = 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a 3 hour game.=A0" Thanks,=20 Nancy My immediate reaction is that as a regulation this is in conflict with = Law 8B (and also with Law 8C) and therefore illegal, see Law 80F. What we in Norway have discussed as a legal possibility is a regulation = that no pairs will be allowed to begin a new board when less than say three minutes remain of the round (with a special signal sounded at that = limit). But even the legality of a regulation along such lines has been = disputed.=20 In practice this problem is most often solved by the director giving the players at a table which seems likely to become late the choice between = not starting on the board at all and take A- both ways, or starting the = board and being awarded a heavy penalty score if they do not manage to = complete it on time. (That "heavy" penalty will be much more than the 10% of the top score embedded in an A- score).=20 Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed May 21 21:48:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:48:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <000a01c31fd6$3ec3fd40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c31fda$47c96b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > > The norwegian verion also has the second comma, the > > swedish version has the second comma, but not the first, and > > the danish version has no comma at all. All these have the > > same effect, though. >=20 > Yes, all are mistranslations leading to an identical but incorrect = effect. As I wrote in a separate post I do not think the second post results in = the Norwegian translation being a mis-translation. In fact all I know of = from my fellow Directors is that we are very strict on spectators not calling = any attention to any irregularity in a way that might be noticed by any = player. However, I see no problem, nor do I see any conflict with Law 76B with a spectator silently informing the Director of whatever irregularity he = may have noticed. > > > > +=3D+ The official final text of the 1997 Laws, as promulgated in > > English, has a comma after the word 'mistake' in Law 76B. > > There is no other comma present in Law 76B. > > Any translation that does not convey the meaning exactly > > of the official English text is erroneous. >=20 > Exactly. A spectator may *never* call attention to any irregularity or > mistake. >=20 > And why not? Because it leads to an uneven playing field, as does the > correction of a bidding or play irregularity by a TD who has not been > called to the table. But that is allowed, unfortunately. Well, take the case of a Director observing an unnoticed revoke at a = table. Our attitude is that if the Director intervenes in any way before the = time limit for the non-offending side to call attention to that revoke has expired the Director is actually jeopardizing the (remaining) rights for = the offending side. As such his intervention will be subject to Law 82C: Director's error. Similar considerations will apply in most cases so we are extremely = careful about not interfering except upon notification from the players = involved. The margin between a proper handling of an irregularity under Law 81C6 = and improper handling which becomes subject to handling under Law 82C is = very narrow. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 21 22:00:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 17:00:18 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <5366369.1053528217579.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030521165518.00a5a7a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:43 AM 5/21/03, dalburn wrote: >I do not know what sort of "ambiguity" is supposed to exist here. > >Law 76B says: > >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. > >This means: > >(1) A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake. > >(2) A spectator may not speak on any question of fact or law except by >request of the Director. > >It does not mean that a spectator may call attention to an >irregularity or mistake by request of the Director. If it meant that, >it would say: > >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. ISTN we're spending too much energy on parsing the language of L76B when we should be thinking logically. David's reading, wherever the commas may or may not appear, is the only one that makes any sense. I've never seen a director walking about asking spectators, "Are you aware of any irregularity or mistake I don't know about?" Has anyone? 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 May 21 21:58:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:58:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <000501c31fda$47c96b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c31fdb$c00bbf00$6900a8c0@WINXP> "As I wrote in a separate post I do not think the second post results ....." "second post" my ..... I hope those reading this realizes it is a typo for "second comma" (How could I?) Sorry, Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed May 21 22:10:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 14:10:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 May 2003 22:26:55 +0200." <000401c31fd7$5279ce90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200305212110.OAA26589@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Nancy T Dressing > This message was sent by our new club owner re game policy.  Comments???? > ".....In the future we will strive to use an optimum of 24 boards per game > and tighten up on the timing of rounds.  We will no longer award late plays, >  but will remove boards from slow players and ask the computer to assign a > score for that board that is equal to the % of the game each pair is > having.  These two changes should allow us to keep our games under 3 1/2 > hours and hopefully get close to a 3 hour game. " > Thanks, > Nancy > > My immediate reaction is that as a regulation this is in conflict with Law > 8B (and also with Law 8C) and therefore illegal, see Law 80F. I'm not sure just what the club policy was referring to. If they're talking about taking a board away from players that they've already started, I think that would be in conflict with Law 8B. However, the Laws do not define movements; as far as I know, they say nothing about which boards are to be played by whom and when. They don't say anything that everybody must play the same number of boards. They also don't say that the schedule of which boards are to be played by whom must be fixed at the beginning of a session and cannot be changed in the middle. As far as I can tell, such matters are in complete control of the Director (or SO or whomever). Thus, if the Director, for whatever reason, decides in the middle of the event that Table 11 is no longer scheduled to play Board 4 in round 5 (even though they may have been scheduled to play that board previously), I don't see what Law this would violate. This would still be true if the reason for removing the board from the schedule is "there are three minutes left in the round and they haven't started the board yet". -- Adam From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu May 22 08:31:14 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:31:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B290@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Burn wrote: I do not know what sort of "ambiguity" is supposed to exist here.=20 Law 76B says: A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mis= take, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Dir= ector.=20 This means:=20 (1) A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake.=20 (2) A spectator may not speak on any question of fact or law except by requ= est of the Director.=20 It does not mean that a spectator may call attention to an irregularity or = mistake by request of the Director.=20 If it meant that, it would say: A spectator may not call attention to any i= rregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law, except by= request of the Director.=20 I do not know whether Norwegian punctuation rules are different from Englis= h ones, but if the Norwegian version translates the second English sentence= above and not the first, it is an error.=20 Of course, the wording in the 1997 Laws is the usual cockup; there ought to= be two sentences. Maybe in 2007...=20 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: wait a minute ! We know that, in English, using one or two commas gives two= differing interpretations.=20 It would be the same in French (those two languages have similar rules for = interpolated clauses).=20 Yet, the english version apparently has only one comma, the French one has = two. This means two differing interpretations. Embarrassing ...=20 We don't know whether :=20 a) the lawmakers intended to apply the exception of the second case to the = first, and forgot to write down a comma, but did it in French and in Norweg= ian (what about the Bokmal > version ?).=20 or b) the lawmakers intended the exception to apply only to the last case, = and the French and Norwegian translations are wrong. HS: The norwegian translation is ambigous, as it might mean that a spectator ma= y call attention to an irregularity by request of the Director. The same ap= plies to the dansish translation. The swedish, with no commas, are worded a= little different than the norwegian and danish version. On close inspectio= n, it should convey only the correct meaning, as described by David above. I agree with Sven Pran that norwegian TD's rule according to the correct me= aning of the law. But the wording should not be ambigous. Two sentences, as= David comments, would be much better. 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 jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 22 09:29:08 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:29:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B290@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <001301c3203c$39b389e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Translating is difficult anyway and next to impossible if the original is a mess to start with. The Dutch version basically says that a spectator should shut up unless asked something by the TD. But it doesn't really limit what a TD can ask (in real life a moot point because who is going to stop the TD). I am afraid in Dutch you might well need more than two sentences as Dutch is notoriously sloppy when it comes to this kind of interpunction and scope rules (adding a second comma doesn't really change the meaning, maybe in theory but not in reality). But so are the different versions of English, at least compared to French or German. David is right and wrong when he says 'there ought te be two sentences'. This is just a local solution for a global problem. The language of the laws is hopeless. It should be improved all over. Just get a 101 on clear writing. On page 1 you will find the advice 'use short sentences' and they will explain why better than I can. If you use this advice you probably use four sentences or so for 76B. 1. Spectator should not ... irregularity ... 2. Spectator should not ... facts ... 3. TD can ask spectator about ... facts ... 4. TD can not ask spectator about ... It might not by stylish. But who cares, laws are about being clear nothing else. Like this 'everybody' will interpret it about the same. And you have a good chance the various translators will get it right. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Skjaran, Harald" To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: [blml] Comma David Burn wrote: I do not know what sort of "ambiguity" is supposed to exist here. Law 76B says: 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. This means: (1) A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake. (2) A spectator may not speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. It does not mean that a spectator may call attention to an irregularity or mistake by request of the Director. If it meant that, it would say: 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. I do not know whether Norwegian punctuation rules are different from English ones, but if the Norwegian version translates the second English sentence above and not the first, it is an error. Of course, the wording in the 1997 Laws is the usual cockup; there ought to be two sentences. Maybe in 2007... Alain Gottcheiner wrote: wait a minute ! We know that, in English, using one or two commas gives two differing interpretations. It would be the same in French (those two languages have similar rules for interpolated clauses). Yet, the english version apparently has only one comma, the French one has two. This means two differing interpretations. Embarrassing ... We don't know whether : a) the lawmakers intended to apply the exception of the second case to the first, and forgot to write down a comma, but did it in French and in Norwegian (what about the Bokmal > version ?). or b) the lawmakers intended the exception to apply only to the last case, and the French and Norwegian translations are wrong. HS: The norwegian translation is ambigous, as it might mean that a spectator may call attention to an irregularity by request of the Director. The same applies to the dansish translation. The swedish, with no commas, are worded a little different than the norwegian and danish version. On close inspection, it should convey only the correct meaning, as described by David above. I agree with Sven Pran that norwegian TD's rule according to the correct meaning of the law. But the wording should not be ambigous. Two sentences, as David comments, would be much better. 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 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 svenpran@online.no Thu May 22 09:36:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:36:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Should the Laws on Bridge be written in some kind of Pidgin English? Message-ID: <000001c3203d$4e852b70$6900a8c0@WINXP> I am serious! All the recent discussions which have revealed different understandings on the laws including apparent problems with maintaining the intention of the laws while translating them to a different language make me wonder if the basic (official) laws ought to be drawn up in a very simplified version of the English language. Will it be possible to rewrite the laws along such lines with reasonable effort? Is this a matter for Grattan's notebook? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu May 22 09:54:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:54:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <001301c3203c$39b389e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000101c3203f$d03aaa80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > David is right and wrong when he says 'there ought te be two = sentences'. > This is just a local solution for a global problem. The language of = the > laws > is hopeless. It should be improved all over. Just get a 101 on clear > writing. On page 1 you will find the advice 'use short sentences' and = they > will explain why better than I can. If you use this advice you = probably > use > four sentences or so for 76B. > 1. Spectator should not ... irregularity ... > 2. Spectator should not ... facts ... > 3. TD can ask spectator about ... facts ... > 4. TD can not ask spectator about ... >=20 > It might not by stylish. But who cares, laws are about being clear = nothing > else. Like this 'everybody' will interpret it about the same. And you = have > a > good chance the various translators will get it right. ........ It would appear to me that Jaap and I are thinking along the same lines. But I resent the implicit idea in Jaap's clause 4 above: The TD should = be allowed to ask anybody whatever question for which he finds cause. There should be no law restraining the Director when he executes his duty investigating the facts in a case (except that he may not use torture to obtain a confession!) Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 22 12:36:40 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:36:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <000101c3203f$d03aaa80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003101c32058$2c53b4c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Sven: > It would appear to me that Jaap and I are thinking along the same lines. To me too. Sven: But I resent the implicit idea in Jaap's clause 4 above: The TD should be allowed to ask anybody whatever question for which he finds cause. There should be no law restraining the Director when he executes his duty investigating the facts in a case (except that he may not use torture to obtain a confession!) Sven, I was just trying to show those lawmakers how they should formulate the laws. And the current English version has an exclusion of TD powers. I didn't think seriously about whether or not one should limit TD powers (and what 76B should be). As I mentioned (... a moot point ...) all this is highly theoretical anyway. For me the TD can ask what he wants (he will do so anyway). And a spectator should not take any initiative. It only gets interesting what to do if someone claims 'illegal evidence' after a spectator takes the initiative to go to the TD to inform him about an infraction. But that is another discussion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Comma Jaap van der Neut ......... > David is right and wrong when he says 'there ought te be two sentences'. > This is just a local solution for a global problem. The language of the > laws > is hopeless. It should be improved all over. Just get a 101 on clear > writing. On page 1 you will find the advice 'use short sentences' and they > will explain why better than I can. If you use this advice you probably > use > four sentences or so for 76B. > 1. Spectator should not ... irregularity ... > 2. Spectator should not ... facts ... > 3. TD can ask spectator about ... facts ... > 4. TD can not ask spectator about ... > > It might not by stylish. But who cares, laws are about being clear nothing > else. Like this 'everybody' will interpret it about the same. And you have > a > good chance the various translators will get it right. ........ It would appear to me that Jaap and I are thinking along the same lines. But I resent the implicit idea in Jaap's clause 4 above: The TD should be allowed to ask anybody whatever question for which he finds cause. There should be no law restraining the Director when he executes his duty investigating the facts in a case (except that he may not use torture to obtain a confession!) Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 22 12:48:04 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:48:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Should the Laws on Bridge be written in some kind of Pidgin English? References: <000001c3203d$4e852b70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003201c32058$2c860f60$0fb54351@noos.fr> Sven: > make me wonder if the > basic (official) laws ought to be drawn up in a very simplified version of > the English language. Of course they should. There is only one snag. This will force the lawmakers to make decent laws. And they cannot hide their disagreements and compromises in wooly language anymore. Try to sell that to politicians. And a technical point. The rules should be written in 'international English' which is a simple version of English, in wide use, and understood by 'everybody'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:36 AM Subject: [blml] Should the Laws on Bridge be written in some kind of Pidgin English? > I am serious! > > All the recent discussions which have revealed different understandings on > the laws including apparent problems with maintaining the intention of the > laws while translating them to a different language make me wonder if the > basic (official) laws ought to be drawn up in a very simplified version of > the English language. > > Will it be possible to rewrite the laws along such lines with reasonable > effort? > > Is this a matter for Grattan's notebook? > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 22 13:32:06 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:32:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <7912409.1053606726564.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: >It only gets interesting what to do if someone claims 'illegal evidence' after a spectator takes the initiative to go to the TD to inform him about an infraction. But that is another discussion. It is, of course, true that all the evidence brought in the Buenos Aires case against Reese and Schapiro involved attention being drawn to an irregularity by a spectator, and was thus inadmissible per the Laws of bridge. But no one seems to have noticed this at the time, and it is probably a bit late now... David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 22 14:38:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <200305221338.JAA01786@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > It is, of course, true that all the evidence brought in the Buenos > Aires case against Reese and Schapiro involved attention being drawn to > an irregularity by a spectator How's that again? The finger motions were first noticed by an American player, B. J. Becker, and reported to his team captain, John Gerber, who then informed various officials. In any case, are the rules for a conduct matter necessarily the same as the rules for a score adjustment matter? From gester@lineone.net Thu May 22 16:04:30 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:04:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <000501c31fda$47c96b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c32074$e7b80d80$221f2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:48 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Comma < However, I see no problem, nor do I see any conflict with Law 76B with a spectator silently informing the Director of whatever irregularity he may have noticed. < +=+ There is the problem that you are failing to hear what the law says. A spectator is not to draw *anyone's* attention to any irregularity or mistake - not a player's, not a captain's, not a Director's, not the person delivering the coffee. And the requirement is open-ended. The Law is worded in a way that prohibition is for ever. Ton believes, or believed, a spectator ceases to be a spectator when he leaves the table, but when he suggested this in the WBFLC several members disagreed and said that a spectator has continuing responsibliities and should not be interfering in the game at all. I share the latter view and consider that in practice this means he should keep his mouth shut until the result on the board cannot be affected by his drawing attention to what he may perhaps have noticed. (See the October 2001 WBFLC minutes). Best practice, in my opinion, is that a Director makes every effort to stop a spectator informing him of any irregularity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 22 16:39:51 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <200305221539.LAA01932@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: > A spectator is not > to draw *anyone's* attention to any irregularity This assumes, of course, that spectators are bound by the Laws. That may not be so clear to the average spectator. As in the case for all irregularities, it is important to specify what happens if the irregularity occurs. > Best practice, in my opinion, is that a Director > makes every effort to stop a spectator informing > him of any irregularity. This is, of course, the important issue. What is desirable? And what is practical? Grattan's is an extreme view, probably not achievable in practice despite the view being widely shared. (Does it apply even to non-spectators, for example? My example some while ago was a friend who meets a player after the session and whose remark cause the player to ask for a ruling within the correction period. Does it matter if this friend was watching during the session? Watching another table? Was playing in the same event? A different event?) Sven's is a more moderate and practical view: spectators can point out irregularities but only in such a way as not to affect the players' actions at the table. I suppose the extreme view on the other side would be to allow spectators to point out irregularities to the players, but I doubt anyone would support that. