From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 04:44:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:44:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June Message-ID: Sven wrote: [big snip] >As the auction period still has not >ended the applicable law for this >infraction is law 24C. [big snip] Yesterday, I conducted a relay auction. My opponents followed the Grattanista principle of not asking questions during the auction, as neither had any intention of interfering. Eventually, I decided to declare 7NT. After three passes, my LHO (on lead) again followed the Grattanista principle by only now asking what pard's bids had showed. I replied that dummy guaranteed holding these cards: Kx KQxxx xx Qxxx LHO started thinking about her opening lead. To save time, I claimed, revealing my hand as: AQJ6 AJ76 AKQ9 A Given that the auction period still has not ended, did I legally claim, or did I illegally infract Law 24C? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 05:18:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:18:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom Message-ID: Richard wrote: >>Most players, myself included, have >>particular illogical bridge blind spots. >>For example, I illogically - Don't - >>balance in the passout seat. Grattan replied: >+=+ However, 'blind spots' are exclusions >since they are idiosyncratic. LA's are class >acts, the quirks of individuals have no place >among them.+=+ Richard continued: What if a mere idiosyncatic blind spot has progressed to a glaucomical special partnership understanding? (Laws 40B and 75A) If pard gives me UI that pard is unexpectedly weak, am I obliged by Law 16 to balance (which would be an LA for other experts of my class)? Or is our class of expert limited to a class of two, by our special partnership understanding that we never balance? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 06:04:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:04:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mugged: a BL fable Message-ID: Eric wrote: [snip] >>It often seems to me that what we read on BLML is >>the majority opinion of an NCBO's players, but differs >>from the official opinion of the NCBO. That is certainly >>true of the largest of the WBF's NCBOs, Grattan replied: [snip] > Activists tend to think of themselves as the >majority opinion. Majority opinion is generally >silent, supine, little concerned to change >anything, and only expressed in the docility with >which it inclines to reconfirm last year's elected in >next year's elections. But determined activists >joining together have occasionally changed an >outcome in some places. [snip] Richard concurred: Activism on blml has been directly responsible for some of the clarifying interpretations of the Laws issued by the WBF LC. And at least one of the indicative deals attached to the WBF Code of Practice started its life as a posting by a blml activist. Sustained criticism of Law 25B by blml activists would be at least partly responsible for the forthcoming abolition of Law 25B in the 2005 edition of the Laws. While Aussie blml lurkers and activists contain a high proportion of leading Aussie TDs and administrators, so at least the ABF decisions on Law and regulation are reasonably informed by any relevant blml discussions. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 2 07:50:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:50:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c328d3$4d1d6b50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > [big snip] >=20 > >As the auction period still has not > >ended the applicable law for this > >infraction is law 24C. >=20 > [big snip] >=20 > Yesterday, I conducted a relay auction. > My opponents followed the Grattanista > principle of not asking questions during > the auction, as neither had any intention > of interfering. Eventually, I decided to > declare 7NT. After three passes, my LHO > (on lead) again followed the Grattanista > principle by only now asking what pard's > bids had showed. I replied that dummy > guaranteed holding these cards: >=20 > Kx > KQxxx > xx > Qxxx >=20 > LHO started thinking about her opening > lead. To save time, I claimed, revealing > my hand as: >=20 > AQJ6 > AJ76 > AKQ9 > A >=20 > Given that the auction period still has > not ended, did I legally claim, or did I > illegally infract Law 24C? You infracted Law24C, but in this case with no possible "undesirable" consequences: As there is no legal bid available on top of 7NT there is no way your opponents can become the declaring side, even in the case that misinformation should allow the auction to be rolled back (for the last = of your opponents to pass).=20 But if the contract had been say a minor grand slam and some = irregularity in your explanations had been revealed before the opening lead; then you = could suddenly face an opponent claiming that "had I had the correct = information I would now have sacrificed in 7H" and been allowed by the Director to do = so. Now you would have the choice between bidding 7S or 7NT and defending against 7H (possibly doubled) with your thirteen penalty cards. Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 2 10:59:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:59:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: <3EDB1FEF.7090405@skynet.be> May seem like a strange question, but consider this: Pairs A and B play board 1 against oneanother, erroneously. Their result must stand (L15A). The director can order them to play the correct board (say number 4), even as a late play (L15A2). Pair A should have played board 1 against pair C; B against D. Now C and D can no longer play the board as scheduled. The normal solution is for them to receive Av+. But another solution is for them to play the board against each other. Suppose one of them refuses to do so - which current Law could the TD use to force them? L5B is IMHO enough - but if it is not, should we not ask for this to be included in the 2007 laws ? Or is that too late, Grattan? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 2 11:27:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:27:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: <3EDB1FEF.7090405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c328f1$9fbdeec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael =20 > May seem like a strange question, but consider this: >=20 > Pairs A and B play board 1 against oneanother, erroneously. >=20 > Their result must stand (L15A). >=20 > The director can order them to play the correct board (say number 4), > even as a late play (L15A2). >=20 > Pair A should have played board 1 against pair C; B against D. >=20 > Now C and D can no longer play the board as scheduled. > The normal solution is for them to receive Av+. >=20 > But another solution is for them to play the board against each other. >=20 > Suppose one of them refuses to do so - which current Law could the TD > use to force them? >=20 > L5B is IMHO enough - but if it is not, should we not ask for this to > be included in the 2007 laws ? At what time would you "force" C and D to play that board please? They = will certainly not normally have the necessary time available simultaneously. Shall they not be entitled to their scheduled resting periods? I don't know the regulations outside Norway very well, but I would be = most surprised if the Director anywhere in the world has the power to "order" = two pairs to play any board at a time when no play is scheduled (except as specifically authorized in Law 15A2), particularly if neither of those = two pairs can be blamed for whatever irregularity may have occurred. You should also be aware that C and D have already