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 your time
Best regards
------_=_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 your time
Best regards
------_=_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
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 -----
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 your time
Best regards
------=_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 -----
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 your time
Best regards
------=_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"