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 22 17:50:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:50:20 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030521165518.00a5a7a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5366369.1053528217579.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030522184752.02476320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:00 21/05/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >ISTN we're spending too much energy on parsing the language of L76B when >we should be thinking logically. David's reading, wherever the commas may >or may not appear, is the only one that makes any sense. I've never seen >a director walking about asking spectators, "Are you aware of any >irregularity or mistake I don't know about?" Has anyone? AG : I suppose a director could ask a spectator whether a player did indeed call OOT, if the sides don't agree on this ; but would this be included as "irregularity", first clause, or as "fact", second clause ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu May 22 17:52:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:52:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B290@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030522185056.02485210@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:31 22/05/2003 +0200, Skjaran, Harald wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >I do not know what sort of "ambiguity" is supposed to exist here. >Law 76B says: 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. >This means: >(1) A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake. >(2) A spectator may not speak on any question of fact or law except by >request of the Director. >It does not mean that a spectator may call attention to an irregularity or >mistake by request of the Director. AG : of course. But the French version says otherwise, because it includes one more comma.. That's the problem. >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >wait a minute ! We know that, in English, using one or two commas gives >two differing interpretations. >It would be the same in French (those two languages have similar rules for >interpolated clauses). >Yet, the english version apparently has only one comma, the French one has >two. This means two differing interpretations. Embarrassing ... >We don't know whether : >a) the lawmakers intended to apply the exception of the second case to the >first, and forgot to write down a comma, but did it in French and in >Norwegian (what about the Bokmal > version ?). >or b) the lawmakers intended the exception to apply only to the last case, >and the French and Norwegian translations are wrong. > >HS: >The norwegian translation is ambigous, as it might mean that a spectator >may call attention to an irregularity by request of the Director AG : the French one isn't. It positively means this. From john@asimere.com Thu May 22 18:42:03 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:42:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <29031536-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6dlfLVArvQz+Ew$h@asimere.com> In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 10:18 21/05/2003 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 06:25 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>>This raises a broader issue - is it effective for >>>bridge to be one of the few sports where the umpire >>>perhaps knows the rules, but the contestants mostly >>>do not? >> >>Ignoring for a moment the "sport" designation, I think the same is true of >>the golf. I remember my father frequently being consulted as one who >>(exceptionally) did know the rules. >> >>Since this is the first to come to mind, and since I know so little of >>other sports, I wouldn't be surprised to find others that fall into this >>category. > >AG : try asking local-level batsmen what the ten ways to be called out are. >What's more fundamental than this ? I'd take heavy bets that less than half >would get them all. bowled stumped leg before wicket caught run out handling ball hit wicket timed out I'm stuck john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu May 22 18:52:53 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:52:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare> References: <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: In article <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare>, Nancy T Dressing writes > This message was sent by our new club owner re game policy.=A0=20 > Comments???? > ".....In the future we will strive to use an optimum of 24 boards=20 > per game and tighten up on the timing of rounds.=A0 We will no longe= r=20 > award late plays, =A0but will remove boards from slow players and as= k=20 > the computer to assign a score for that board that is equal to the=20 > % of the game each pair is having.=A0 I routinely did this at the YC for years, but I also gave two slow play warnings and a 10% PP for a third offence. cheers john > These two changes should allow=20 > us to keep our games under 3 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a=20 > 3 hour game.=A0" > Thanks,=20 > Nancy > =A0 > =A0 > --------------------------------------------------------------------= - > "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... > There is a solution!" > =A0 > Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector > The most powerful anti-spam software available. > http://www.giantcompany.com > =A0 > =A0 --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 22 19:11:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 19:11:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb References: <29031536-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6dlfLVArvQz+Ew$h@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000501c3208d$a2972d80$c12a27d9@pbncomputer> > bowled > stumped > leg before wicket > caught > run out > handling ball > hit wicket > timed out > > I'm stuck Obstructing the field. David Burn London, England From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu May 22 19:46:06 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: from "Nancy T Dressing" at May 21, 2003 10:18:47 AM Message-ID: <200305221846.h4MIk69A017152@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:18:47 -0400 > > This message was sent by our new club owner re game policy. = > Comments???? > ".....In the future we will strive to use an optimum of 24 boards per = > game and tighten up on the timing of rounds. We will no longer award = > late plays, but will remove boards from slow players and ask the = > computer to assign a score for that board that is equal to the % of the = > game each pair is having. These two changes should allow us to keep our = > games under 3 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a 3 hour game. " > Thanks,=20 > Nancy > TY: Hmmm...this strikes me as asking for abuse. If I'm playing in an event and think that I have a pretty good game, but come up against a really good pair, this could encourage me to play slower and have my % awarded for the board I don't get to. It also prevents a pair or foursome that was held up for some reason from catching up if they are able. I often take a late play board and put it on the top of the stack when moving boards and ask subsequent tables to play it first. Then if both of my late pairs are done early or don't want to use a hospitality break, I can have them play it later in the event before the end of the event. Some of my players also try to play the last round a little quicker if they have a late play. My policy is to award late plays, but to warn tables that they may not be allowed to play the late play depending on how much time they have at the end. If all other tables are done playing before they can start the late play, I will cancel the late play and award an artificial adjusted score that I feel appropriate. Also, the adjusted score on the board needs to be flexible for the TD. If one pair is at fault, they should still be given A- and the opponents A+ for an unplayed board. And if neither pair is responsible, then they both should get A+. If pair 3 is far behind and causes pair 2 to get to table 7 a board into the next round, and then 7 vs 2 have a late play, I would hardly think that giving them their % would be fair unless they are both having a good game. To me, there are all sorts of problems with the above rule and it needs to be reworked. My usual policy is that I set up a movement where I have the possibility of an extra round, but I warn players that I will not start a round after a certain time. In my evening games, I often run the game so that I do not start rounds after 10:30 (with a 7:30 start). So, usually I get 24 boards, but sometimes I'll get 26 or 27 boards and sometimes I get 22 boards (I've never had a problem with getting at least 24 boards in using 3 board rounds). This means that if I have an evening with a bunch of fast players, they get an extra round. If I have an evening with a bunch of slow players, they can all play slower and enjoy themselves but they play fewer hands. I usually call a round when about 2 tables are left playing, so my round pacing varies from game to game (this is only in smaller club games...larger games, we use a clock and push them at an assigned pace). -Ted. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 23 01:12:47 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 01:12:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <200305221539.LAA01932@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002d01c320c0$75e8b320$f4ff193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Comma > > From: > > A spectator is not > > to draw *anyone's* attention to any irregularity > > This assumes, of course, that spectators are bound by the Laws. That > may not be so clear to the average spectator. As in the case for all > irregularities, it is important to specify what happens if the > irregularity occurs. > > > Best practice, in my opinion, is that a Director > > makes every effort to stop a spectator informing > > him of any irregularity. > > This is, of course, the important issue. What is desirable? And what > is practical? > > Grattan's is an extreme view, probably not achievable in practice > despite the view being widely shared. (Does it apply even to > non-spectators, for example? My example some while ago was a friend > who meets a player after the session and whose remark cause the player > to ask for a ruling within the correction period. Does it matter if > this friend was watching during the session? Watching another table? > Was playing in the same event? A different event?) Sven's is a more > moderate and practical view: spectators can point out irregularities > but only in such a way as not to affect the players' actions at the > table. I suppose the extreme view on the other side would be to allow > spectators to point out irregularities to the players, but I doubt > anyone would support that. > +=+ 1.The presence of spectators is by invitation with conditions. 2. As to 'an extreme view', it is merely what the law says. 3. The following is an extract from the WBF General Conditions of Contest 2001 for all World Championships and other tournaments held under the auspices of the WBF:- " An individual who observes an irregularity when a spectator is subject to the inhibition in Law 76B until a ruling on the board may no longer be sought (see Section 28). 'Representatives'* are spectators, as also are other non-participants observing the play." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*'Representatives' - Daily Bulletin staff, Journalists, World Championship Book staff] From hermandw@skynet.be Fri May 23 08:17:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:17:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] rtflb References: <29031536-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6dlfLVArvQz+Ew$h@asimere.com> <000501c3208d$a2972d80$c12a27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3ECDCB0B.4060505@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: >>bowled >>stumped >>leg before wicket >>caught >>run out >>handling ball >>hit wicket >>timed out >> >>I'm stuck >> > > Obstructing the field. > hitting the ball twice and 'retired out' (happened just once, well twice, in a test between SL and BD) > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri May 23 11:26:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:26:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030522184752.02476320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c32115$b9c57060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > AG : I suppose a director could ask a spectator whether a player did > indeed > call OOT, if the sides don't agree on this ; but would this be = included as > "irregularity", first clause, or as "fact", second clause ? That spectator would not be "calling attention" to any irregularity; he would be answering a question as a witness to what actually happened = (i.e. "fact"). Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri May 23 12:03:39 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:03:39 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <000201c32115$b9c57060$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030522184752.02476320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030523125843.02481160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:26 23/05/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : I suppose a director could ask a spectator whether a player did > > indeed > > call OOT, if the sides don't agree on this ; but would this be included as > > "irregularity", first clause, or as "fact", second clause ? > >That spectator would not be "calling attention" to any irregularity; he >would be answering a question as a witness to what actually happened (i.e. >"fact"). AG : so this is settled. Now suppose a spectator (of any kind) runs across the TD and says "you know what ? Pair 6 didn't skip. Pairs 6 and 7 are now playing at the wrong table, having inverted their expected positions". Is one going beyond one's rights and duties ? Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Fri May 23 12:00:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:00:11 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030523125843.02481160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301c3211a$7b7fb860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Alain Gottcheiner=20 ............. > AG : so this is settled. Now suppose a spectator (of any kind) runs = across > the TD and says "you know what ? Pair 6 didn't skip. Pairs 6 and 7 are = now > playing at the wrong table, having inverted their expected positions". = Is > one going beyond one's rights and duties ? According to Grattan: Yes According to the laws: Yes (If we take Grattan's word for it)=20 According to me: No (at least not before this discussion began) According to the Director in charge: I assume he at least would = appreciate being told. He might however also just ask the spectator to mind his own business. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 23 13:05:53 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 08:05:53 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <000301c3211a$7b7fb860$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030523125843.02481160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030523075353.00a71440@pop.starpower.net> At 07:00 AM 5/23/03, Sven wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner >............. > > AG : so this is settled. Now suppose a spectator (of any kind) runs > across > > the TD and says "you know what ? Pair 6 didn't skip. Pairs 6 and 7 > are now > > playing at the wrong table, having inverted their expected > positions". Is > > one going beyond one's rights and duties ? > >According to Grattan: Yes >According to the laws: Yes (If we take Grattan's word for it) >According to me: No (at least not before this discussion began) >According to the Director in charge: I assume he at least would appreciate >being told. He might however also just ask the spectator to mind his own >business. Perhaps we should (at minimum) add a few words to L76B in the next FLB: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake by a player,..." I don't think we want to suggest that a spectator who sees a *director* about to err (for example, by screwing up the movement, or by mis-copying a score) must keep silent. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri May 23 13:15:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:15:16 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030523075353.00a71440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c32124$f884fc30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > Perhaps we should (at minimum) add a few words to L76B in the next FLB: > "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake by a > player,..." I don't think we want to suggest that a spectator who sees > a *director* about to err (for example, by screwing up the movement, or > by mis-copying a score) must keep silent. On the contrary, THAT is one occasion where I would expect the spectator to keep his mum shut. He should be very, very cautious about telling the Director in his face that he (the Director) is doing an error. As I Director I shall usually appreciate a spectator that acts as my (and mine only) prolonged arms and extended eyes, but we must never forget that the Director is the one person in charge - for better and for worse. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Fri May 23 13:19:39 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:19:39 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030523125843.02481160@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030523075353.00a71440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002001c32125$9854b2a0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Apart from all the nit picking and parsing of formal language. For me a spectator should not intervene in anything that might provoke a 'normal' ruling. A spectator is not supposed to draw attention to 'normal' problems like revokes, LOOT's, score mixup's etc. And he is supposed to stay silent until the correction period is over. He is watching. He should not draw attention to players mistakes. So far so good. But I do think it is great if a spectator helps the TD by telling him that something with the movement might go wrong (or a NS/EW mixup in a teams match). Nobody likes a screwed up movement. And I cannot imagine what kind of problem might come from such a remark other than maybe a hurt TD ego. And with David Burns Buenos Aires example in mind, I don't mind at all a spectator reporting cheating (suspicions) to a TD. Cheating is another dimension than making silly errors like revokes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Comma > At 07:00 AM 5/23/03, Sven wrote: > > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > >............. > > > AG : so this is settled. Now suppose a spectator (of any kind) runs > > across > > > the TD and says "you know what ? Pair 6 didn't skip. Pairs 6 and 7 > > are now > > > playing at the wrong table, having inverted their expected > > positions". Is > > > one going beyond one's rights and duties ? > > > >According to Grattan: Yes > >According to the laws: Yes (If we take Grattan's word for it) > >According to me: No (at least not before this discussion began) > >According to the Director in charge: I assume he at least would appreciate > >being told. He might however also just ask the spectator to mind his own > >business. > > Perhaps we should (at minimum) add a few words to L76B in the next FLB: > "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake by a > player,..." I don't think we want to suggest that a spectator who sees > a *director* about to err (for example, by screwing up the movement, or > by mis-copying a score) must keep silent. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 22 06:58:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:58:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <001601c32027$3d0bc220$0fb54351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32037.FFA1F4C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nancy, A club is a social or commercial (or something in between) entity. For = me they should do whatever they want (within reasonable limits). You can = always find another club (maybe not true in some places) if you don't = like the smoking policy, the slow play policy, or whatever policy. So if the club feels that (most of) its clients like this policy or it = might attract new clients they should not be stopped by some letter of = the law. The law should not interfere in such things. Once you start = organising serious formal competitions (the SO becomes the NCBO or so = rather than a club) that is something else.=20 Personally I have always thought that cancelling a board once in a while = is a much better way to time a social event rather than penalties or = pushing them to play quickly. In serious competition there is more to it = however. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:18 PM Subject: [blml] New club policy This message was sent by our new club owner re game policy. = Comments???? ".....In the future we will strive to use an optimum of 24 boards per = game and tighten up on the timing of rounds. We will no longer award = late plays, but will remove boards from slow players and ask the = computer to assign a score for that board that is equal to the % of the = game each pair is having. These two changes should allow us to keep our = games under 3 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a 3 hour game. " Thanks,=20 Nancy --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://www.giantcompany.com ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32037.FFA1F4C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nancy,
 
A club is a social or commercial (or = something in=20 between) entity. For me they should do whatever they want (within = reasonable=20 limits). You can always find another club (maybe not true in some = places) if you=20 don't like the smoking policy, the slow play policy, or whatever=20 policy.
 
So if the club feels that (most of) its = clients=20 like this policy or it might attract new clients they should not be = stopped by=20 some letter of the law. The law should not interfere in such things. = Once you=20 start organising serious formal competitions (the SO becomes = the NCBO=20 or so rather than a club) that is something else.
 
Personally I have always thought that = cancelling a=20 board once in a while is a much better way to time a social event rather = than=20 penalties or pushing them to play quickly. In serious competition = there is=20 more to it however.
 
Jaap
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 = 4:18=20 PM
Subject: [blml] New club = policy

This message was sent by our new club = owner re=20 game policy.  Comments????
".....In the future we will strive to = use an=20 optimum of 24 boards per game and tighten up on the timing of = rounds.  We=20 will no longer award late plays,  but will remove boards from = slow=20 players and ask the computer to assign a score for that board that is = equal to=20 the % of the game each pair is having.  These two changes should = allow us=20 to keep our games under 3 1/2 hours and hopefully get close to a 3 = hour=20 game. "
Thanks,
Nancy
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------= -----
"Are=20 you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a=20 solution!"