played each other or = will play each other later which means that they will end up having met on an excessive number of boards as compared to the other pairs in the field. In Norway your proposal would hardly ever be feasible; when there is any question of late plays it is usually an offer to save against A- both = ways if they can find the time to play the board in question. Our schedules hardly ever provide any spare time for late play. Sven=20 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 2 14:50:25 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:50:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? References: <000101c328f1$9fbdeec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EDB5621.8090709@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > At what time would you "force" C and D to play that board please? They will > certainly not normally have the necessary time available simultaneously. > Shall they not be entitled to their scheduled resting periods? > You are not answering my question, Sven. I can imagine a number of tournaments during which the pairs would be willing to spend the time on the extra board. After all, they did get an extra free period during the round in which they did not have to play the other board. > I don't know the regulations outside Norway very well, but I would be most > surprised if the Director anywhere in the world has the power to "order" two > pairs to play any board at a time when no play is scheduled (except as > specifically authorized in Law 15A2), particularly if neither of those two > pairs can be blamed for whatever irregularity may have occurred. > I don't believe any regulation could order the extra play if it were not provided for in the laws. L5B seems to be the law that provides for it, but do we need a regulation if L5B already provides for it - or would a regulation be legal if L5B does not provide for it? OK, maybe a special regulation is needed - then my question is, would that regulation be legal? > You should also be aware that C and D have already played each other or will > play each other later which means that they will end up having met on an > excessive number of boards as compared to the other pairs in the field. > But so have A and B, and we still order them to play an extra board against each other. C or D will be at a disadvantage (or both will think they are), but that does not IMO matter if the TD wants to have as many results as possible. Awarding Av+ to both is not an ideal situation in my book. > In Norway your proposal would hardly ever be feasible; when there is any > question of late plays it is usually an offer to save against A- both ways > if they can find the time to play the board in question. Our schedules > hardly ever provide any spare time for late play. > That's a different question - if it is not feasible, then the TD would be wrong to order the play. But if it is feasible, and the TD wants to order it, would either pair have the right to refuse to play? > Sven > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jun 2 15:36:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: <200306021436.KAA21127@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > But another solution is for them to play the board against each other. > > Suppose one of them refuses to do so - which current Law could the TD > use to force them? > > L5B is IMHO enough L5B won't do it, but L8A1 will. 5B tells the contestants they must follow the TD's instructions. As Sven points out, the TD should use good sense in deciding what to do. There may be more considerations than just getting boards played. On the other hand, especially in club games, players mostly come to play bridge, not to be given avg+. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 2 16:12:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:12:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June Message-ID: <00a601c32919$733ffb40$9e9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel sent to Richard in error - meant for list] A few years back, a similar story circulated about an (irrelevant) incident: The Sharples brothers (best bidders in the world) bid a grand slam in hearts. Declarer put his hand back in the board. Dummy then returned his hand to its slot and reached for the next board. "Wait a second" demurred Collins. Trusting his disconcerted opponents, he ventured 7S on a Yarborough with four small spades. Collin's LH Sharples Twin recovered quickly with 7NT which was laydown too. Dummy caused kibitzers some amusement because it included AKQJ of spades. [Richard] Yesterday, I conducted a relay auction. My opponents followed the Grattanista principle of not asking questions during the auction, as neither had any intention of interfering. Eventually, I decided to declare 7NT. After three passes, my LHO (on lead) again followed the Grattanista principle by only now asking what pard's bids had showed. I replied that dummy guaranteed holding these cards: Kx KQxxx xx Qxxx LHO started thinking about her opening lead. To save time, I claimed, revealing my hand as: AQJ6 AJ76 AKQ9 A Given that the auction period still has not ended, did I legally claim, or did I illegally infract Law 24C? From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 2 18:41:32 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:41:32 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Given that the auction period still has > not ended, did I legally claim, or did I > illegally infract Law 24C? Yes. :) L68A says "ANY statement...", so if you really want to throw away any chance to recover a decent result in the event your partner misbid or you misexplained, we can adjudicate it as a claim instead of letting you play it out. L24 applies too - it just happens that in your case it can't have much effect. It certainly could have an effect if the final contract weren't 7NT, as others pointed out. Heres a hypothetical for you: suppose your bidding has gone off the track and you had had only 12 tricks; suppose an opponent doubles 7NT; can I use 24C->23 to adjust the score to 7NTXX-1 instead of 7NTX-1? Lastly, let me point out that exposing cards during the auction is an irregularity with a prescribed penalty you were willing to pay -- no harm done to anyone this time, but a rereading of L72B2 and a promise not to do it again seems in order. I very much doubt anyone will actually slap you with a PP for infracting 72B2 unless something messy happens or you make a habit of doing this after EVERY relay auction to slam. GRB From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 2 19:03:32 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:03:32 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: <3EDB1FEF.7090405@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > Pairs A and B play board 1 against oneanother, erroneously. > Their result must stand (L15A). > > The director can order them to play the correct board (say number 4), > even as a late play (L15A2). > Pair A should have played board 1 against pair C; B against D. > > Now C and D can no longer play the board as scheduled. > The normal solution is for them to receive Av+. > > But another solution is for them to play the board against each other. In fact, the preferable solution. There is no law that specifically addresses what to do with pairs C and D -- Law 15 only says that the first score stands and that neither A nor B may obtain a second score on the same board. Your authority for awarding Avg+ on this board comes from L12A2, "may award an ArtAS if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board." Various irregular movements exist solely to serve as rectification for misplaced bye-stands, incorrect player