 
Protected by GIANT Company's Spam=20 Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32037.FFA1F4C0-- From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun May 25 11:35:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 11:35:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: <001101c31fa3$e5044b20$6401a8c0@hare> <001601c32027$3d0bc220$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <003901c322a9$7ed6a740$8945e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Nancy T Dressing" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New club policy So if the club feels that (most of) its clients like this policy or it might attract new clients they should not be stopped by some letter of the law. The law should not interfere in such things. Once you start organising serious formal competitions (the SO becomes the NCBO or so rather than a club) that is something else. Personally I have always thought that cancelling a board once in a while is a much better way to time a social event rather than penalties or pushing them to play quickly. In serious competition there is more to it however. +=+ Where I have played in clubs I do not recall any that allowed of late plays. As to Nancy's club, it has announced a special method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. In extreme circumstances EBL slow play regulations for pairs championships allow of removal of an unplayed or partly played board and provide for a score (which will be artificial or, in the case of partly played boards, either artificial or assigned depending on the Director's judgement of the likely outcome based on the action up to the point of removal). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun May 25 11:55:02 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 11:55:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <003901c322a9$7ed6a740$8945e150@endicott> Message-ID: <55FE18D2-8E9F-11D7-AD37-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 11:35 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Where I have played in clubs I do not > recall any that allowed of late plays. The Young Chelsea routinely allows them, and it seems to help with time-keeping. > As to > Nancy's club, it has announced a special > method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. To take this view seems to me to allow a club to do *anything* it likes provided it's announced in advance and is accompanied by a scoring adjustment. > In extreme circumstances EBL slow play > regulations for pairs championships allow of > removal of an unplayed or partly played board > and provide for a score (which will be artificial > or, in the case of partly played boards, either > artificial or assigned depending on the Director's > judgement of the likely outcome based on > the action up to the point of removal). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gester@lineone.net Sun May 25 14:55:15 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 14:55:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: <55FE18D2-8E9F-11D7-AD37-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <001a01c322c5$64336f60$1b2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New club policy > > The Young Chelsea routinely allows them (late > plays) and it seems to help with time-keeping. > > > As to > > Nancy's club, it has announced a special > > method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. > > To take this view seems to me to allow a club > to do *anything* it likes provided it's announced > in advance and is accompanied by a scoring > adjustment. > +=+ If it is allowed to take away a board, unplayed or even part played, then some scoring arrangement is required. Nancy's cited method has its merits. The EBL method (see Menton regulations on slow play) could even be thought marginally inferior. I have seen Law 8 suggested as a prohibition on taking away a board. I am sceptical of this since, quoting from memory (I do not have the book here), Law 8(b) extends the round until there is a movement of the players at the table - not 'until the scheduled boards have been completed' - and the movement of players is upon instruction of the Director (in Law 5 if memory serves). He can tell them to get up and go. If the regulations create situations in which there is need for special scoring then Law 78D allows of it; the same Law allows of special scoring arrangements in normal situations if the SO wishes there to be such. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun May 25 16:03:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 17:03:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <001a01c322c5$64336f60$1b2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <000201c322ce$c3a16ed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gester@lineone.net > I have seen Law 8 suggested as a prohibition on > taking away a board. I am sceptical of this since, > quoting from memory (I do not have the book here), > Law 8(b) extends the round until there is a movement > of the players at the table - not 'until the scheduled > boards have been completed' - and the movement of > players is upon instruction of the Director (in Law 5 > if memory serves). He can tell them to get up and go. Law8B: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for = the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. The laws of 1987 had a slightly different wording following the last = comma: ...., the round continues for that table until play has been completed = and the score of the final board of the round has been confirmed and entered = on the proper scoring form. A similar change is found in Law 8C. Was the change in 1997 more than just a cosmetic change to reduce the = number of conditions listed? ("has been a progression of players" implies that = all the conditions listed in the 1987 laws should be fulfilled and removes = the doubt whether the round was ended if the players moved without properly complete the score report). Or was a reality change intended? The way I understand the laws is that before 1997 a table had the right = to complete all scheduled boards no matter how long it would take them = (subject of course to penalty for slow play). However commentary 8.4 recommended = that the Director should prohibit a table to start another board after he has given the signal to start the next round!=20 It is also interesting to note that commentary 8.2 said: .... The = general condition is that the round ends when the Director calls the move, but obviously not for any table that is still struggling with a hand - for = that table the rounds ends when the agreed score of the last board of the = round is entered .... The 1997 laws are at the best unclear on this question, but they only = make sense to me if they give a table the right to complete a board that is = in play but (possibly) not to start another board when the Director has signaled end of the round. Have we stumbled across still another law that needs clarification? Sven From nancy@dressing.org Sun May 25 16:52:03 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: <000201c322ce$c3a16ed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002d01c322d5$95e58010$6401a8c0@hare> I am following this thread with great interest, naturally. My feeling about this club policy is that it is doing nothing to eliminate slow play, is unfair, and in reality is rewarding slow play and penalizing the NOS, if we could ever decide who that is! It also opens some doors to intentionally playing slow to perhaps gain a good result on a board not played. I have watched world ranked players continue to play a hand through the hospitality break. This certainly is slow play. Then we have no regulation regarding the length of a round! I would expect that all rounds would be called with a timer, not just directors' decision that ... "most of the players are finished so I will call the round". The law book has only one mention of late play that I can find and that is in law 15A2. Perhaps we need some guidance in the area of handling slow players. The last time I canceled the play of a board (in a team game), was the last time I saw the slow players at a game!!! Clubs are the training ground for future champions and we should all be good trainers. A caution of an impending penalty usually takes care of slow play and, if necessary a penalty cures it!! Thanks for all the great comments re this new policy. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: RE: [blml] New club policy > > gester@lineone.net > > I have seen Law 8 suggested as a prohibition on > > taking away a board. I am sceptical of this since, > > quoting from memory (I do not have the book here), > > Law 8(b) extends the round until there is a movement > > of the players at the table - not 'until the scheduled > > boards have been completed' - and the movement of > > players is upon instruction of the Director (in Law 5 > > if memory serves). He can tell them to get up and go. > > Law8B: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by > that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a > progression of players. > > The laws of 1987 had a slightly different wording following the last comma: > ...., the round continues for that table until play has been completed and > the score of the final board of the round has been confirmed and entered on > the proper scoring form. > > A similar change is found in Law 8C. > > Was the change in 1997 more than just a cosmetic change to reduce the number > of conditions listed? ("has been a progression of players" implies that all > the conditions listed in the 1987 laws should be fulfilled and removes the > doubt whether the round was ended if the players moved without properly > complete the score report). > > Or was a reality change intended? > > The way I understand the laws is that before 1997 a table had the right to > complete all scheduled boards no matter how long it would take them (subject > of course to penalty for slow play). However commentary 8.4 recommended that > the Director should prohibit a table to start another board after he has > given the signal to start the next round! > > It is also interesting to note that commentary 8.2 said: .... The general > condition is that the round ends when the Director calls the move, but > obviously not for any table that is still struggling with a hand - for that > table the rounds ends when the agreed score of the last board of the round > is entered .... > > The 1997 laws are at the best unclear on this question, but they only make > sense to me if they give a table the right to complete a board that is in > play but (possibly) not to start another board when the Director has > signaled end of the round. > > Have we stumbled across still another law that needs clarification? > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun May 25 17:29:12 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 17:29:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <001a01c322c5$64336f60$1b2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <048C270A-8ECE-11D7-AD37-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 02:55 PM, wrote: > I have seen Law 8 suggested as a prohibition on > taking away a board. I am sceptical of this since, > quoting from memory (I do not have the book here), > Law 8(b) extends the round until there is a movement > of the players at the table - not 'until the scheduled > boards have been completed' - and the movement of > players is upon instruction of the Director (in Law 5 > if memory serves). He can tell them to get up and go. > If the regulations create situations in which there is > need for special scoring then Law 78D allows of it; > the same Law allows of special scoring arrangements > in normal situations if the SO wishes there to be such. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The two laws you mention seem to describe a circle which might as easily have been broken at a different point by giving Law 8 rather than Law 5 primacy, rather than as you have interpreted them. The first sentence of Law 5B is phrased in "do" rather than a "must" terms, to which Law 8B seems to me to be purposefully allowing an exception. Presumably you see 5B as providing an authority over-riding that exception? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun May 25 18:57:55 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 09:57:55 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <003901c322a9$7ed6a740$8945e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 May 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Where I have played in clubs I do not > recall any that allowed of late plays. This may be something that varies depending on the attitute of the members. At my club, all but a few are there "to play cards," that is, they aren't overly worried about what time they get home, but they dislike sitting out and having to wait for opponents. Late plays suit our needs well: they let everyone play all the hands with a minimum of wasted time (except the director and manager, who stay later to post scores and clean up.) > As to > Nancy's club, it has announced a special > method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. I understood Law 78 to refer only to how a valid Law 77-specified score is used to determine a winner. (Can I actually use Law 78 and nothing else to enable me to still play auction bridge, just by announcing "today 1S making 4 and 4S will both score 161 regardless of vulnerability", etc?) My reply to Nancy was that it seemed like a permissible if (to me) undesirable method, except on the occasions it infringed L88 or she wished to award a 15A2 lateplay. > In extreme circumstances EBL slow play > regulations for pairs championships allow of > removal of an unplayed or partly played board > and provide for a score (which will be artificial > or, in the case of partly played boards, either > artificial or assigned depending on the Director's > judgement of the likely outcome based on > the action up to the point of removal). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun May 25 22:48:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:48:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] New club policy Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >+=+ Where I have played in clubs I do not >recall any that allowed of late plays. As to >Nancy's club, it has announced a special >method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. [snip] Can special methods of scoring, under Law 78D, overrule the specific requirement of Law 88? Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon May 26 00:14:44 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 00:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: <048C270A-8ECE-11D7-AD37-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <001701c32313$9beb0f50$8013e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New club policy > > The two laws you mention seem to describe a circle > which might as easily have been broken at a different > point by giving Law 8 rather than Law 5 primacy, > rather than as you have interpreted them. > +=+ I do not believe that a primacy exists either way.+=+ < > The first sentence of Law 5B is phrased in "do" rather > than a "must" terms, to which Law 8B seems to me to > be purposefully allowing an exception. Presumably > you see 5B as providing an authority over-riding > that exception? > +=+ I do not believe that 8B provides an exception; it is not worded to prevent progression of the players. All it does is to extend the round for the table until the progression occurs. This leaves it open for the Director to decide he can wait no longer and to require them to move. The Director then has to decide what is to be done about any unplayed or part-played board. My initial inclination is to say that 8C requires all boards scheduled at a table to have been completed and scored for that table before the session ends for that table - i.e. requires late plays. But to expect this to be feasible everywhere and on all occasions is palpably unrealistic; it is also unwholesome in the case of part-played boards and even for unplayed boards holds Law 16B risks. So..... In my view the primacy lies in the Director's duty to maintain the orderly progress of the game, in the interests of the majority of the participants. I think the regulations need to provide for situations where the intentions of Law 8 cannot be fulfilled, so that a board or boards will remain without a result to enter. A regulation is not in conflict with the laws if it is made using a power given in the laws. I think that the powers given in Law 78 allow for the provision in question to be made within the law. As, for example, in the EBL regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon May 26 00:44:13 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 00:44:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: Message-ID: <005001c32319$1cfd6930$8013e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New club policy > > Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ Where I have played in clubs I do not > >recall any that allowed of late plays. As to > >Nancy's club, it has announced a special > >method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. > > [snip] > > Can special methods of scoring, under Law 78D, > overrule the specific requirement of Law 88? > +=+ Re-reading what I wrote on 25th May it seems I have been guilty of misleading shorthand. A Law 78D score is neither 'artificial' nor 'assigned' since these terms apply to scores assessed under Law 12C. Under 78D we create special scoring methods for which a deviation from correct procedure is not an essential pre-requisite. There is no link to Law 88, unless the regulation specifies it, IMO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon May 26 00:54:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 00:54:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: Message-ID: <005101c32319$1ddb1f00$8013e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New club policy > > As to > > Nancy's club, it has announced a special > > method of scoring as authorized by Law 78D. > > I understood Law 78 to refer only to how a valid > Law 77-specified score is used to determine a > winner. (Can I actually use Law 78 and nothing > else to enable me to still play auction bridge, > just by announcing "today 1S making 4 and 4S > will both score 161 regardless of vulnerability", etc?) > +=+ There might be some difficulty with Laws 1 and 18. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 26 01:22:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:22:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] New club policy Message-ID: Nancy wrote: >I am following this thread with great interest, >naturally. My feeling about this club policy is >that it is doing nothing to eliminate slow play, >is unfair, and in reality is rewarding slow play >and penalizing the NOS, if we could ever decide >who that is! Richard responded: I agree. In my opinion, Law 88 is supposed to protect the NOS from a bad result, if the OS renders a board unplayable (such as by a Law 90B2 infraction of unduly slow play). I am unimpressed by Grattan's argument which states that regulations pursuant to Law 78D can, in effect, overrule Law 88. Nancy continued: >It also opens some doors to intentionally playing >slow to perhaps gain a good result on a board not >played. Richard continued: I agree again. If a pair have infracted Law 90B2 and rendered a board unplayable, they should get Ave- (as required by Law 12C1) and perhaps a PP (as permitted by Law 90), *not* their session average. Nancy continued: >I have watched world ranked players continue to >play a hand through the hospitality break. This >certainly is slow play. Then we have no regulation >regarding the length of a round! I would expect >that all rounds would be called with a timer, not >just directors' decision that ... "most of the >players are finished so I will call the round". Richard continued: Timers are used in all important Australian events, and also in many Aussie club events. Nancy continued: >The law book has only one mention of late play that >I can find and that is in law 15A2. Richard continued: Law 82B gives the TD an option to choose either a late play, or an adjusted score. Nancy continued: >Perhaps we need some guidance in the area of >handling slow players. The last time I canceled >the play of a board (in a team game), was the last >time I saw the slow players at a game!!! Clubs are >the training ground for future champions and we >should all be good trainers. A caution of an >impending penalty usually takes care of slow play >and, if necessary a penalty cures it!! Richard continued: Again, I totally agree. Snails should be educated that their habits are not only contrary to the technical Law 90B2, but are also contrary to the courtesy Law 74A2. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon May 26 00:35:31 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 15:35:31 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: <005101c32319$1ddb1f00$8013e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 May 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: "Gordon Bower" > > (Can I actually use Law 78 and nothing > > else to enable me to still play auction bridge, > > just by announcing "today 1S making 4 and 4S > > will both score 161 regardless of vulnerability", etc?) > > > +=+ There might be some difficulty with Laws 1 > and 18. +=+ True enough, for "early" auction bridge. But if we limit ourselves to the last ten years or so before Contract, spades ranked (only) above hearts and the sufficiency of a bid depend only on the number of tricks not the contract's value. I remain interested in whether a regulation made under L78 can throw L77 completely out the window... and whether you really want to call the resulting game Duplicate Contract Bridge. Nancy's question, and some other questions raised in the past about laws 40 and 80, might be much easier to answer if we had a general principle that a regulation, no matter what law invites the SO to make it, may not conflict with *any* of the laws. (Perhaps we need a small number of exceptions, to handle screens and bidding boxes.) GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 26 04:59:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:59:57 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Comma Message-ID: [big snip] >I don't mind at all a spectator reporting cheating >(suspicions) to a TD. Cheating is another >dimension than making silly errors like revokes. > >Jaap Fairness to the putative offending side requires that spectators should not infract Law 76B in pursuit of equity under Law 73B2. Or, in other words, the ends do not justify the means. In an Aussie national event, a spectator reported a cheating suspicion of a foreign visitor to the CTD. The CTD ejected the spectator for infracting Law 76B. The CTD then investigated the irregularity reported by the spectator, as required by Law 81C6. The CTD then found that the spectator had miscontrued the nature of the irregularity, so the CTD took a simple corrective action. On the other hand, cheating accusations should not be swept under a rug, since there is always a problem finding a large enough rug. The ACBL and ABF system of an official Recorder helps sift miscontrued cheating suspicions from justified cheating suspicions. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 26 06:17:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:17:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] New club policy Message-ID: Richard asked: >>Can special methods of scoring, under Law 78D, >>overrule the specific requirement of Law 88? Grattan responded: > +=+ Re-reading what I wrote on 25th May it >seems I have been guilty of misleading shorthand. >A Law 78D score is neither 'artificial' nor 'assigned' >since these terms apply to scores assessed under >Law 12C. Under 78D we create special scoring >methods for which a deviation from correct >procedure is not an essential pre-requisite. There >is no link to Law 88, unless the regulation specifies >it, IMO. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard continued: But the so-called Law 78D legal justification for the new club policy at Nancy's club only comes into play when there has been an excessive slow play infraction of Law 90B2 - a deviation from correct procedure. In another posting, Grattan argued that the new club policy was just as valid as the Menton regs on slow play causing a board to be removed. I agree - in my opinion both the new club policy and the Menton policy are an equally unLawful interpretation of Law 78D to overrule Law 88 and Law 12. I support Gordon Bower's idea of "a general principle that a regulation, no matter what law invites the SO to make it, may not conflict with *any* of the laws." I invite the WBF LC to consider this fundamental issue when drafting the 2005 Laws. Otherwise, we will return to the bad old days of the 1940s and 1950s, when TDs and SOs had unfettered power to rule however they liked. Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Mon May 26 18:52:59 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: <3ECDCB0B.4060505@skynet.be> References: <29031536-8B6D-11D7-B50B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030521130653.01d2ebc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6dlfLVArvQz+Ew$h@asimere.com> <000501c3208d$a2972d80$c12a27d9@pbncomputer> <3ECDCB0B.4060505@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3ECDCB0B.4060505@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Burn wrote: > >>>bowled >>>stumped >>>leg before wicket >>>caught >>>run out >>>handling ball >>>hit wicket >>>timed out >>> >>>I'm stuck >>> >> >> Obstructing the field. >> > > >hitting the ball twice > >and 'retired out' (happened just once, well twice, in a test between >SL and BD) > ugh, that gets us to 11. Is that a complete list? > >> >> >> > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 26 23:00:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:00:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: AQ98 T7 532 KQT5 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon May 26 23:16:45 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:16:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030526181303.00b910b0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:00 PM 5/26/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass >2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >AQ98 >T7 >532 >KQT5 > >What are your logical alternatives? > >Best wishes > >Richard I don't think pass is a LA here; this is essentially a perfect balancing double. Yes, if partner bids 3D on a four-card suit, I'm headed for a bad score, but we are likely to have a fit somewhere. I also don't consider 2S a LA; there is no reason to expect that we have a spade fit. From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon May 26 10:13:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:13:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] New club policy References: Message-ID: <000401c323d8$0e29e2c0$9b51e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New club policy > > Richard asked: > > >>Can special methods of scoring, under Law 78D, > >>overrule the specific requirement of Law 88? > > Grattan responded: > > > +=+ Re-reading what I wrote on 25th May it > >seems I have been guilty of misleading shorthand. > >A Law 78D score is neither 'artificial' nor 'assigned' > >since these terms apply to scores assessed under > >Law 12C. Under 78D we create special scoring > >methods for which a deviation from correct > >procedure is not an essential pre-requisite. There > >is no link to Law 88, unless the regulation specifies > >it, IMO. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard continued: > > But the so-called Law 78D legal justification for the > new club policy at Nancy's club only comes into play > when there has been an excessive slow play infraction > of Law 90B2 - a deviation from correct procedure. > +=+ I did not say that absence of an irregularity was a pre-requisite for a 78D provision. What we have here, in the Nancy case, is a situation in which slow play 'may' be penalized, but the club prefers not and institutes a 78D provision instead. In some, many, clubs membership and social considerations call for a relaxation of the rigour of the laws - a matter for local judgement and local regulation. +=+ < ----------- \x/ --------------- < > I support Gordon Bower's idea of "a general principle > that a regulation, no matter what law invites the SO to > make it, may not conflict with *any* of the laws." I > invite the WBF LC to consider this fundamental issue > when drafting the 2005 Laws. > +=+ The specific powers given in such Laws as 40B, 40D,40E, 78D, 80E,80G, and the general conditional power given in 80F, together with such options as those in Law 12C3, 18F, 61B and 93B, exist to allow regulating bodies scope to fashion conditions of contest that they consider appropriate in the given bridge environment and culture. It is false to imagine the existence of a single worldwide uniform bridge environment, and idle to have ambitions to impose the one Richard knows, or which I know, or Ralph Cohen or whoever knows, upon the whole of the world bridge population. We have to learn to live with our differences, and when we come together to play at international level we all make compromises - some more easily than others - between our several experiences and points of view. The 'general principle' suggested would be incapable of achievement unless we were to replace the powers and options above with inclusion in the laws of all that the major entities required for the implementation of their policies - they would simply use their veto to refer the draft laws back for revision. And even then they would find some way of achieving whatever fresh regulatory demand manifested itself, without waiting for a change in the laws, as happened with the type of regulation that says "you may agree to open a natural bid of One with substandard values but you may not then use any convention". We live in this world, not in Valhalla or Utopia. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mikedod@gte.net Mon May 26 23:57:21 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:57:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030526181303.00b910b0@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000901c323da$2b953fb0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> From: "David J. Grabiner" > At 06:00 PM 5/26/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > >2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > >Pass ? > > > >You, North, hold: > > > >AQ98 > >T7 > >532 > >KQT5 > > > >What are your logical alternatives? > > > >Best wishes > > > >Richard > > I don't think pass is a LA here; this is essentially a perfect balancing > double. Yes, if partner bids 3D on a four-card suit, I'm headed for a bad > score, but we are likely to have a fit somewhere. > > I also don't consider 2S a LA; there is no reason to expect that we have a > spade fit. > This seems to me a classic confusion of LA and the right bid. I would easily agree that a balancing double is the right bid but pass could be what works and some would choose it. To me that means its an ACBL LA. Elsewhere perhaps not. Mike Dodson From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue May 27 01:36:45 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 17:36:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: Message-ID: Since Richard's question does not require law expertise, here is my opinion: Matchpoints, double seems a reasonable choice. Try not to let them play at 2H or lower... The other one is Pass, looking at us VUL vs opponents NON-VUL. Either choice might work, but sometimes weak NT opener's partner has significant values though not enough for game and we will step on a landmine by attempting to play. On another day, we have 2S making while 2H only down one. If we were white, double is a definite YES for me. Now it is 50/50, depending on how adventurous I want to be. Best regards kaima aka D R Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > AQ98 > T7 > 532 > KQT5 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue May 27 01:56:44 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 20:56:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom In-Reply-To: <000901c323da$2b953fb0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030526181303.00b910b0@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030526205449.01a2b520@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:57 PM 5/26/2003, mike dodson wrote: >From: "David J. Grabiner" > > At 06:00 PM 5/26/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > >Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > >Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > > >2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > > >Pass ? > > > > > >You, North, hold: > > > > > >AQ98 > > >T7 > > >532 > > >KQT5 > > > > > >What are your logical alternatives? > > > > > >Best wishes > > > > > >Richard > > > > I don't think pass is a LA here; this is essentially a perfect balancing > > double. Yes, if partner bids 3D on a four-card suit, I'm headed for a bad > > score, but we are likely to have a fit somewhere. > > > > I also don't consider 2S a LA; there is no reason to expect that we have a > > spade fit. > > >This seems to me a classic confusion of LA and the right bid. I would >easily agree that > a balancing double is the right bid but pass could be what works and some >would choose it. >To me that means its an ACBL LA. Elsewhere perhaps not. The original poster was in Australia, so I assumed that the ACBL rule was not in effect. In most ACBL games, I agree that some players would seriously consider passing even though most would double. In a high-level game, the double could be considered automatic. 2S is not a LA even in the ACBL. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 27 02:09:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:09:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] New club policy Message-ID: Grattan wrote: [big snip] >In some, many, clubs membership >and social considerations call for >a relaxation of the rigour of the >laws - a matter for local judgement >and local regulation. +=+ [big snip] "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" Walt Whitman: Song of Myself I totally agree with Grattan. In my opinion, Law 72A1, "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws," does not apply to local clubs. In my opinion, the key adjective "tournaments" means that the full rigour of the Laws applies only to serious bridge run by serious SOs. Best wishes Richard From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue May 27 02:12:03 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:12:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c323ec$fd7800a0$b9ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2003 10:00 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > AQ98 > T7 > 532 > KQT5 > > What are your logical alternatives? Double (for takeout) I think). If that is not your method then 2S and Pass are logical alternatives. Wayne > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue May 27 02:15:21 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:15:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030526181303.00b910b0@mail.vzavenue.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20030526205449.01a2b520@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: david grabiner wrote: > The original poster was in Australia, so I assumed that the ACBL rule was > not in effect. Question: What is 'the ACBL rule' you are talking about?? Thanks. kaima From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Tue May 27 03:53:59 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:53:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: <20030527025359.CD5BA307EB@www.fastmail.fm> Sorry Richard, I did mean to send my response to the list. ...Dave Kent > On Tue, 27 May 2003 08:00:09 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au said: > > > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > > 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > > Pass ? > > > > You, North, hold: > > > > AQ98 > > T7 > > 532 > > KQT5 > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > > > Open 1C instead of passing? I guess I can imagine letting the opponents > play in 2H at matchpoints, but not with this hand. Double seems > automatic to me. > > ...Dave Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are From gillp@bigpond.com Tue May 27 07:31:55 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:31:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: <00fa01c32419$ab98b540$7ddf8690@gillp.bigpond.com> Richard Hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass >2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >AQ98 >T7 >532 >KQT5 > >What are your logical alternatives? Pass, Double and 2S. In the not unlikely scenario of two hearts on my left and four hearts in partner's hand, the opponents are poised to overruff our hearts so we may be better off in a 4-3 spade fit (where my very high pips may be useful) rather thanin a 5-3 diamond fit (where my terrible diamond pips may be a disaster). Thus 2S is possible, given that I did not call 2S on the previous round and am thus marked with moderate spades (at pairs, one might well call 2S over 2D on marginal hands). Vulnerable, we may well go for 200 or 500 or 800, so Pass could well be right and thus has to be a LA unless we are in a very blinkered community. In some aprts of Australia it is poular that the weak no-trumper must superaccept with gour trumps. If they are playing that way, then Double and 2S are less attractive but are still LAs. Peter Gill Australia. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 27 07:54:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:54:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Xanadu Message-ID: In the thread New club policy, Grattan wrote: [big snip] >And even then they would find some way of achieving >whatever fresh regulatory demand manifested itself, >without waiting for a change in the laws, as happened >with the type of regulation that says "you may agree >to open a natural bid of One with substandard values >but you may not then use any convention". > We live in this world, not in Valhalla or Utopia. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In Xanadu did Gordon Bower A stately Lawful-rule decree: Where Bridge, the sacred river, ran Through Hills measureless to Grattan Down to a sunless sea. Best wishes Richard From gillp@bigpond.com Tue May 27 08:11:27 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 17:11:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] rtflb Message-ID: <001501c3241f$310800a0$7ddf8690@gillp.bigpond.com> John Probst wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Burn wrote: >>>>bowled >>>>stumped >>>>leg before wicket >>>>caught >>>>run out >>>>handling ball >>>>hit wicket >>>>timed out >>> >>> Obstructing the field. >> >>hitting the ball twice >> >>and 'retired out' (happened just once, well twice, in >>a test between SL and BD) > >ugh, that gets us to 11. Is that a complete list? Yes. According to my copy of the Laws of Cricket (a Plain English version, not the official MCC version which has full notes and interpretations added), that's the lot. Peter Gill Australia. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue May 27 09:26:17 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:26:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: Message-ID: <006b01c32429$ab2084c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> 1. It is probably not very practical not to open at this vuln, specially if they play weak NT. This kind of subsequent problems happen quite often. 2. I guess double is ok in the sense that it probably wins more often than it loses. I would double. But pass might easily be the winning decision so how can it possibly not be a LA ? You are vuln so you might go down too much, they might have only a 5-2 fit. Anyway is not the definition of a LA any bid that comparable players will/might seriously consider. For me pass qualifies by quite a margin. 3. I would never bid 2S (should show five) for technical reasons but if dbl is a LA so is 2S. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > AQ98 > T7 > 532 > KQT5 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 27 15:22:05 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] rtflb Message-ID: <200305271422.KAA19385@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > ugh, that gets us to 11. Is that a complete list? This is all very interesting, and no doubt qualified umpires have to know it by heart. However, it isn't very useful for players. All they have to know is, "Is it legal to do (whatever)?" As long as the players stick to legal actions, there is no problem, and if something illegal happens, they can let the umpire worry about what the correct penalty is. Getting back to bridge, some while ago I posted a specific table of contents of "Bridge Laws for Players." I don't claim my list is perfect, but it could be a reasonable starting point if anyone is interested. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 27 15:38:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: <200305271438.KAA20227@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > AQ98 > T7 > 532 > KQT5 > > What are your logical alternatives? On the surface, as almost everyone else has said, double and pass. In spite of Peter's comments, I don't think 2S is a LA under Australian rules, although it might barely be one in the ACBL. (I still vote no.) There is too much chance our best spot is 2Hx or 3C, and if we play spades we probably want South on lead. However: 1. Is weak NT common or rare in this field? If rare, I might consider pass not a LA. (This is an interesting example where pass might be a LA outside the ACBL but not inside.) 2. With what hands would South have acted over 1NT in this pair's methods? How strong could South be and not have doubled? Did we even have a penalty double available? 3. In principle, I would like to know when East would have broken the transfer, but in this case I doubt it matters. From gester@lineone.net Tue May 27 15:44:01 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:44:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <006b01c32429$ab2084c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000e01c3245e$8a2aeaa0$81182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > But pass might easily be the winning decision so > how can it possibly not be a LA ? You are vuln > so you might go down too much, they might have > only a 5-2 fit. Anyway is not the definition of a LA > any bid that comparable players will/might seriously > consider. For me pass qualifies by quite a margin. > +=+"A logical alternative is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." (WBF CoP definition) Would the proportion who would give serious consideration to selecting the call be significant? Would the number likely to adopt the call be at a perceptible level? These are key questions. The Director must be persuaded that the alternative action is a serious contender in players' minds, even if largely rejected, and that its selection would not be an isolated occurrence. In competition with a weak 1NT opener passed out at 2H I think to pass is so much a losing option on balance as not to survive these tests, not where the weak NT is a familiar foe, anyway - but it is a question to be judged. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Tue May 27 17:05:42 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 18:05:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <200305271438.KAA20227@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <016001c3246e$337f7760$0fb54351@noos.fr> Steve, I agree with most you say. BUT it is better not to be too technical about LA's. I think 2S is a bad bid. But that is irrelevant. The LA issue here is to pass or not to pass. If we give the guy a bid (I don't if partner is clearly alive) then I don't care which one he picks. Let him play his own game. Too put it differently. If partner 'shows values' then I know it is probably a good idea to do something rather than pass. But I am not good enough to decode this information to 'it is a good idea to bid 2#S rather than double'. For me 2#S is still five. But that is just me. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass Pass 1NT(12-14) Pass > > 2D(transfer) Pass 2H Pass > > Pass ? > > > > You, North, hold: > > > > AQ98 > > T7 > > 532 > > KQT5 > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > On the surface, as almost everyone else has said, double and pass. In > spite of Peter's comments, I don't think 2S is a LA under Australian > rules, although it might barely be one in the ACBL. (I still vote no.) > There is too much chance our best spot is 2Hx or 3C, and if we play > spades we probably want South on lead. > > However: > 1. Is weak NT common or rare in this field? If rare, I might consider > pass not a LA. (This is an interesting example where pass might be a > LA outside the ACBL but not inside.) > > 2. With what hands would South have acted over 1NT in this pair's > methods? How strong could South be and not have doubled? Did we > even have a penalty double available? > > 3. In principle, I would like to know when East would have broken the > transfer, but in this case I doubt it matters. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue May 27 17:36:53 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 18:36:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <006b01c32429$ab2084c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> <000e01c3245e$8a2aeaa0$81182850@pacific> Message-ID: <016101c3246e$33aa30e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Grattan: > +=+"A logical alternative is a different action that, > amongst the class of players in question and using > the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion > of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think > some might adopt it." Nice definition, much better than most although still rather vague. To have different AC's try for the same goal we need numbers rather than words. 'Significant' here means 60%, 50%, 40%, 30% ? Yes I know it is not math and a number is just a number but still it helps. 66% is quite different from 33% and might affect your judgement. And 'some might adopt it'. Are you thinking about minimum one in a ten, a hunderd, a thousand. As long as these things remain vague everybody can call everything remotely in play a LA or the opposite citing the same law. Grattan: > In competition with a weak 1NT > opener passed out at 2H I think to pass is so much > a losing option on balance as not to survive these > tests, not where the weak NT is a familiar foe, > anyway - but it is a question to be judged. 