progressions, and so on. This sounds like an instruction to have C and D play each other unless there is some reason that isn't feasible. The usual reason it isn't feasible is that in a game with only one set of boards in play, two lateplays on the same board takes a long time. (Here you have a choice of giving A+/A+ to the non-offenders, or letting the non-offenders play the board and giving A-/A- to the offenders. Everyone always does the first... but philosophically I like the second better.) If the mistake happens early enough in the game it sometimes IS possible to fix the problem. I discovered this accidentally last December. Here's a story for you: In a 4-table Howell, pairs 4 and 7 sat down (correctly) at table 2 for round 2, and (incorrectly) started to play board 13 which was on the table instead of fetching boards 17-20 from the assembly table. In fact, pair 4 is scheduled to play board 13 against pair 8 in round 4, and pair 7 is scheduled to play board 13 against pair 5 in round 6. Solution? IN round 2, the score for board 13, 4v7, stands. In round 4, Pairs 8 and 4 play boards 17, 14, 15, and 16. In round 5, Pairs 8 and 5 play boards 13, 18, 19, and 20. In round 6, Pairs 7 and 5 play boards 17, 14, 15, and 16. The only extra complication is that board 13 is being shared by tables 1 and 4 in round 5, and board 17 by tables 3 and 4 in round 6. I'm afraid I don't have a simple rule to know which incorrect plays are fixable and which aren't - I've had to study the movement for a while after the irregularity is discovered each time it happens. ----- As to whether you can order them to play -- it seems no different than any instruction from the director about the movement (and if they refuse to play when so ordered, it won't be Average-plus I am giving them anymore... if they've been offered a chance to play the board, L88 doesn't apply.) GRB From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 2 22:32:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:32:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3294e$75b8f770$6900a8c0@WINXP> > As to whether you can order them to play -- it seems no different than = any > instruction from the director about the movement (and if they refuse = to > play when so ordered, it won't be Average-plus I am giving them = anymore... > if they've been offered a chance to play the board, L88 doesn't = apply.) OK everybody, please listen. We have had some technical problems and = besides we have admitted a few more pairs to this competition so in order to = have everybody meet each other as we must for this kind of tournament I have changed the schedules a bit. Instead of rounding off the tournament at 11PM as was our initial = intention we will continue playing without any break until 5AM tomorrow morning, = then we shall just catch up with all the delays. What d'ya say? You will not play all through the night? Sorry Mac, those = are my instructions which you are supposed to follow, and I shall not accept = any objections. You just go ahead and play as I have instructed you all! What Law says so? You just look up Law 5B and Law 8A1 and do as I say. = Now quit arguing, we cannot continue like this all the night. Get going and = play cards! End of quibble. Now, is this really what some of you are saying? My firm opinion is that the Director does NOT have the power to request = any action that is in conflict with the advertised conditions, including the schedule for the tournament. And back to the original question: The two pairs C and D will each have = some free time because of the board that has been played out of turn, but = they will not have this free time simultaneously except in very special cases (scheduled sit out for one of the pairs in the same round that the other pair should have played the board in question). If you do not agree to my little fiction above then I do not understand = how you can say that the Director has the powers to order two pairs not in = fault of any irregularity to spend their scheduled time for resting for = instance between sessions for a late play.=20 That the Director can invite such play is a completely different matter, = but anyway my experience with the movements we are using in Norway - mainly barometer, Howell and Mitchell - is that this is hardly ever feasible. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jun 2 22:39:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Re: Ruling the Game 2003 June Message-ID: <200306022139.RAA11546@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Thanks for all the replies. > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > Mike does. (No peeking!) See below for my comments and for Mike Flader's answer in the Bulletin. > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > dummy! It seems to me that the TD has a variety of options. This is basically in accord with what Adam said. Let's call declarer "South." 1. If South has done nothing wrong, play the deal out with West having 13 penalty cards. Someone mentioned that West should be able to choose his opening lead, but I don't immediately see anything that allows that. I think South gets to pick the opening lead but has to do so before seeing dummy. Correct? 2. No one mentioned this, but it seems to me a possible ruling might be for the TD to "designate otherwise" under L50. Let West pick up his cards, and play on, possibly assigning an adjusted score afterwards. This might be a practical ruling in a typical club game, where nobody will remember West's cards once they have been picked up. 3. If the TD believes South caused the problem, he can use L72B1 or L12A1 to assign an adjusted score. Everyone knows what the final contract will be, so it only remains to decide how many tricks are won. Certainly South would be an offender under such a ruling, but it seems to me that a split score with West also an offender might be appropriate. If L12C3 were enabled, this might be a good time to use it. Here's Mike Flader's answer. I was going to comment on it, but I think it speaks for itself. (Everyone please be sitting down, and take a deep, calming breath before reading further.) I don't know if there is a rule to cover this. I cancel the board and give both sides an average. It seems impossible to me that we can get a valid result on the board, and declarer should not profit from his admittedly inadvertent infraction. Both sides seem at least partially at fault for the problem. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jun 2 22:47:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: <200306022147.RAA11561@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > My firm opinion is that the Director does NOT have the power to request any > action that is in conflict with the advertised conditions, including the > schedule for the tournament. If "advertised conditions" means the Conditions of Contest, I doubt anyone would disagree. However, it is not common to the schedule of boards played by each pair included in the CoC. (Possibly "barometer" would be an exception.) If the TD can rescue a spoiled movement by ordering an extra skip or substituting some boards or telling some pairs to move to a different table on the next round, would anyone suggest he shouldn't do so? I think we all agree it would be unwise to extend the movement beyond the announced finish time or otherwise inconvenience the players. That's not the question. From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 2 22:50:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:50:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c32951$04dc92c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > > Given that the auction period still has > > not ended, did I legally claim, or did I > > illegally infract Law 24C? >=20 > Yes. :) >=20 > L68A says "ANY statement...", so if you really want to throw away any > chance to recover a decent result in the event your partner misbid or = you > misexplained, we can adjudicate it as a claim instead of letting you = play > it out. Which of the questions do you answer with your "yes"? Law 68 cannot be constructed to be applicable until after the play = period has begun. In addition to being part of chapter VI "The Play" it = includes a reference to the "trick currently in progress" which excludes the = auction period. >=20 > L24 applies too - it just happens that in your case it can't have much > effect. It certainly could have an effect if the final contract = weren't > 7NT, as others pointed out. Heres a hypothetical for you: suppose your > bidding has gone off the track and you had had only 12 tricks; suppose = an > opponent doubles 7NT; can I use 24C->23 to adjust the score to 7NTXX-1 > instead of 7NTX-1? What are you talking about? How does L23: Damaging enforced pass enter = the case? If a defender doubled 7NT before declarer exposed his cards then there = is no question of rolling back the auction thus no enforced pass. And if a defender was permitted to replace his last pass with a double; = that will not have been because the bidding had gone off the tracks but = because some misinformation that had impact on this defender's last pass was revealed. I cannot imagine any Director ruling that the enforced pass = from dummy (to become) damaged opponents in that he should otherwise have redoubled. That would in most cases be too far-fetched. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 2 20:38:57 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:38:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 5/30/03 at 3:48 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In bridge, logical alternatives refer to > what a particular class of irrational > player would illogically consider to be > logical. Then bridge is an irrational game. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 2 23:09:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:09:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: <200306022139.RAA11546@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c32953$a8024010$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner=20 > Thanks for all the replies. >=20 > > This comes from Mike Flader's column in the ACBL Bulletin. I'll > > be interested to see whether anyone recommends the same ruling > > Mike does. (No peeking!) >=20 > See below for my comments and for Mike Flader's answer in the > Bulletin. >=20 > > At a recent game, the auction concluded and the player who was > > supposed to be declarer made the opening lead. To compound the > > problem, the defender to the left of declarer, seeing the opening > > lead on the table, put his hand on the table thinking he was the > > dummy! >=20 > It seems to me that the TD has a variety of options. This is = basically > in accord with what Adam said. Let's call declarer "South." >=20 > 1. If South has done nothing wrong, play the deal out with West having > 13 penalty cards. Someone mentioned that West should be able to = choose > his opening lead, but I don't immediately see anything that allows > that. I think South gets to pick the opening lead but has to do so > before seeing dummy. Correct? Correct! >=20 > 2. No one mentioned this, but it seems to me a possible ruling might = be > for the TD to "designate otherwise" under L50. Let West pick up his > cards, and play on, possibly assigning an adjusted score afterwards. > This might be a practical ruling in a typical club game, where nobody > will remember West's cards once they have been picked up. >From the commentaries to the 1987 laws (still applicable): 50.4 A defender's exposed card is a penalty card unless the Director = says otherwise. So nothing removes the status of the exposed card as a = penalty card in the absence of a Director's ruling. ....... 50.5 Where the players have agreed amongst themselves that a card is a penalty card, the Director called subsequently to the table should = usually rule it to be so and proceed on that basis. He will "designate = otherwise" if he feels that rights have been jeopardized by a failure to call him = earlier; ....... Summary: There is no foundation for the Director to "designate = otherwise" in this case! >=20 > 3. If the TD believes South caused the problem, he can use L72B1 or > L12A1 to assign an adjusted score. Everyone knows what the final > contract will be, so it only remains to decide how many tricks are > won. Certainly South would be an offender under such a ruling, but it > seems to me that a split score with West also an offender might be > appropriate. If L12C3 were enabled, this might be a good time to use > it. >=20 > Here's Mike Flader's answer. I was going to comment on it, but I > think it speaks for itself. (Everyone please be sitting down, and > take a deep, calming breath before reading further.) >=20 >=20 > I don't know if there is a rule to cover this. I cancel the board > and give both sides an average. It seems impossible to me that we > can get a valid result on the board, and declarer should not profit > from his admittedly inadvertent infraction. Both sides seem at > least partially at fault for the problem. The only acceptable part of this answer is his initial admission: "I = don't know if there is a rule to cover this." The board is not unplayable; in fact there are concise laws in the book = that in detail specify how the board is to be played. Declarer does not profit from his own "admittedly inadvertent = infraction", he does in case profit from his opponent's (separate) infraction. I have some understanding for the argument that South caused West to = foul, and then Law 72B1 could be used, but that requires some possibility of a deliberate intent by South when he made his opening lead ("could have known"), and in my opinion the connection from the opening lead by = presumed declarer to his LHO exposing all his thirteen cards is too remote for = Law 72B1 to be used. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 2 23:30:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:30:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: <200306022147.RAA11561@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000501c32956$a0d75a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > My firm opinion is that the Director does NOT have the power to = request > any > > action that is in conflict with the advertised conditions, including = the > > schedule for the tournament. >=20 > If "advertised conditions" means the Conditions of Contest, I doubt > anyone would disagree. However, it is not common to the schedule of > boards played by each pair included in the CoC. (Possibly "barometer" > would be an exception.)=20 Common to barometer, Howell and Mitchell schedules are that they all = include the complete information on which pairs meet at which tables to play = which boards in which rounds. It is not at all difficult in advance to find = out exactly when you will meet a particular contestant or play a particular board. And if there are sit-outs you can easily determine exactly in = which round you will have yours and what boards you will not play. The moment the CoC includes the information that for instance Mitchell movements will be used then the actual schedules become part of the CoC. If the TD can rescue a spoiled movement by > ordering an extra skip or substituting some boards or telling some > pairs to move to a different table on the next round, would anyone > suggest he shouldn't do so? In an "ordinary" club evening event I would be most surprised if anybody objected to a reasonable rescue effort. But in a serious championship I would expect the SO to want a word on what changes the Director were at liberty to make. For instance in the regionals for pairs in Norway there is an absolute requirement that all pairs shall meet and with an equal number of boards played against each opponent. (These regionals are qualifying for the national). In these events a cancelled board is a cancelled board, but for instance trying to save a board by letting pairs C and D play each other instead = of the individual opponents each of them were scheduled for would not be accepted.