1. This contains an interesting logical error. Suppose it is true that bidding is (much) more often right than passing. Then in theory 100% of the players should bid. Because at pairs it doesn't really matter if it is a 60% or 70% or 80% chance. As long as it is clearly better than 50% you should go for it. But in real life there are always players that pass. Either they are not good enough to judge the situation, or they hate going down, or they are lazy, or they are shooting for tops, or whatever. The fact that to bid can be proven technically 'correct' doesn't mean pass is not a LA. 2. I don't buy your judgement. Ask 10 players. I bet you they will all think about it (proving pass is being considerd) and I would be very very surprised if nobody would pass. > not where the weak NT is a familiar foe 3. As I said before, if you are so familiar with that you should have opened, it is a well known theory that opening light works better than this kind of solid passes. Anyway these cases are hard to solve. The policy should be to avoid UI as much as possible as long as there is no known way to deal with it in a satisfactory way. A weak NT in third needs as much of a stop as the average skip bid. And so do many other competitive sequences. To make this practical the current 10 seconds should maybe lowered to 5 or even 3. Should apply at least to the first round of bidding and all competitive sequences. It is probably best that all bids require a (mini) stop because there is no good definition. Even after four or more passes you might need some protection. Even if you see it coming you need more than a split second to double or not a cue or a Blackwood response. One way or another we have to stop split second actions to be legal (because that is the real problem, not someone taking a couple of secs when he needs it). But I realise it is hard to impose. In the end it is simple. All serious bridge should be played with screens. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "... one of those cases in which advice is > good or bad only as the event decides." > ('Persuasion' - Jane Austen) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:26 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > > > But pass might easily be the winning decision so > > how can it possibly not be a LA ? You are vuln > > so you might go down too much, they might have > > only a 5-2 fit. Anyway is not the definition of a LA > > any bid that comparable players will/might seriously > > consider. For me pass qualifies by quite a margin. > > > +=+"A logical alternative is a different action that, > amongst the class of players in question and using > the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion > of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think > some might adopt it." (WBF CoP definition) > Would the proportion who would give > serious consideration to selecting the call be > significant? > Would the number likely to adopt the call be > at a perceptible level? > These are key questions. The Director must be > persuaded that the alternative action is a serious > contender in players' minds, even if largely rejected, > and that its selection would not be an isolated > occurrence. In competition with a weak 1NT > opener passed out at 2H I think to pass is so much > a losing option on balance as not to survive these > tests, not where the weak NT is a familiar foe, > anyway - but it is a question to be judged. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 27 18:19:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: <200305271719.NAA28684@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > BUT it is better not to be too technical about LA's. I think 2S is a bad > bid. But that is irrelevant. The LA issue here is to pass or not to pass. If > we give the guy a bid (I don't if partner is clearly alive) then I don't > care which one he picks. Let him play his own game. As you say, if we let the player enter the auction, we'll allow 2S if that's what the player chooses. In an ordinary UI case, where (say) his partner has paused over 1NT to show values, it won't matter at all whether we judge 2S to be a LA or not. The player is obliged to pass if that is a LA and can do what he wants if pass isn't a LA. Where it will matter is an unusual case where partner has shown weakness via UI. Now if 2S is a LA and gives a bad result, we might stick the player with 2S instead of the otherwise-mandatory double. I don't think we should do that, even in the ACBL, but it is a judgment question. From john@asimere.com Tue May 27 21:25:26 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:25:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb In-Reply-To: <200305271422.KAA19385@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200305271422.KAA19385@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <9hVeEtA2m80+Ewl7@asimere.com> In article <200305271422.KAA19385@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> ugh, that gets us to 11. Is that a complete list? > >This is all very interesting, and no doubt qualified umpires have to >know it by heart. However, it isn't very useful for players. All they >have to know is, "Is it legal to do (whatever)?" As long as the >players stick to legal actions, there is no problem, and if something >illegal happens, they can let the umpire worry about what the correct >penalty is. that's not strictly so - as after you have hit the ball, if it is rolling back on your wicket, you can KICK it away, but not handle it with a hand, or your bat (eek, maybe you can hit it twice after all). Such things may not be known by cricket players, and there are plenty similar Laws for bridge players > >Getting back to bridge, some while ago I posted a specific table of >contents of "Bridge Laws for Players." I don't claim my list is >perfect, but it could be a reasonable starting point if anyone is >interested. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 27 23:10:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:10:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: kaima wrote: [snip] >The other one is Pass, looking at us VUL vs opponents >NON-VUL. Either choice might work, but sometimes weak >NT opener's partner has significant values though not >enough for game and we will step on a landmine by >attempting to play. On another day, we have 2S making >while 2H only down one. >If we were white, double is a definite YES for me. Now >it is 50/50, depending on how adventurous I want to be. Richard replied: At the table, North knew that they would not be stepping adventurously on a landmine, since South had shown significant values by hesitating over East's 1NT. North therefore blithely balanced, and logically scored +170 instead of the +50 a Pass would have delivered. Given the Aussie 75% rule defining logical alternatives, the TD did not adjust the score. I do not quarrel with the TD's judgement, given that many other blmlers state that balancing is the only logical alternative. However..... The late Frank Vine wrote a series of humorous stories for The Bridge World magazine featuring Cornelius Coldbottom and his coterie. They have since been collected in a book titled "The Best of Frank Vine", which is available from The Bridge World. In the story "Coldbottom in Front of the Committee" (The Bridge World, March 1985, page 26), this was Cornelius Coldbottom's peroration: "Gentlemen," said Coldbottom, "you are right and I was wrong. Any reasonable player would bid two hearts. After all, partner should be marked with some cards. Mind you, there would be some risk. North and South could each be at the top range of their bids, and opener might hold four strong hearts even in a one- diamond bid. But taking a chance is part of the game. I brought this matter to your attention because I felt that this particular West had not been taking that risk. The hesitation by his partner had removed it. "Now I can see I was in error. West had every right to bid. The rules you so clearly express permit him to do so, and it is his duty to fight as hard as he can for advantage within the rules. I believe there are those who consider that to be the very essence of sportsmanship. Ethical conduct is thus defined in mathematical terms and is divorced from moral judgement. Some enlightened day that method will be applied to other areas of life. What a triumph for justice when a bank robber, charged with the slaying of a bank teller, is judged by what eighty percent of other bank robbers would do in the given situation. "May I congratulate my opponents? You are true bridge champions, and, to me, scoundrels of the first rank." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 27 23:26:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:26:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] rtflb Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >they can let the umpire worry about what the correct >penalty is. > >Getting back to bridge, some while ago I posted a >specific table of contents of "Bridge Laws for >Players." I don't claim my list is perfect, but it >could be a reasonable starting point if anyone is >interested. Richard replied: No, a reasonable starting point is the logical format of the 2005 Laws for *umpires*. Surely umpires should not have to worry about what the correct penalty is. In 2005, why not have any relevant rule easily located and clearly explained with indicative examples? Or is such a radical concept suitable only for Valhalla, Utopia and Xanadu? Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed May 28 04:00:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] New club policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 5/27/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In my opinion, the key adjective "tournaments" means that the full >rigour of the Laws applies only to serious bridge run by serious SOs. Since when is "tournaments" an adjective? :-) 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 May 28 03:58:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 22:58:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom In-Reply-To: <000901c323da$2b953fb0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: On 5/26/03, mike dodson wrote: >This seems to me a classic confusion of LA and the right bid. I would >easily agree that a balancing double is the right bid but pass could >be what works and some would choose it. To me that means its an ACBL >LA. Elsewhere perhaps not. You know, I was thinking about this kind of thing earlier, and it boggles my mind that just because two or three idi^H^H^H people might choose some other call than the "right bid" in some situation that other call is considered both an alternative and logical. It is not the case that "I chose X and it worked" implies "X was a logical choice". Nothing personal intended, Mike, and you may be right - in the ACBL pass in the given situation might well be called a "logical alternative". As Spock said "it is not logical, but it is often true". :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 28 07:33:55 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 07:33:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <006b01c32429$ab2084c0$0fb54351@noos.fr> <000e01c3245e$8a2aeaa0$81182850@pacific> <016101c3246e$33aa30e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000b01c324e3$8a8edb20$f4d8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > Nice definition, much better than most although still rather vague. > To have different AC's try for the same goal we need numbers > rather than words. > +=+ Numbers are deliberately not attached. The object of this definition is to define the principle, to establish the aim. The qualitative judgement is left, at least for now, to the inclination of regulators - and purposefully so - not to frighten the horses. The next phase might well be a long, slow massaging of opinion to bring Zones, NBOs, etc. closer together in their assessments. But it will be slow; for now noses are pointed in the desired direction.+=+ > > > > In competition with a weak 1NT opener passed out at 2H > > I think to pass is so much a losing option on balance as not > > to survive these tests, not where the weak NT is a familiar > > foe, anyway - but it is a question to be judged. > > 1. This contains an interesting logical error. Suppose it is true that > bidding is (much) more often right than passing. Then in theory > 100% of the players should bid. Because at pairs it doesn't really > matter if it is a 60% or 70% or 80% chance. As long as it is > clearly better than 50% you should go for it. But in real life there > are always players that pass. Either they are not good enough to > judge the situation, or they hate going down, or they are > lazy, or they are shooting for tops, or whatever. The fact that to > bid can be proven technically 'correct' doesn't mean pass is not > a LA. > +=+ So not 100% of players of every class and all methods. We have to identify the class of player and his methods and judge whether the definition is met. Not a question of what is 'technically correct'. Then we meet categories where pass would not be so seriously considered and not adopted by such numbers as to qualify as a L.A. The perennial problem, of course, is to judge the player and his category. And particularly to put personal opinion about the merits of the calls to one side in making the judgement, since it is not our judgement but their judgement that concerns us. Hence the consultations with players of the relevantstandard by the Director. +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed May 28 13:40:57 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:40:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <200305271719.NAA28684@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005901c32516$65a31280$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Hello it me again. A friend, Jenny Griffiths, asks me what is BLML's view on a ruling from last weekend, when she made a rare expedition to a Bridge congress (at Bournemouth). It was something like this... Board 18. NS vulnerable. Dealer East (Session 3 of Pairs "A" Final) East A 7642 KJ105 A876 West J7 1095 AQ843 Q94 She remembers their uninterrupted auction as... 1S-1N-; 2C-2S-; 3C-3D-; End East "meant to open 1D not 1S". East alerted 2S as "showing clubs" but before the opening lead, West explained that it was "intended as spade preference". My friend wondered whether this might be a "fielded psyche or misbid possibly aided by UI". On aquaintance with the above facts, the TD dismissed her fears, without further ado, ruling that the result (presumably 3D making) stood. Jenny was loth to appeal because an AC had already ruled against her in another case, involving many long hesitations by both sides. On that previous occasion, in their judgement, the AC implied that the reason they were generously returning her deposit was that she was too stupid to understand the TD's original ruling. From john@asimere.com Wed May 28 14:17:03 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:17:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <005901c32516$65a31280$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <200305271719.NAA28684@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <005901c32516$65a31280$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <005901c32516$65a31280$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes > A Jx xxxx Txx KJTx AQxxx Axxx Qxx 1S 1N 2C 2S (2S alerted as C 3C 3D (explained as S pref All pass > so we psyche a spade and partner bids a normal NT we rebid 2C and pard gives pref, (and we make a misleading statement) we bid 3C as 2S won't play at all well, and pard tries for 3N on a max by bidding 3D, happy to pass a 3S rebid. Phew, we pass. precisely what are accusing the 1NTer of? The only question in my mind is whether the explanation of 2S may have caused damage. There is clearly no question of fielding, as responder's actions are all normal and do not cater for a potential psyche. As for the psycher he is in receipt of no unlawful information so he can do what he wants. I'd recommend to the AC that they keep the deposit. cheers John >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed May 28 15:29:08 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:29:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <009601c32525$80aaca00$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Mad dog] A Jx xxxx Txx KJTx AQxxx Axxx Qxx 1S 1N 2C 2S (2S alerted as C 3C 3D (explained as S pref All pass > so we psyche a spade and partner bids a normal NT we rebid 2C and pard gives pref, (and we make a misleading statement) we bid 3C as 2S won't play at all well, and pard tries for 3N on a max by bidding 3D, happy to pass a 3S rebid. Phew, we pass. precisely what are accusing the 1NTer of? The only question in my mind is whether the explanation of 2S may have caused damage. There is clearly no question of fielding, as responder's actions are all normal and do not cater for a potential psyche. As for the psycher he is in receipt of no unlawful information so he can do what he wants. I'd recommend to the AC that they keep the deposit. cheers John [Nigel] Sorry John, I meant to reply to the list.... [1] East claimed misbid rather than psyche. [2] Nobody is accusing anybody (You all know I don't understand the laws) but surely there are two possibilities of damage due to UI... [3] The alert of 2S may have given West a clue as to the mistake East made and so casts doubt on the choice of 3D rebid. [4] East's explanation may have given West a problem, causing a hesitation that woke East up to his opening misbid. [5] Informing potential appellants that you would recommend an AC to keep the deposit helps prevent such cases from being tested; and leaves players puzzled and frustrated. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 28 14:33:29 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:33:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <5123924.1054128809087.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_27087_2247315.1054128809085 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nigel wrote: >A friend, Jenny Griffiths, asks me what is BLML's view on a ruling from last weekend, when she made a rare expedition to a Bridge congress (at Bournemouth). It was something like this... > Board 18. NS vulnerable. Dealer East (Session 3 of Pairs "A" Final) > East A 7642 KJ105 A876 > West J7 1095 AQ843 Q94 > She remembers their uninterrupted auction as... > 1S-1N-; 2C-2S-; 3C-3D-; End > East "meant to open 1D not 1S". >East alerted 2S as "showing clubs" but before the opening lead, West explained that it was "intended as spade preference". >My friend wondered whether this might be a "fielded psyche or misbid possibly aided by UI". On aquaintance with the above facts, the TD dismissed her fears, without further ado, ruling that the result (presumably 3D making) stood. Since I was the East player in question, I may perhaps be able to shed a little further light. It was indeed Board 18 - or rather, it was board 54, the last of the three-session pairs final. But the number on the board was 18, so that East dealt with NS vulnerable. Qxxxxx Qx x KJ10x J7 A 1095 7642 AQ843 KJ105 Q94 A876 K10xx AKJx xxx xx West North East South 1S (1) Pass 1NT Pass 2C Pass 2S (2) Pass 3C (3) Pass 3D (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) I had taken the wrong card from the bidding box - I meant to open 1D, but it was the last board and I had been playing all day without my glasses. No, Herman, not the beer glasses, the ones you use for seeing through. (2) I still thought I had opened 1D. So I alerted 2S and explained it as a good club raise with spade values (which was what it meant in the system if I actually had opened 1D). (3) A signoff. (4) An unexpected development. I was about to pass anyway when I looked down at my bidding cards and saw that I had actually opened 1S. Now, of course, I knew that I had misexplained 2S, so I called the director per Law 75D. We told the opponents that 2S was spade preference, that 3C was 5-5 in the black suits with extra values, and that 3D was forward-going with diamond values and not heart values (which was the system given that I had actually opened 1S). West had bid 3D before he knew that I thought I had opened 1D, so he wasn't in the presence of any UI. Before North passed over 3D, again before I passed 3D, and once again before South's final pass, I told the opponents what had happened, trying to make it clear that neither I nor my partner actually had spades, and that we were very likely to have a lot of diamonds. This was over and above the call of duty, of course, but even though it was the A final, these particular opponents could not in my view be expected to draw the right inferences from the auction alone. They passed out 3D (which actually went one down, but this did not matter very much), and then they called the TD back and did a lot of complaining. I observe that this has not stopped yet. David Burn London, England ------=_Part_27087_2247315.1054128809085-- From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed May 28 16:57:02 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 11:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <200305281557.LAA26986@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > A Jx > xxxx Txx > KJTx AQxxx > Axxx Qxx > > 1S 1N > 2C 2S (2S alerted as C > 3C 3D (explained as S pref > All pass > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > precisely what are accusing the 1NTer of? Nothing. No problem with opener's bidding. > The only question in my mind is whether the explanation of 2S may have > caused damage. There is clearly no question of fielding, as responder's > actions are all normal and do not cater for a potential psyche. What about that 3D bid? Is pass a LA? It does appear that 3D is suggested over pass by the wrong explanation of 2S (UI). > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > ...2S was spade preference, that 3C > was 5-5 in the black suits with extra values, and that 3D was > forward-going with diamond values and not heart values (which was the > system given that I had actually opened 1S). Given that opener's sequence shows extras, pass is probably not a LA: almost certainly not in the EBU. In a bidding system where opener's sequence shows minimum values, things would be different. MI (the wrong explanation of 2S) could also be an issue, but it's hard to see how the opponents were damaged by that. It was the "psych" that did them in. Nicely timed, David! These cases are much easier to sort out with the leisure of BLML than at the table or even in the committee room. I have enormous respect for the people who can make correct rulings under such pressure. From gillp@bigpond.com Wed May 28 17:02:38 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 02:02:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <015401c32532$9079cdc0$c0c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >weekend, when she made a rare expedition to a Bridge congress >(at Bournemouth). It was something like this... >Board 18. NS vulnerable. Dealer East (Session 3 of Pairs "A" Final) >East A 7642 KJ105 A876 >West J7 1095 AQ843 Q94 >She remembers their uninterrupted auction as... >1S-1N-; 2C-2S-; 3C-3D-; End >East "meant to open 1D not 1S". >East alerted 2S as "showing clubs" but before the opening lead, >West explained that it was "intended as spade preference". >My friend wondered whether this might be a "fielded psyche or >misbid possibly aided by UI". On aquaintance with the above facts, >the TD dismissed her fears, without further ado, ruling that the result >presumably 3D making) stood. For a psyche to be fielded, the psycher's partner has to do something that is not boringly normal. In this case, the preference to 2S was boringly normal, in fact 2S counters any claim of fielding. The 3D call over 3C is also boringly normal - as a move towards 3NT or 5C or 4S or even 6C or 5D, 3D is the obvious bid. One would think that most people at Congress level could see this and not worry about what was in this case an accidental psyche anyway. David Burn's post explained what actually happened rather well. By the way, it occurs to me that if one were playing Bergen Raises, a deliberate psyche of 1S on the East cards is that bad a call. >the reason they were generously returning her deposit was that >she was too stupid to understand the TD's original ruling. If being unable to understand TD's rulings makes one stupid, then I have been stupid many many times. Peter Gill Australia. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed May 28 17:18:18 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:18:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: <010c01c32534$c0a87b20$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] As usual, I agree with Richard's points about the ruling. But I bet that ColdBottom (and most ordinary players like me) would dissent from Richard's general advocacy of complex incomprehensible subjective laws with daft local variants. [Richard Hills] At the table, North knew that they would not be stepping adventurously on a landmine, since South had shown significant values by hesitating over East's 1NT. North therefore blithely balanced, and logically scored +170 instead of the +50 a Pass would have delivered. Given the Aussie 75% rule defining logical alternatives, the TD did not adjust the score. I do not quarrel with the TD's judgement, given that many other blmlers state that balancing is the only logical alternative. However..... The late Frank Vine wrote a series of humorous stories for The Bridge World magazine featuring Cornelius Coldbottom and his coterie. They have since been collected in a book titled "The Best of Frank Vine", which is available from The Bridge World. In the story "Coldbottom in Front of the Committee" (The Bridge World, March 1985, page 26), this was Cornelius Coldbottom's peroration: "Gentlemen," said Coldbottom, "you are right and I was wrong. Any reasonable player would bid two hearts. After all, partner should be marked with some cards. Mind you, there would be some risk. North and South could each be at the top range of their bids, and opener might hold four strong hearts even in a one- diamond bid. But taking a chance is part of the game. I brought this matter to your attention because I felt that this particular West had not been taking that risk. The hesitation by his partner had removed it. "Now I can see I was in error. West had every right to bid. The rules you so clearly express permit him to do so, and it is his duty to fight as hard as he can for advantage within the rules. I believe there are those who consider that to be the very essence of sportsmanship. Ethical conduct is thus defined in mathematical terms and is divorced from moral judgement. Some enlightened day that method will be applied to other areas of life. What a triumph for justice when a bank robber, charged with the slaying of a bank teller, is judged by what eighty percent of other bank robbers would do in the given situation. "May I congratulate my opponents? You are true bridge champions, and, to me, scoundrels of the first rank." From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed May 28 17:20:58 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:20:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] rtflb References: <200305271422.KAA19385@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <011d01c32535$5b82d0a0$789868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] Fascinating. Please post it again... [Steve Willner] Getting back to bridge, some while ago I posted a specific table of contents of "Bridge Laws for Players." I don't claim my list is perfect, but it could be a reasonable starting point if anyone is interested. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed May 28 23:41:00 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:41:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <015401c32532$9079cdc0$c0c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <002c01c3256a$3723ccc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Peter Gill > Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 4:03 a.m. > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > > > >the reason they were generously returning her deposit was that > >she was too stupid to understand the TD's original ruling. > > > If being unable to understand TD's rulings makes one stupid, > then I have been stupid many many times. Not to mention being unable to understand AC decisions :-) Wayne > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 29 07:51:27 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 07:51:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <015401c32532$9079cdc0$c0c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <002401c325ae$d1acb600$7ab4193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > > > For a psyche to be fielded, the psycher's partner has to do something > that is not boringly normal. In this case, the preference to 2S was > boringly normal, in fact 2S counters any claim of fielding. The 3D call > over 3C is also boringly normal - as a move towards 3NT or 5C or 4S > or even 6C or 5D, 3D is the obvious bid. One would think that most > people at Congress level could see this and not worry about what > was in this case an accidental psyche anyway. > +=+ If West knew of East's explanation before he bid 3D then there was UI to West. Something in the alerting situation? The question then is whether there was a logical alternative, perhaps also boringly normal, to 3D. The Director, and general opinion, thinks not - which is the key point, not that 3D was 'boringly normal'. David and Brian are a supremely ethical partnership and know their responsibilities. (I presume it was Brian?). ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu May 29 08:44:11 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:44:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <200305281557.LAA26986@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002201c325b6$5f306ab0$8384403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > > Given that opener's sequence shows extras, pass is > probably not a LA: almost certainly not in the EBU. In > a bidding system where opener's sequence shows > minimum values, things would be different. > +=+ Assuming David was playing with BJC we can go further than this.They are an expert and fully explored partnership. West would know from discussion exactly what to do in the given auction with the hand he was holding; almost certainly they would have material in their system file to back up their statements. For a partnership of this calibre playing their methods it is unlikely there would be a LA +=+ < > MI (the wrong explanation of 2S) could also be an > issue, but it's hard to see how the opponents were > damaged by that. It was the "psych" that did them > in. Nicely timed, David! > +=+ Apparently the opponents were not capable of picking up the inferences from the situation, but the damage was done early by the 'psyche' and they were at the three level, were they not, when they might have got to know what was happening? I think comment should avoid any 'put down' of the unlucky pair. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 29 08:46:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:46:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: Nigel wrote: >As usual, I agree with Richard's points about the ruling. >But I bet that ColdBottom (and most ordinary players like me) >would dissent from Richard's general advocacy of complex >incomprehensible subjective laws with daft local variants. Richard replied: "(I am large, I contain multitudes.)" My solution to the Coldbottom complaint is both simple and universal. Let's dial the stem auction on this thread back a few rounds. Matchpoint pairs, dealer W, vul NS WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass ? You, North, hold: AQ98 T7 532 KQT5 What call do you make? On the liberal left, there is the Al Roth School. Al Roth would automatically Pass this hand, and then later liberally balance. On the radical right, there is the Richard Hills School. The Hills Theory of Balancing is - Don't - so as a logical corollary to the Hills Theory of Balancing, the radical right Richard automatically opens this hand. The debate disputing the relative bridge benefits of a sound opening style versus a light opening style is still unresolved, despite plentiful polemics. However, I unquestionably sleep better at night, because my - Don't - Theory of Balancing means that I am never placed in the invidious position of balancing after pard's break in tempo. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu May 29 10:41:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:41:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <015401c32532$9079cdc0$c0c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> <002401c325ae$d1acb600$7ab4193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <004c01c325c6$7fddcae0$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [NG1] Board 18: NS vulnerable. Dealer East (Session 3 of Pairs "A" Final) East: A 7642 KJ105 A876 West: J7 1095 AQ843 Q94 East-West uninterrupted auction: 1S-1N-; 2C-2S*-; 3C-3D-; End * Alerted as showing clubs. 3D-1 was a good score. [NG2] Nobody seems to think that East could have an ethical problem. Presumably they believe that West had no reaction at all to East's unexpected alert. Because even the slightest hiatus would surely be UI which might help East to notice his 1S misbid and to recover from it. I don't claim there was even a subliminal clue let alone a discernable double-take. I wasn't there. The TD didn't investigate the possibility. Anyway, I fully accept that Caesar and his wife are above suspicion. I trust what David says, completely. IMO, however, the TD should judge such cases without reference to the reputations of the players. BTW, no result on this board would have put Jenny into the prize-list so her "complaints", then and now, are prompted by genuine puzzlement. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 29 11:17:48 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <3813210.1054203468661.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >[NG2] >Nobody seems to think that East could have an ethical problem. Presumably they believe that West had no reaction at all to East's unexpected alert. Because even the slightest hiatus would surely be UI which might help East to notice his 1S misbid and to recover from it. Interesting. I had not considered the notion that if East alerts when West is not expecting him to, West might react in such a way as to let East know that he ought not to be alerting, and thus cause East to realise that he has misbid when, left to his own devices, he would not have realised it. It wasn't actually Callaghan, it was Rob Cliffe, and he never reacts to anything at the table either. He certainly didn't twitch when I alerted 2S, but by the end of the day he had got used to the things I was doing because I couldn't see. >I don't claim there was even a subliminal clue let alone a discernable double-take. I wasn't there. The TD didn't investigate the possibility. He didn't. Maybe he should have done. > > Anyway, I fully accept that Caesar and his wife are above suspicion. > I trust what David says, completely. IMO, however, the TD should > judge such cases without reference to the reputations of the players. > > BTW, no result on this board would have put Jenny into the prize-list > so her "complaints", then and now, are prompted by genuine puzzlement. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 29 11:30:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:30:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <6075656.1054204205912.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >IMO, however, the TD should judge such cases without reference to the reputations of the players. Oh, he did that all right. Rob and I were grilled for fully ten minutes by Ian Spoors, and I had to fill in one of those forms saying I'd never opened 1S on the singleton ace before and I promised never to do it again. But it really was obvious to everyone that: I would not have psyched 1S on purpose (even playing Bergen raises) with a full opening bid; if I had psyched 1S, I would have passed 1NT like a rocket; I didn't know what I'd done until Cliffe bid 3D; he didn't have any alternative to 3D on his hand (and he knows his responsibilities, so he tried pretty hard to find one). Apart from getting a fluke good result on the board (which had no effect on the final rankings anwyay), there was another happy outcome. Our opponents were involved in some other appeal, and I was going to have to waste valuable drinking time chairing it. But after this board, they correctly decided that they didn't trust me, so someone else had to hear the case instead. David Burn London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Thu May 29 12:19:39 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:19:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <6075656.1054204205912.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <005601c325d4$643b2cc0$06234451@Default> David, Playing without glasses ? I am sure there is some article about 'not taking things serious' or 'paying insufficient attention to'. They could have used that for clubing you down if that is what they wanted. It has been used to handle people that were drunk at an serious event if I remember correctly. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > >IMO, however, the TD should judge such cases without reference to the reputations of the players. > > Oh, he did that all right. Rob and I were grilled for fully ten minutes by Ian Spoors, and I had to fill in one of those forms saying I'd never opened 1S on the singleton ace before and I promised never to do it again. But it really was obvious to everyone that: I would not have psyched 1S on purpose (even playing Bergen raises) with a full opening bid; if I had psyched 1S, I would have passed 1NT like a rocket; I didn't know what I'd done until Cliffe bid 3D; he didn't have any alternative to 3D on his hand (and he knows his responsibilities, so he tried pretty hard to find one). > > Apart from getting a fluke good result on the board (which had no effect on the final rankings anwyay), there was another happy outcome. Our opponents were involved in some other appeal, and I was going to have to waste valuable drinking time chairing it. But after this board, they correctly decided that they didn't trust me, so someone else had to hear the case instead. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu May 29 12:33:35 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:33:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <5657120.1054208015411.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: >Playing without glasses ? I am sure there is some article about 'not taking things serious' or 'paying insufficient attention to'. They could have used that for clubing you down if that is what they wanted. There wasn't much I could do about it. I had broken my glasses and I didn't have a spare pair. We did finish second in the tournament, though, so I doubt that anyone could have claimed that we were not paying attention to the game or taking it seriously. Besides, they had shut the bar. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Thu May 29 12:44:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:44:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <5657120.1054208015411.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000001c325d7$b701ca10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > dalburn@btopenworld.com ..... > Japp wrote: > > >Playing without glasses ? I am sure there is some article about 'not > taking things serious' or 'paying insufficient attention to'. They could > have used that for clubing you down if that is what they wanted. > > There wasn't much I could do about it. I had broken my glasses and I > didn't have a spare pair. We did finish second in the tournament, though, > so I doubt that anyone could have claimed that we were not paying > attention to the game or taking it seriously. Besides, they had shut the > bar. Because they had run out of glasses? 8-) Regards Sven From gester@lineone.net Thu May 29 15:34:19 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:34:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: Message-ID: <004301c325f1$94eb4ae0$bd2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > I unquestionably sleep better at night, > > Richard > +=+ Then who sends all those messages in the name of the Federal Government of Australia? +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu May 29 15:49:04 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:49:04 +0100 Subject: Cliffe-hanger - was Re: [blml] Field? References: <5657120.1054208015411.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004401c325f1$959323a0$bd2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > We did finish second in the tournament, though, > so I doubt that anyone could have claimed that > we were not paying attention to the game or > taking it seriously. Besides, they had shut the bar. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Oh well, this explains the inferior ranking anyway. And Spoors, you said? No mug. You can bet he would be determined to stay on track. ~ G ~ +=+ :-) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 29 16:02:15 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <200305291502.LAA26513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > I think > comment should avoid any 'put down' of the unlucky > pair. Indeed. It seems to me that congratulating David on a fine maneuver is the opposite of a "putdown" of the opposing pair. They were unlucky on this board. Once David has "psyched" his 1S bid, there was not much they could have done. ('Putdown' is one word on this side of the Atlantic; perhaps that tells us something.) From guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu May 29 17:07:13 2003 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:07:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Right to know: a BL fable Message-ID: <012901c325fc$5ea58d00$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Alice asked the clerk at the ticket office... "Please tell me about trains to Glasgow." "Is this information for your personal use?" "Its more for Her Majesty, the Red Queen but we travel together." "In that case, I'm sorry, I cannot tell you." "This is ridiculous, I'm a frequent traveller." "A professional eh? I'm afraid that just makes it worse. "Well what about Edinburgh, I want to go to Edinburgh, alone? "Do you want to travel now, Miss?" "Yes I have come from London and I want to go to Edinburgh" "Trains from London arrived at 9.00 am and 9.15 am, at platform 5." "I don't want to know about the trains I've been on." "Sorry, Miss, that's all I can tell you about". "Well then, may I look at a timetable, surely I am entitled to that". "In principle, you are entitled to all such information but, in practice, access depends on local station regulations. Bear with me Miss, while I look ours up. Oh, I'm sorry! The new station-master has not yet given any guidance about reading timetables. I am afraid that means you may not peruse a timetable. Unless something is explicitly permitted, it is banned." From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu May 29 17:07:44 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:07:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable Message-ID: <012a01c325fc$714d8d40$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> On Alice's way back from the WBF bank, a hooded man accosted her with a gun and demanded her handbag. The mugger was about to make off with his spoils when Alice called for help from a passing policeman. "What seems to be the problem?" asked the policeman. "That thief threatened me with a deadly weapon". The policemen deftly wrested the gun and bag from the man's grasp and examined the gun. "Its a replica", he laughed and handed the gun and bag back to the robber with the parting admonishment "Go away and stop pestering people." Alice was astonished... "Why did you let him get away with that?" "Its your fault, you made the wrong complaint" "But the laws are written in Linear-B, only a handful of academics understand them, and most depend on purely subjective interpretation." "Don't worry, the laws will be republished in another ten years with cosmetic changes." "Do the poor law-makers work under the impossible mandate of getting it right first time or living with all their mistakes for ten years?" "Yes but there is no demand for frequent updates" "Will there be a consultation process?" "Oh yes, they seek out those with a vested interest in subjectivity, obscurity, and the status quo." "I think I'll go back to England." "The rules are exactly the same in every country, apart from a couple of laws like freedom of information" "Perhaps. But that law is different in every country; and it is responsible for the vast majority of court cases in every country; so you are at a severe disadvantage in any foreign country." From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu May 29 21:44:28 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:44:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable References: <012a01c325fc$714d8d40$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002501c32623$32ebc950$a710e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable > "Yes but there is no demand for frequent updates" < +=+ There is, in fact, a demand for no frequent updates.+=+ < "Oh yes, they seek out those with a vested interest in subjectivity, obscurity, and the status quo." < +=+ i.e. the eight Zonal Authorities and the 118 member NBOs, who are perhaps steered by the views of their members' elected representatives. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 29 23:28:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:28:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: >>I unquestionably sleep better at night, >> >>Richard Grattan asked: >+=+ Then who sends all those messages >in the name of the Federal Government >of Australia? +=+ Richard replied: There is a grammatical distinction between better and best. My best sleep would be if a majority of other Australians joined me in voting a regime change on the Federal Government of Australia. "Sleep no more! MacRuddock has murdered sleep." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 30 01:08:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:08:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: In the stem case on this thread, Cornelius Coldbottom would have been favourably impressed by the ethics of one of the stakeholders. One of my friends was the NOS in the hesitation then balance incident. He relates this consequent discussion: "But, I was favourably impressed by Player X himself=A0last Monday. After the session at Deakin my partner and I were wondering whether or not to appeal a ruling the Director had given on the earlier Players Y & Z hesitation incident.