=20 >=20 > I think we all agree it would be unwise to extend the movement beyond > the announced finish time or otherwise inconvenience the players. > That's not the question. That is exactly the question; when "ordering" pairs to make a late play = you have to find some time for them to do so. And this time can hardly ever = be found within the normal scheduled sessions. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 23:32:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:32:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >Law 68 cannot be construed to be applicable until >after the play period has begun. In addition to >being part of chapter VI "The Play" Richard replied: Sven's first point is irrelevant, since The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws states that "headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws". Sven continued: >it includes a reference to the "trick currently in >progress" which excludes the auction period. [snip] Richard rereplied: In my opinion, Sven's second point is stronger but possibly arguable. The Chapter One definition of "Trick" is: "The unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, regularly consisting of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead." Therefore, in my opinion, contemplation of what to play to a trick (including the lead to a trick or the opening lead to the first trick) might be argued as being part of a "trick currently in progress". Sven's second point is undoubtedly the *sensible* way to interpret the Laws - this is yet another example of the ambiguity of the 1997 Laws which will hopefully be rectified by pellucid clarity in the 2005 Laws. ;-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 3 00:04:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:04:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >But in a serious championship I would expect >the SO to want a word on what changes the >Director were at liberty to make. [snip] Yes and no. Law 81B2 binds the Director to obey supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation. Law 80B allows the SO to make advance arrangements for the serious championship. Therefore, in circumstances *foreseen* by the SO's regs, the TD does not have any discretion. But in circumstances *unforeseen* by the SO's regulations, Law 81C3 permits the TD to modify the movement as the TD sees fit. In such a case, the TD is not obliged to "want a word" with the SO before modifying the movement. Indeed, in a crisis situation - which movement modification often is - it would not always be practical for the SO to wordify the TD. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 3 00:18:33 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:18:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: <000501c32956$a0d75a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 6/3/03 at 12:30 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > It is not at all difficult in advance to find out exactly when you > will meet a particular contestant or play a particular board. And if > there are sit-outs you can easily determine exactly in which round > you will have yours and what boards you will not play. Heh. In theory, yes. In practice, well, not at most club games around here. Quite often the TD is running around trying to make sure she knows how many tables she has, and that they all have the right boards for round one, while some tables are already into the bidding on their first board. And I've found that if I want to be sure what the movement is (other than that it's a Mitchell of some kind) I have to ask. > The moment the CoC includes the information that for instance Mitchell > movements will be used then the actual schedules become part of the CoC. Works for 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 3 00:13:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:13:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Son of Ruling the Game 2003 June In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 6/3/03 at 8:32 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Therefore, in my opinion, contemplation of what to > play to a trick (including the lead to a trick or > the opening lead to the first trick) might be > argued as being part of a "trick currently in > progress". IMO, a trick is "in progress" when (a) a card has been legally led to it by the proper leader and (b) it has not yet been quitted. I note this does allow for two (or more?) tricks to be "in progress" simultaneously, but that's a different problem. 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 john@asimere.com Tue Jun 3 02:56:29 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:56:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cornelius Coldbottom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Richard wrote: > >>>Most players, myself included, have >>>particular illogical bridge blind spots. >>>For example, I illogically - Don't - >>>balance in the passout seat. > >Grattan replied: > >>+=+ However, 'blind spots' are exclusions >>since they are idiosyncratic. LA's are class >>acts, the quirks of individuals have no place >>among them.+=+ > >Richard continued: > >What if a mere idiosyncatic blind spot has >progressed to a glaucomical special partnership >understanding? (Laws 40B and 75A) > >If pard gives me UI that pard is unexpectedly >weak, am I obliged by Law 16 to balance (which >would be an LA for other experts of my class)? > >Or is our class of expert limited to a class of >two, by our special partnership understanding >that we never balance? I have "manic balancing, sound overcalls" on my CC. You presumably should have "crap overcalls, won't balance" on yours :) > >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 kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 03:25:15 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:25:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] No agreement Message-ID: Dear blml'ers, I would like to present a situation for your review and opinions. Your comments very much appreciated. The hands are not shown because IMHO that information appears irrelevant. If the hands are needed, can provide. Also any other information, if I have it. This took place in an international on-line bridge club's tournament, where opponents may privately ask questions from the bidder, the bidder's partner, or from both opponents regarding their system and agreements. The spirit of full disclosure is in effect. IMPs Dlr: South Vul: E-W S W N E 2D P P 3H P 3NT P* All pass South's 2D opening was a weak two in diamonds. EW play standard (standard in ACBL) defensive methods, i.e. - Overcall non-forcing but forward going - DBL is takeout - 2NT 15-17(18) with diam stopped - 4D asks partner to pick a major - No other agreements. EW are high Flight B/low Flight A level. NS are approximately the same level. *At his second turn to call, North asked East "What does your 3H mean?". East responded "We have no agreement and this is the first time it occurred. Never discussed. My partner knows as much as you do" North called the Director. Director required that East answer the question and said that "no agreement" is not an acceptable response; one must explain as 'full disclosure' applies. East's second answer was "Considering vulnerability, this jump should be a pretty good hand, would be foolish otherwise in these colors" Both Director and North requested a detailed response. Upon demand, though clearly reluctantly, East's third answer was "Good long hearts and at least intermediate or better hand" Board was played. The questions I have: 1) Is Director's ruling correct? 2) Which Laws apply? 3) Any other comments? Best regards, and thank you all in advance for your time. Kaima aka D R Davis From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 3 03:55:15 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:55:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] No agreement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:25:15 PDT." Message-ID: <200306030255.TAA27030@mailhub.irvine.com> Kaima wrote: > Dear blml'ers, > > I would like to present a situation for your review and opinions. Your > comments very much appreciated. > > The hands are not shown because IMHO that information appears irrelevant. > If the hands are needed, can provide. Also any other information, if I have > it. This took place in an international on-line bridge club's tournament, > where opponents may privately ask questions from the bidder, the bidder's > partner, or from both opponents regarding their system and agreements. The > spirit of full disclosure is in effect. > > IMPs > Dlr: South > Vul: E-W > > S W N E > 2D P P 3H > P 3NT P* All pass > > South's 2D opening was a weak two in diamonds. EW play standard (standard > in ACBL) defensive methods, i.e. - Overcall non-forcing but forward going - > DBL is takeout - 2NT 15-17(18) with diam stopped - 4D asks partner to pick a > major - No other agreements. EW are high Flight B/low Flight A level. NS > are approximately the same level. > > *At his second turn to call, North asked East "What does your 3H mean?". > East responded "We have no agreement and this is the first time it occurred. > Never discussed. My partner knows as much as you do" > North called the Director. > Director required that East answer the question and said that "no agreement" > is not an acceptable response; one must explain as 'full disclosure' > applies. > East's second answer was "Considering vulnerability, this jump should be a > pretty good hand, would be foolish otherwise in these colors" > Both Director and North requested a detailed response. > Upon demand, though clearly reluctantly, East's third answer was "Good long > hearts and at least intermediate or better hand" > Board was played. > > The questions I have: > 1) Is Director's ruling correct? I don't think so. > 2) Which Laws apply? L40B says, "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding . . . unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization". Although L75C technically does not apply (since it says it applies only when explaining the signficance of *partner's* call or play, and not when explaining one's own), I believe it still applies in that it defines what needs or doesn't need to be disclosed. In particular, the clause that one "need not disclose inferences drawn from [one's] general knowledge and experience" apply. Since self-alerting is involved here, I think the sponsoring organization's regulations are important. However, a SO regulation that says that you need to go beyond the requirements of L75C conflicts with that Law, IMHO, and thus would not be allowed under L80F. However, I strongly suspect there was no such offending SO regulation. I suspect the Director was simply mistaken in his notion that "no agreement" is not a legal response. It's not an unheard-of mistake. Many players, and some Directors, believe players are required to explain how they "take" a bid. I've had this kind of thing happen many times: They: "How do you take your partner's bid?" Me: "We have no agreement about this sequence, and it's never come up before." They: "But how do you interpret it?" Sigh. These same players, in a self-alerting situation, no doubt think the "full disclosure" laws mean you have to explain what you meant by your bid, even to the point where you practically have to describe your own hand. OK, time to get off my soapbox. By the way, I'll agree that lack of full disclosure is a much bigger problem in bridge than players/Directors expecting more information than the Laws entitle them to. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 3 07:42:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:42:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3299b$3dd16a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert=20 > On 6/3/03 at 12:30 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: >=20 > > It is not at all difficult in advance to find out exactly when you > > will meet a particular contestant or play a particular board. And if > > there are sit-outs you can easily determine exactly in which round > > you will have yours and what boards you will not play. >=20 > Heh. In theory, yes. In practice, well, not at most club games around > here. In practice: For a Howell schedule you look at the guide cards present = on each table (if you are not so lucky as to have the master guide card available). For barometer and Mitchell the progression of boards and = players is "linear" so it is a simple matter of calculating a sum. > Quite often the TD is running around trying to make sure she knows how > many > tables she has, and that they all have the right boards for round one, > while > some tables are already into the bidding on their first board. And = I've > found > that if I want to be sure what the movement is (other than that it's a > Mitchell > of some kind) I have to ask. Typical picture of a director not in control. Apparently we live in two different worlds. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jun 3 08:29:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:29:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? References: <000201c3294e$75b8f770$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EDC4E3F.2030607@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > OK everybody, please listen. We have had some technical problems and besides > we have admitted a few more pairs to this competition so in order to have > everybody meet each other as we must for this kind of tournament I have > changed the schedules a bit. > > Instead of rounding off the tournament at 11PM as was our initial intention > we will continue playing without any break until 5AM tomorrow morning, then > we shall just catch up with all the delays. > > What d'ya say? You will not play all through the night? Sorry Mac, those are > my instructions which you are supposed to follow, and I shall not accept any > objections. You just go ahead and play as I have instructed you all! > > What Law says so? You just look up Law 5B and Law 8A1 and do as I say. Now > quit arguing, we cannot continue like this all the night. Get going and play > cards! > > End of quibble. > > Now, is this really what some of you are saying? > Yes it is. The Director has the power to order the tournament closed at 5AM. Of course he will not see any players ever again. But he does have the power. > My firm opinion is that the Director does NOT have the power to request any > action that is in conflict with the advertised conditions, including the > schedule for the tournament. > And you conclude that based on which law? You are right that the TD should do his utmost to give the players the tournament they expected. But when I have to direct the Antwerp Ladies' pairs tournament and 12 