=A0 Player X was strongly in favour of us appealing, saying the Club would benefit if the Director was appealed against on those occasions when he made a mistake.=A0 This was despite the fact that Player X will win the event if=A0we don't appeal, and will be relegated to second place if=A0we appeal successfully." Best wishes Richard= From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri May 30 01:21:52 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:21:52 +1200 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <3813210.1054203468661.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000701c32641$78c768d0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of dalburn@btopenworld.com > Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 10:18 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > > > He certainly didn't > twitch when I alerted 2S, but by the end of the day he had > got used to the things I was doing because I couldn't see. Maybe he twitched and you couldn't see him :-) Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 30 06:48:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:48:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >It is not the case that "I chose X and it >worked" implies "X was a logical choice". [snip] Yes and no. For example, to preempt and then freely bid again opposite a silent partner: - may be chosen by many, - may work for some, but - this alternative ain't logical. But the dictionary definition of "logical alternative", with its connotations of universal axiomatic truth, is irrelevant to bridge. In bridge, logical alternatives refer to what a particular class of irrational player would illogically consider to be logical. Most players, myself included, have particular illogical bridge blind spots. For example, I illogically - Don't - balance in the passout seat. Therefore, the words "logical alternative" are a misnomer, and should perhaps be replaced with a different form of words in the 2005 Laws. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Fri May 30 07:36:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:36:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <5657120.1054208015411.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003301c32675$dae3d7e0$44294451@Default> Poor David, I wist just kidding. More about the laws than about you anyway. And about this EBU obsession about fielding a psych. In my language you never psyched (requires some intent) so how can you possible field one. Or has the EBU also regulations about fielding misbids, stupidities and maybe even broken glasses. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > Japp wrote: > > >Playing without glasses ? I am sure there is some article about 'not taking things serious' or 'paying insufficient attention to'. They could have used that for clubing you down if that is what they wanted. > > There wasn't much I could do about it. I had broken my glasses and I didn't have a spare pair. We did finish second in the tournament, though, so I doubt that anyone could have claimed that we were not paying attention to the game or taking it seriously. Besides, they had shut the bar. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 30 07:52:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 07:52:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <000701c32641$78c768d0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <002501c32678$18ab0ce0$b7d7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:21 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Field? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of dalburn@btopenworld.com > > Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 10:18 p.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > > > > > > He certainly didn't > > twitch when I alerted 2S, but by the end of the day he had > > got used to the things I was doing because I couldn't see. > > Maybe he twitched and you couldn't see him :-) > > Wayne > +=+ "..... who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves; Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls, that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts...... " From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed May 28 16:10:24 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 16:10:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <4272481.1054134624304.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_27483_794843.1054134624301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wrote: [snip] >West had bid 3D before he knew that I thought I had opened 1D, so he wasn't in the presence of any UI. This isn't accurate. West had heard me explain 2S in the auction 1S-1N-2C-2S as a club raise with spade values, so he knew that I thought I had opened one of a suit other than spades. He actually said afterwards that he had no idea what I was up to, but it was obviously something barmy and he was just going to carry on bidding his hand. However, if he had thought about it, he would have known that I thought I had opened one not-spade (more likely to be one of a red suit than clubs, although 1C-1N-2C-2S would also show club support with spade values). He did not, however, know that I thought I had opened 1D until after he bid 3D. It could be argued that 3D was suggested by this UI in the sense that it would work if I thought I had opened 1D. It would also work if I actually meant to open 1S, but had thought by the time he bid 2S that I had actually opened something else. Of course, it would not work if I thought I had opened 1H. It could also be argued that, say, 4S was a logical alternative to 3D in the auction 1S-1N-2C-2S-3C with the actual West hand: Jx xxx AQxxx Q9x. Certainly, one would want to accept the game try, and 4S does that. But so does 3D if followed by such as 4C later (slam is not out of the question), and 3D seems so obvious that it is hard for me to consider anything else a logical alternative, although I accept that I may be biased. David Burn London, England  ------=_Part_27483_794843.1054134624301-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri May 30 10:58:38 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:58:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable References: <012a01c325fc$714d8d40$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002501c32623$32ebc950$a710e150@endicott> Message-ID: <006701c32692$0bbb2280$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "It is the province of knowledge to speak and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen." ['The Poet at the Breakfast-Table'] [Nigel] Recently, I have tried to simulate a little wisdom. [Policeman] "Yes but there is no demand for frequent updates" [Grattan] +=+ There is, in fact, a demand for no frequent updates.+=+ {Nigel] I suppose it depends on whether you ask TDs or players. [Alice] "Oh yes, they seek out those with a vested interest in subjectivity, obscurity, and the status quo." [Grattan] +=+ i.e. the eight Zonal Authorities and the 118 member NBOs, who are perhaps steered by the views of their members' elected representatives. +=+ [Nigel] Sorry, Alice seems to go in for unjustified hyperbole. How is opinion canvassed? -- Are ordinary players asked whether they might prefer simple objective laws, at the possible sacrifice of a mythical "equity"? Are people asked to submit proposals? More importantly, are they asked to vote on a a series of concrete proposals (including some radical ones)? Later, are they given draft versions of proposed new laws to vet? Of course I agree any such votes must not binding -- merely consulatative. How can you encourage convergence between the bizarre chauvinist interests of each local authority? Surely the WBF must try to stifle this xenophobia rather than administer oxygen? Sorry Grattan, I know that you have patiently answered such whinges before. I just don't like what seems to be happening to a game that I have enjoyed all my life; but probably it is not just the laws that are to blame ): From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 30 11:22:25 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:22:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <5657120.1054208015411.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <003301c32675$dae3d7e0$44294451@Default> Message-ID: <002a01c32695$8563d200$b4ce4c51@pc> Yes, yes, and not really. However, I carry a couple of watchmakers screwdrivers in my case. On one occasion when I fixed a competitors lens back in, someone at the next table asked me if I had a hammer in there as well as there was a nail sticking out of his table !!! Larry Or has the EBU > also regulations about fielding misbids, stupidities and maybe even broken > glasses. > > Jaap From john@asimere.com Fri May 30 14:28:33 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:28:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <002a01c32695$8563d200$b4ce4c51@pc> References: <5657120.1054208015411.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <003301c32675$dae3d7e0$44294451@Default> <002a01c32695$8563d200$b4ce4c51@pc> Message-ID: In article <002a01c32695$8563d200$b4ce4c51@pc>, LarryBennett writes >Yes, yes, and not really. >However, I carry a couple of watchmakers screwdrivers in my >case. On one occasion when I fixed a competitors lens back >in, someone at the next table asked me if I had a hammer in >there as well as there was a nail sticking out of his table >!!! > I do carry a hammer *and* nails cheers John >Larry > > >Or has the EBU >> also regulations about fielding misbids, stupidities and >maybe even broken >> glasses. >> >> Jaap > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 gester@lineone.net Fri May 30 16:27:18 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 16:27:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable References: <012a01c325fc$714d8d40$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002501c32623$32ebc950$a710e150@endicott> <006701c32692$0bbb2280$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001b01c326c0$148458e0$231e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable > [Grattan] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "It is the province of knowledge to speak > and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen." > ['The Poet at the Breakfast-Table'] > [Nigel] > Recently, I have tried to simulate a little wisdom. > [Policeman] > "Yes but there is no demand for frequent updates" > [Grattan] > +=+ There is, in fact, a demand for no frequent updates.+=+ > {Nigel] > I suppose it depends on whether you ask TDs or players. < +=+ Neither, actually. The members of the WBF are the NBOs; we seek their opinions. It is their responsibilitiy to ascertain and reflect their members' views.+=+ < > [Alice] > "Oh yes, they seek out those with a vested interest > in subjectivity, obscurity, and the status quo." > [Grattan] > +=+ i.e. the eight Zonal Authorities and the 118 > member NBOs, who are perhaps steered by the > views of their members' elected representatives. +=+ > [Nigel] > Sorry, Alice seems to go in for unjustified hyperbole. > How is opinion canvassed? -- < +=+ See again the above. The WBF invites opinion from its constituent membership - the NBOs. For good order we have asked that the opinion be co-ordinated by the Zonal arms of the WBF. Players who wish to influence the opinions put forward are no doubt active in the election of the relevant committees of their NBOs. It often seems that opinion we read on blml is not majority opinion if compared with what we discover of the views of NBOs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 30 16:37:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <200305301537.LAA06523@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I do carry a hammer *and* nails You Brits had better behave yourselves when John is directing!!! From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri May 30 19:14:09 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:14:09 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable In-Reply-To: <001b01c326c0$148458e0$231e2850@pacific> Message-ID: This seems like a good time to remind you all that, while BLML is not a representative sample of the bridge-playing world, it is one of the few places where people have any idea what changes to the laws are being considered. > Grattan Endicott wrote, in part: > The members of the WBF are > the NBOs; we seek their opinions. It is their responsibilitiy > to ascertain and reflect their members' views.... Players > who wish to influence the opinions put forward are no > doubt active in the election of the relevant committees > of their NBOs. Where I live, the "relevant committee" appears to be the ACBL Laws Commission. Problem is, the members of the ACBLLC are elected only by the 25 members of the ACBL Board of Directors - each of whom are in turn elected only by a few dozen unit officials. (In practice even that election is a formality at least 4/5 of the time.) And, I must point out, the ACBL Board of Directors is not exactly familiar with the laws let alone any of the specific proposals that the WBF has forwarded to the ACBLLC: the only Laws-related action they take is to annually ask the LC why players still can't look at their own convention cards. I can write to my Board representative about laws-related concerns, and even (oooh, scary) decide whether to cast my 0.3% of the votes for her reelection based on what she does. (I am one of those 'lucky' few sitting on a unit board.) I don't have addresses to contact anyone on the ACBLLC directly. "Taking the pulse of the ACBL membership at large" seems to consist of selecting a diverse cross-section (ha, ha) of the experts who have friends on the BoD, and then leaving everything to their judgment. Mind you, I actually don't have many complaints with what the ACBLLC is doing - at least they have told the BoD where they can stuff their look-at-your-own-CC proposal! - but let me assure you, the members of the Laws Commission wouldn't have any idea of what the rank and file of the ACBL want. (I am not saying I do either -- but I at least know what some few hundred players of varying experience levels in my region want, and if someone surveyed me along with a few dozen of my twin brothers from other regions and added it up, you'd know.) GRB From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 30 20:28:22 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June Message-ID: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling Mike does. (No peeking!) At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the dummy! If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri May 30 20:35:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:35:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: Message-ID: <000901c326e2$b6168760$d21ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > > But the dictionary definition of "logical > alternative", with its connotations of > universal axiomatic truth, is irrelevant > to bridge. > > In bridge, logical alternatives refer to > what a particular class of irrational > player would illogically consider to be > logical. > +=+ something like that. Of course the laws provide no special definition so prima facie it should be another available action that is "characterized by clear sound reasoning". As with irrationality, the link to class of player has since been added. The unKaplanish act of faith in the mental dexterities of tournament directors proved no matter of common understanding and there was need to say how the term was to be interpreted. It has since been said in a multiplicity of ways by a host of guides. And still we struggle.+=+ < > Most players, myself included, have > particular illogical bridge blind spots. > For example, I illogically - Don't - > balance in the passout seat. > +=+ However, 'blind spots' are exclusions since they are idiosyncratic. LA's are class acts, the quirks of individuals have no place among them.+=+ > > Therefore, the words "logical alternative" > are a misnomer, and should perhaps be > replaced with a different form of words in > the 2005 Laws. > +=+ My view exactly, or at least defined in the book in a fresh way, but no promises! ~ G ~ +=+ From jwiatrak1@nc.rr.com Fri May 30 20:40:34 2003 From: jwiatrak1@nc.rr.com (Joann Wiatrak) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:40:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June References: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006701c326e3$5673d7d0$6800a8c0@DESKTOP1> I'm just a lowly ACBLand clubdirector, but doesn't L48 apply? What have I missed? Thanks, joann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > dummy! > > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@att.net Fri May 30 20:37:11 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:37:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: The same scenario happened in a club game last night. 3DX declared by the doubling side for -1100. The director wasn't called until after the hand had been played when the usurping declarer declared, "This is the strangest thing. I doubled their 3D and...." It was a team game. The director found all four players at fault and had them throw out the board. -Todd > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:28 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June > > > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To > compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing > the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking > he was the > dummy! > > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jwiatrak1@nc.rr.com Fri May 30 20:48:10 2003 From: jwiatrak1@nc.rr.com (Joann Wiatrak) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:48:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June References: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007701c326e4$66594030$6800a8c0@DESKTOP1> As you can tell, I only read the first part. However, I will stand by that, because it's the lst infraction. I have not read the Bulletin. But, I will now. This is a great newsgroup for those of us who are lerkers & ACBL club directors. It's also helpful when I do cruises and get European players, I know the alert rules are different and bid systems are different. It definitely helps me with the "lecture" series. joann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > dummy! > > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Fri May 30 21:23:51 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 13:23:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 May 2003 15:28:22 EDT." <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200305302023.NAA24837@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > dummy! > > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. OK, first the mechanical stuff. Declarer's exposed card is not subject to penalty, by Law 48. By Law 50, all of LHO's cards are major penalty cards. Law 51 specifies what happens when there is more than one penalty card: (1) Whenever it is LHO's turn to play, declarer may designate which of the penalty cards LHO must play; (2) whenever it is RHO's turn to *lead*, declarer has the options to require the lead of a specified suit or prohibit the lead of one or more such suits, and then LHO picks up all the penalty cards in the suits specified. This keeps going on until all of LHO's cards are picked up, if that ever happens. I'm not going to quote the whole Law here. In addition, LHO's penalty cards are UI for RHO, who must avoid taking advantage of the information. (I'm willing to say that RHO should just shield his eyes and not look at his partner's cards; it would be impossibly difficult to require him to determine which LA's are suggested by all the UI he's gotten.) We also have to determine whether declarer's infraction caused the problem, and if so, what to do about it. There is no Law that specifically handles this case. (By way of example, there is a Law, L47E1, that says that if you lead out of turn because an opponent has misinformed you that it's your lead, you can retract your lead without penalty. But there's no similar Law that says you can pick up your cards if an opponent has mistakenly informed you that you're supposed to put down the dummy.) So the only avenue left open is L84E, which says: "If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9)." Declarer's exposed card is certainly an irregularity, and no penalty is provided by law for it. The interesting question whether the non-offending side was damaged. There are two possible answers: (1) Yes, they were damaged because declarer's stupidity caused LHO to be misinformed about who was declarer; (2) LHO should have been paying attention to the (*$#& game. To me, either is reasonable, and it may depend on LHO's experience level. If you decide (1), then a L12C2 adjustment is in order, considering the declaring side to be offenders and the other side to be non-offenders. (Since the TD can determine how the hand might have been played out, a result can be obtained and thus L12C1 should not be applied.) There doesn't seem to be any provision in the Laws that would let the TD simply assign a score and not bother making the players play it out, which with 13 penalty cards is not going to resemble bridge in any case; but I'd certainly have sympathy for a TD that ruled this way. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri May 30 21:30:19 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:30:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Right to know: a BL fable References: <012901c325fc$5ea58d00$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <007c01c326ea$4a42cb40$389868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Alice asked the clerk at the ticket office... "Please tell me about trains to Glasgow." "Is this information for your personal use?" "Its more for the Red Queen -- we travel together." "In that case, I'm sorry, I cannot tell you." "This is ridiculous, I'm a frequent traveller." "A professional eh? I'm afraid that just makes it worse. "Well what about Edinburgh, I want to go to Edinburgh, alone? "Do you want to travel now, Miss?" "Yes I have come from London and I want to go to Edinburgh" "Trains from London arrived at 9.00 am and 9.15 am, at platform 5." "I don't want to know about the trains I've been on." "Sorry, Miss, that's all I can tell you about". "Well then, may I look at a timetable, surely I am entitled to that". "In principle, you are entitled to all such information but, in practice, access depends on local station regulations. Bear with me Miss, while I look ours up. Oh, I'm sorry! The new station-master has not yet given any guidance about reading timetables. I am afraid that means you may not peruse a timetable until you are getting on the train. Unless something is explicitly permitted, it is banned." [In case anyone missed this abstruse point -- you are allowed to look at opponent's convention card only at your turn to bid or play You may not consult it before the start of the game, unless the local authority has specifically legislated to that effect.] From svenpran@online.no Fri May 30 21:56:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:56:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c326ed$ee93e3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> At the time the "declarer" makes his "opening lead" the auction is not = yet over (see Law 17E, and also note that Law 41A uses the word "presumed" declarer), so the "presumed" declarer did not make an opening lead out = of turn but exposed one of his cards during the auction. The applicable law = is Law 24B. This distinction becomes important in the case some misinformation is revealed (during the query period) before the correct player makes his opening lead and as a result of such misinformation the last "presumed" defender to pass is allowed to replace his closing pass with another = call; in which case the auction continues.