pairs turn up, I have the right to order them to play 33 boards and end at 12:30, even if they expected only 28 and a 11:30 finish. > And back to the original question: The two pairs C and D will each have some > free time because of the board that has been played out of turn, but they > will not have this free time simultaneously except in very special cases > (scheduled sit out for one of the pairs in the same round that the other > pair should have played the board in question). > > If you do not agree to my little fiction above then I do not understand how > you can say that the Director has the powers to order two pairs not in fault > of any irregularity to spend their scheduled time for resting for instance > between sessions for a late play. > You are the one talking about "between sessions". I am envisaging a tournament that ends at 11:30 and where one table has to play on until 11:40, at which time the results for all boards except one are input into the computer. You are right, Sven, in insisting that there are numerous tournaments where the TD would be wrong to order such an extra play. But accept from me that there are also tournaments where the TD would not be wrong in doing so. Yet even in those tournaments the players could be objecting, not because they have a late play, but simply because they prefer to score Av+ against a particular opponent. My question is simply if the TD has the right to order them to play. You have not answered that question. > That the Director can invite such play is a completely different matter, but > anyway my experience with the movements we are using in Norway - mainly > barometer, Howell and Mitchell - is that this is hardly ever feasible. > And my experience is that it is eminently feasible in Belgium. So? > 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 Tue Jun 3 08:59:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:59:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] No agreement References: Message-ID: <3EDC5554.5060002@skynet.be> Hello Kaima, kaima wrote: > > *At his second turn to call, North asked East "What does your 3H mean?". > East responded "We have no agreement and this is the first time it occurred. > Never discussed. My partner knows as much as you do" Seems like a valid response to me. > North called the Director. as he is entitled to do. > Director required that East answer the question It is my personal opinion that a player ought not have the right to ask both opponents - because he would be able to find out differences of opinion, something to which he is not entitled. However, I can see that it is acceptable to ask both in order to establish what the true understanding is. I would expect East to give the same reply as West, and that should be it. and said that "no agreement" > is not an acceptable response; one must explain as 'full disclosure' > applies. Throw out this TD. > East's second answer was "Considering vulnerability, this jump should be a > pretty good hand, would be foolish otherwise in these colors" East is merely elaborating. His first reply was "standard", his second is explaining what the standard is. I would consider that part of his duties against opponents who may not be familiar with the standard (fi against non-ACBL players). So far, so good. > Both Director and North requested a detailed response. I can understand that North would like a peek in Easts cards. I cannot understand the Director to continue to harass. His duty is to ask for the explanation and to return after the board to decide whether or not the explanation was accurate and complete. > Upon demand, though clearly reluctantly, East's third answer was "Good long > hearts and at least intermediate or better hand" > Board was played. > > The questions I have: > 1) Is Director's ruling correct? No. > 2) Which Laws apply? > 3) Any other comments? > > Best regards, and thank you all in advance for your time. > Kaima > aka D R Davis > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 3 09:15:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:15:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: <3EDC4E3F.2030607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c329a8$55cbf3e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > OK everybody, please listen. We have had some technical problems and > besides > > we have admitted a few more pairs to this competition so in order to > have > > everybody meet each other as we must for this kind of tournament I = have > > changed the schedules a bit. > > > > Instead of rounding off the tournament at 11PM as was our initial > intention > > we will continue playing without any break until 5AM tomorrow = morning, > then > > we shall just catch up with all the delays. > > > > What d'ya say? You will not play all through the night? Sorry Mac, = those > are > > my instructions which you are supposed to follow, and I shall not = accept > any > > objections. You just go ahead and play as I have instructed you all! > > > > What Law says so? You just look up Law 5B and Law 8A1 and do as I = say. > Now > > quit arguing, we cannot continue like this all the night. Get going = and > play > > cards! > > > > End of quibble. > > > > Now, is this really what some of you are saying? > > >=20 >=20 > Yes it is. Noted. > The Director has the power to order the tournament closed at 5AM. > Of course he will not see any players ever again. Glad you realize that. > But he does have the power. I do not agree. A lawyer might find technical foundation for your view = in his interpretation of the laws. I don't care and I don't find it = relevant. I want to fulfill my primary duty as a Director: To see to it that every contestant at the end of an event leaves with the feeling of having had = a pleasant time and a desire to come back for another. >=20 >=20 > > My firm opinion is that the Director does NOT have the power to = request > any > > action that is in conflict with the advertised conditions, including = the > > schedule for the tournament. > > >=20 >=20 > And you conclude that based on which law? Law 81B2 > You are right that the TD should do his utmost to give the players the > tournament they expected. But when I have to direct the Antwerp > Ladies' pairs tournament and 12 pairs turn up, I have the right to > order them to play 33 boards and end at 12:30, even if they expected > only 28 and a 11:30 finish. Do you get another engagement? >=20 >=20 > > And back to the original question: The two pairs C and D will each = have > some > > free time because of the board that has been played out of turn, but > they > > will not have this free time simultaneously except in very special = cases > > (scheduled sit out for one of the pairs in the same round that the = other > > pair should have played the board in question). > > > > If you do not agree to my little fiction above then I do not = understand > how > > you can say that the Director has the powers to order two pairs not = in > fault > > of any irregularity to spend their scheduled time for resting for > instance > > between sessions for a late play. > > >=20 >=20 > You are the one talking about "between sessions". I am envisaging a > tournament that ends at 11:30 and where one table has to play on until > 11:40, at which time the results for all boards except one are input > into the computer. When all but two pairs have completed all their plays at 1130PM and the = two remaining pairs are in the situation starting this thread: Not scheduled = to play each other but not having played a particular board due to an error = in which they are completely innocent. You request them to sit down for an extra round following the end of the session according to the announced schedules and play that board while = every other pair in the tournament are just waiting for the final results and = to leave for home. These two pairs were never scheduled to play that board between them and = you will have to make up on the fly instructions on which pair will occupy = which seats. You may certainly try that on me and may even succeed, but following a complaint by me to your organization you will never see me again as a participant in any event which you shall direct. > You are right, Sven, in insisting that there are numerous tournaments > where the TD would be wrong to order such an extra play. But accept > from me that there are also tournaments where the TD would not be > wrong in doing so. Yet even in those tournaments the players could be > objecting, not because they have a late play, but simply because they > prefer to score Av+ against a particular opponent. > My question is simply if the TD has the right to order them to play. > You have not answered that question. I thought I had made it clear that the Director is not unlimited in his powers.