=20 Back to your case: Following the infraction by the presumed declarer his = LHO follows up with exposing all his cards. As the auction period still has = not ended the applicable law for this infraction is law 24C. Assuming that the auction is not continued by the Director due to misinformation being revealed; the correct player shall now make his = opening lead, however all his and his partner's plays from now on are restricted because of all his cards becoming major penalty cards for which Law 51 applies. And the player who at this time becomes the declarer (he is no longer = just the presumed declarer) takes up his prematurely exposed card; as he is = now (really) the declarer he is not subject to any more consequences of his = own card exposed during the auction. No, Law 12 is not at all relevant; the board is played out with declarer having the advantage of treating all cards belonging to his LHO as major penalty cards. Regards Sven =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Willner > Sent: 30. mai 2003 21:28 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June >=20 > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) >=20 > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > dummy! >=20 > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri May 30 22:03:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 23:03:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <200305302023.NAA24837@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000101c326ee$eb0b63d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Good show Adam, you are practically at the correct result but you have overlooked that all the irregularities took place during the auction = before the play period began and thus before the "presumed" declarer became the declarer (and before the "presumed" defenders became defenders). Law 48 doesn't enter the picture at all. The correct approach is through Law = 24. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Adam > Beneschan > Sent: 30. mai 2003 22:24 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June >=20 >=20 > Steve Willner wrote: >=20 > > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > > Mike does. (No peeking!) > > > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > > dummy! > > > > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. >=20 > OK, first the mechanical stuff. Declarer's exposed card is not > subject to penalty, by Law 48. By Law 50, all of LHO's cards are > major penalty cards. Law 51 specifies what happens when there is more > than one penalty card: (1) Whenever it is LHO's turn to play, declarer > may designate which of the penalty cards LHO must play; (2) whenever > it is RHO's turn to *lead*, declarer has the options to require the > lead of a specified suit or prohibit the lead of one or more such > suits, and then LHO picks up all the penalty cards in the suits > specified. This keeps going on until all of LHO's cards are picked > up, if that ever happens. I'm not going to quote the whole Law here. > In addition, LHO's penalty cards are UI for RHO, who must avoid taking > advantage of the information. (I'm willing to say that RHO should > just shield his eyes and not look at his partner's cards; it would be > impossibly difficult to require him to determine which LA's are > suggested by all the UI he's gotten.) >=20 > We also have to determine whether declarer's infraction caused the > problem, and if so, what to do about it. There is no Law that > specifically handles this case. (By way of example, there is a Law, > L47E1, that says that if you lead out of turn because an opponent has > misinformed you that it's your lead, you can retract your lead without > penalty. But there's no similar Law that says you can pick up your > cards if an opponent has mistakenly informed you that you're supposed > to put down the dummy.) >=20 > So the only avenue left open is L84E, which says: "If an irregularity > has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director > awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility > that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side > of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9)." Declarer's exposed card is > certainly an irregularity, and no penalty is provided by law for it. > The interesting question whether the non-offending side was damaged. > There are two possible answers: (1) Yes, they were damaged because > declarer's stupidity caused LHO to be misinformed about who was > declarer; (2) LHO should have been paying attention to the (*$#& game. > To me, either is reasonable, and it may depend on LHO's experience > level. If you decide (1), then a L12C2 adjustment is in order, > considering the declaring side to be offenders and the other side to > be non-offenders. (Since the TD can determine how the hand might have > been played out, a result can be obtained and thus L12C1 should not be > applied.) There doesn't seem to be any provision in the Laws that > would let the TD simply assign a score and not bother making the > players play it out, which with 13 penalty cards is not going to > resemble bridge in any case; but I'd certainly have sympathy for a TD > that ruled this way. >=20 > -- Adam >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 30 22:20:24 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:20:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable In-Reply-To: <001b01c326c0$148458e0$231e2850@pacific> References: <012a01c325fc$714d8d40$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002501c32623$32ebc950$a710e150@endicott> <006701c32692$0bbb2280$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030530171125.00ab9650@pop.starpower.net> At 11:27 AM 5/30/03, gester wrote: > It often seems that opinion we read on blml is not >majority opinion if compared with what we discover >of the views of NBOs. It often seems to me that what we read on BLML is the majority opinion of an NCBO's players, but differs from the official opinion of the NCBO. That is certainly true of the largest of the WBF's NCBOs, in which any similarity between what the officials running that particular NCBO want and what their members want is purely coincidental. The WBF has chosen to define its constituency as consisting of NCBOs, which it certainly may do, but if it does, it cannot pretend to represent or reflect the views of the bridge players of the world, who constitute an entirely different constituency with very different "majority" opinions. 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 May 30 22:21:12 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:21:12 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030530172033.00aa0170@pop.starpower.net> >At 01:48 AM 5/30/03, richard.hills wrote: > >>Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >It is not the case that "I chose X and it >> >worked" implies "X was a logical choice". >> >>Yes and no. >> >>For example, to preempt and then freely >>bid again opposite a silent partner: >> >>- may be chosen by many, >>- may work for some, but >>- this alternative ain't logical. >> >>But the dictionary definition of "logical >>alternative", with its connotations of >>universal axiomatic truth, is irrelevant >>to bridge. >> >>In bridge, logical alternatives refer to >>what a particular class of irrational >>player would illogically consider to be >>logical. >> >>Most players, myself included, have >>particular illogical bridge blind spots. >>For example, I illogically - Don't - >>balance in the passout seat. >> >>Therefore, the words "logical alternative" >>are a misnomer, and should perhaps be >>replaced with a different form of words in >>the 2005 Laws. > >Sounds like a bad idea to me. > >When we talk about considering plays that "a particular player... >would illogically consider to be logical", we are no longer even >judging players' "classes", but rather judging each individual >player's idiosyncratic irrational tendencies. That will be even more >difficult and problem-prone than merely trying (with not much success >in real life) to decide his "class of player". At best, we would wind >up with a "rule" that says that if he's done it before, we should >presume he might have done it now. Which, of course, won't work, >because in real life TDs and ACs almost never know what he's "done >before". And which, even if we assumed full knowledge of every >player's history, would leave us assuming that if Mr. X had played it >out, he would have revoked, because we know he revokes a couple of >times a session on average. Yuck. > >We should be going in the opposite direction, working towards the >happy day when we can make rulings on disputed claims *without* having >to first decide how good, or how rational, the player who made the >disputed claim is. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri May 30 22:41:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 23:41:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <200305302118.RAA26372@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c326f4$37149f80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] > Sent: 30. mai 2003 23:18 > To: svenpran@online.no > Subject: RE: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June >=20 > > the board is played out with declarer > > having the advantage of treating all cards belonging to his LHO as = major > > penalty cards. >=20 > I shall have to remember to try this maneuver next time I'm declaring > and think LHO might be inattentive. :-) >=20 > You still don't match Mike F.'s answer, though. >=20 > Cheers. I shall like to see his answer (I do not have the ACBL bulletin, is it available online for non-ACBL members?), but for your information a = similar problem (OLOOT by dummy) started out as a riddle but was seriously = discussed here in Norway about a year (or two) ago. The riddle ceased to be a = problem when we noted that the auction period had not ended. One of the more difficult questions in that riddle was whether dummy's = LHO had the right to accept the OLOOT by dummy; and if he did what procedure = was to be followed for the subsequent plays to the first trick. Regards Sven PS.: Presumed declarer's LHO just might have a case if he claims that he = has been misled by presumed declarer's irregularity to face his entire hand = as if he himself were the dummy. However he will have some really = convincing reasoning to do for me to accept a claim like that. The "lead" of a card = by presumed declarer is certainly not sufficient. From john@asimere.com Sat May 31 01:18:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:18:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <006701c326e3$5673d7d0$6800a8c0@DESKTOP1> References: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <006701c326e3$5673d7d0$6800a8c0@DESKTOP1> Message-ID: In article <006701c326e3$5673d7d0$6800a8c0@DESKTOP1>, Joann Wiatrak writes >I'm just a lowly ACBLand clubdirector, but doesn't L48 apply? What have I >missed? > >Thanks, >joann I fancy trying to restore equity with 13 penalty cards :) >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:28 PM >Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June > > >> This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll >> be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling >> Mike does. (No peeking!) >> >> At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was >> supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the >> problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening >> lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the >> dummy! >> >> If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) >> offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat May 31 01:22:31 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:22:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <000101c326ee$eb0b63d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <200305302023.NAA24837@mailhub.irvine.com> <000101c326ee$eb0b63d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c326ee$eb0b63d0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Good show Adam, you are practically at the correct result but you have >overlooked that all the irregularities took place during the auction before >the play period began and thus before the "presumed" declarer became the >declarer (and before the "presumed" defenders became defenders). Law 48 >doesn't enter the picture at all. The correct approach is through Law 24. > >Regards Sven IMO declarer *is* declarer (or occasionally becomes dummy), regardless of the exposure of cards. A member of the "defined" defending side can *never* be declarer. -- 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 May 31 01:39:49 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:39:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 May 2003 15:37:11 EDT." Message-ID: <200305310039.RAA28958@mailhub.irvine.com> > The same scenario happened in a club game last night. 3DX > declared by the doubling side for -1100. The director wasn't > called until after the hand had been played when the usurping > declarer declared, "This is the strangest thing. I doubled their > 3D and...." It was a team game. The director found all four > players at fault and had them throw out the board. Seems backwards to me . . . shouldn't the director have kept the board and thrown out the players??? -- Adam From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 31 02:09:51 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:09:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: References: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030530210056.00b90c50@mail.vzavenue.net> At 03:37 PM 5/30/2003, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > The same scenario happened in a club game last night. 3DX >declared by the doubling side for -1100. The director wasn't >called until after the hand had been played when the usurping >declarer declared, "This is the strangest thing. I doubled their >3D and...." It was a team game. The director found all four >players at fault and had them throw out the board. In your situation, given when the error was discovered, you could say that all four players accepted all of the irregularities by playing on and not drawing attention to them, and thus score the result as if all the play had been legal. Assuming both vulnerable, the doubler's side took five tricks, which is +200 on defense against 3Dx. The ACBL Bulletin had a similar story. N-S were in 2Sx, neither side vulnerable. East declared, went down three, and scored up -500, a bad save against the N-S +420. It wasn't until the next day that East realized what had gone wrong, and by then it was too late to correct. My adjustment wouldn't have made much difference in this case, as 2Sx making eight tricks for the declarer would have been +470 instead of +500. But I could see a ruling that what happened was not bridge, and scoring average-minus to both sides, -3 IMPs for both sides in a Swiss. From nancy@dressing.org Sat May 31 02:47:39 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:47:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June References: <200305310039.RAA28958@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002101c32716$9eaae6f0$6401a8c0@hare> Oh, if only we could........ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June > > > The same scenario happened in a club game last night. 3DX > > declared by the doubling side for -1100. The director wasn't > > called until after the hand had been played when the usurping > > declarer declared, "This is the strangest thing. I doubled their > > 3D and...." It was a team game. The director found all four > > players at fault and had them throw out the board. > > Seems backwards to me . . . shouldn't the director have kept the board > and thrown out the players??? > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sat May 31 08:17:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:17:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c32744$a34edda0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst=20 > Sven Pran writes > >Good show Adam, you are practically at the correct result but you = have > >overlooked that all the irregularities took place during the auction > before > >the play period began and thus before the "presumed" declarer became = the > >declarer (and before the "presumed" defenders became defenders). Law = 48 > >doesn't enter the picture at all. The correct approach is through Law = 24. > > > >Regards Sven >=20 > IMO declarer *is* declarer (or occasionally becomes dummy), regardless > of the exposure of cards. A member of the "defined" defending side can > *never* be declarer. You disappoint me! Consider the following scenario which is NOT fiction: An auction ends with South bidding 4S after which follows three = consecutive passes. North now summons the Director and informs the table that South = has misinformed opponents during the auction. South admits and the Director = now informs East that he has the right to withdraw his last pass and replace = it with some other call if he claims that the correction of the = misinformation gave him reason to do so. East retracts his last pass and bids 5D which is doubled by South after which follows three passes. Do you now see the point? The relevant laws are: =A717E, =A721B, =A741, =A747E2, =A775D2=20 Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat May 31 08:33:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:33:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable References: <012a01c325fc$714d8d40$7c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002501c32623$32ebc950$a710e150@endicott> <006701c32692$0bbb2280$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.2.0.9.0.20030530171125.00ab9650@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004701c3274c$b36a9410$3482403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable > At 11:27 AM 5/30/03, gester wrote: > > > It often seems that opinion we read on blml is not > >majority opinion if compared with what we discover > >of the views of NBOs. > > It often seems to me that what we read on BLML is > the majority opinion of an NCBO's players, but differs > from the official opinion of the NCBO. That is certainly > true of the largest of the WBF's NCBOs, > +=+ Is that China? +=+ > > The WBF has chosen to define its constituency as > consisting of NCBOs, which it certainly may do, > +=+ It was the people who came together to set up the WBF who first made its Constitution. They were representative of NBOs. The WBF did not create itself. The members to whom the WBF is accountable are the NBOs. Activists tend to think of themselves as the majority opinion. Majority opinion is generally silent, supine, little concerned to change anything, and only expressed in the docility with which it inclines to reconfirm last year's elected in next year's elections. But determined activists joining together have occasionally changed an outcome in some places. As for the voting systems within the bridge hierarchy, and the several difficulties we experience with them, I understand that Bush and Blair are not currently available to send in the troops - but considering the deficiencies of the systems that have put them in place (which is not a comment on their accidental merits as individuals) maybe ..... Oh well, I have Canadian great nieces to show a little of northern England over the next few days, so I'll find out if anything has changed at the end of next week. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat May 31 08:43:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:43:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030530172033.00aa0170@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004801c3274c$b45457d0$3482403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:21 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom > >We should be going in the opposite direction, > > working towards the happy day when we can > > make rulings on disputed claims *without* having > > to first decide how good, or how rational, the > > player who made the disputed claim is. > > +=+ a 'different form of words' could incorporate a different concept, but somehow, when I think how many would need to be convinced, I am not sanguine of it. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 31 11:40:26 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 11:40:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Put-down. References: <200305291502.LAA26513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002d01c32761$45363fc0$ced9193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Field? > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > I think > > comment should avoid any 'put down' of the unlucky > > pair. > >. ('Putdown' is one word on this side of the > Atlantic; perhaps that tells us something.) > +=+ "The parts of your play, Mr. Reynolds, that I find most absorbing are the intervals." +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 31 15:27:24 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:27:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <003301c32675$dae3d7e0$44294451@Default> Message-ID: On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 07:36 AM, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > In my language you never psyched > (requires some intent) so how can you possible field one. Or has the > EBU > also regulations about fielding misbids, Orange Book 6.2.7 Whilst a misbid, like a psyche, is a mis-statement of some feature of the hand, it differs in that it is inadvertent whereas a psyche is deliberate. A partnership's actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead. As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From bbickford@charter.net Sat May 31 18:21:08 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 13:21:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June References: <200305301928.PAA23677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <08c701c32799$06849e60$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> I received my copy of the Bulletin today and I have only one comment: UNBELIEVABLE Cheers................................./Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: [blml] Ruling the Game 2003 June > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > dummy! > > If you use L12C1 or L12C2, be sure to say which side(s) is(are) > offending. L12C3 is not available in the ACBL. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk@amsterdamned.org Sat May 31 23:00:02 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 00:00:02 +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 larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 31 16:06:02 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 16:06:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? References: <200305301537.LAA06523@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c327cd$d29895e0$a2d84c51@pc> Nah ! No worries. It's just in case one of his weird movements falls apart. lnb > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > I do carry a hammer *and* nails > > You Brits had better behave yourselves when John is directing!!!