=20 No I do not think he has the power to dramatically alter the published conditions (including the schedules) for an event after the event has started. A general (and reasonable) delay in the progress of an event is not in = my opinion a dramatic alteration. Requesting an unscheduled extra round is such an alteration which in my opinion requires more specific powers than the general powers granted to = the Director in laws 5, 8, 81 and 82. Law 15A2 gives the Director such = powers applicable only against pairs at fault. =20 >=20 > > That the Director can invite such play is a completely different = matter, > but > > anyway my experience with the movements we are using in Norway - = mainly > > barometer, Howell and Mitchell - is that this is hardly ever = feasible. > > >=20 >=20 > And my experience is that it is eminently feasible in Belgium. So? Different cultures, different experience Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jun 3 09:14:13 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:14:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] No agreement Message-ID: > Hello Kaima, > > kaima wrote: > > > > > *At his second turn to call, North asked East "What does > your 3H mean?". > > East responded "We have no agreement and this is the first > time it occurred. > > Never discussed. My partner knows as much as you do" > > > Seems like a valid response to me. > > > > North called the Director. > > > as he is entitled to do. > > > > Director required that East answer the question > As far as I remember our LC has made a decision describing what to do in such situation. If the answer is: we do not have an agreement, as is the case here, that is it. Such answer is quite clear, don't you think? If the answer is: 'I forgot what we agreed', then this player should be sent away from the table and his partner has to answer the question. So the obligation to inform the opponents about the agreements made wins the battle. ton From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Jun 3 09:46:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:46:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 03:25 AM, kaima wrote: > Dear blml'ers, > > I would like to present a situation for your review and opinions. Your > comments very much appreciated. > > The hands are not shown because IMHO that information appears > irrelevant. > If the hands are needed, can provide. Also any other information, if > I have > it. This took place in an international on-line bridge club's > tournament, > where opponents may privately ask questions from the bidder, the > bidder's > partner, or from both opponents regarding their system and agreements. > The > spirit of full disclosure is in effect. > > IMPs > Dlr: South > Vul: E-W > > S W N E > 2D P P 3H > P 3NT P* All pass > > South's 2D opening was a weak two in diamonds. EW play standard > (standard > in ACBL) defensive methods, i.e. - Overcall non-forcing but forward > going - > DBL is takeout - 2NT 15-17(18) with diam stopped - 4D asks partner to > pick a > major - No other agreements. EW are high Flight B/low Flight A level. > NS > are approximately the same level. > > *At his second turn to call, North asked East "What does your 3H > mean?". > East responded "We have no agreement and this is the first time it > occurred. > Never discussed. My partner knows as much as you do" > North called the Director. > Director required that East answer the question and said that "no > agreement" > is not an acceptable response; one must explain as 'full disclosure' > applies. > East's second answer was "Considering vulnerability, this jump should > be a > pretty good hand, would be foolish otherwise in these colors" > Both Director and North requested a detailed response. > Upon demand, though clearly reluctantly, East's third answer was "Good > long > hearts and at least intermediate or better hand" > Board was played. > > The questions I have: > 1) Is Director's ruling correct? I don't think so. > 2) Which Laws apply? > 3) Any other comments? This is the approach which OKbridge has taken, both in practice and in their guidance in their newsletter. I wrote a letter questioning this when I first saw it come up in the newsletter a couple of years ago, but it wasn't published. I don't know if it was on OKbridge that your situation occurred, but if so it seems to be a matter of policy rather than an individual director's aberration. I've just checked, and this seems not to be covered by the Laws of Online Bridge, which is a fairly remarkable omission since self-alerting is one of the most significant ways in which the practice of online bridge differs from that of F2F. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jun 3 11:04:21 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 12:04:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? References: <000401c329a8$55cbf3e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EDC72A5.8030102@skynet.be> Hello Sven, at last we are addressing the same question: Sven Pran wrote: > >>The Director has the power to order the tournament closed at 5AM. >>Of course he will not see any players ever again. >> > > Glad you realize that. > > >>But he does have the power. >> > > I do not agree. A lawyer might find technical foundation for your view in > his interpretation of the laws. I don't care and I don't find it relevant. I > want to fulfill my primary duty as a Director: To see to it that every > contestant at the end of an event leaves with the feeling of having had a > pleasant time and a desire to come back for another. > Who are you to suggest that the pairs that I order to play are not having a pleasant time. They might want to ask for Av+ rather than playing, because they believe that is their better way of achieving a higher placing, but that does not mean they are unhappy with me insisting that they play instead. Does the player who you rule against for revoking have a pleasant time? And if he doesn't, do you care? Or do you just do your duty as you see fit? > >> >>>My firm opinion is that the Director does NOT have the power to request >>> >>any >> >>>action that is in conflict with the advertised conditions, including the >>>schedule for the tournament. >>> >>> >> >>And you conclude that based on which law? >> > > Law 81B2 > As (I believe it was Steve) someone noted, the TD is usually in charge of the movement, not the SO. If he's not, then of course L81B2 can be used to say that the SO can decide whether or not such late play is acceptable. But usually the TD is in charge. > >>You are right that the TD should do his utmost to give the players the >>tournament they expected. But when I have to direct the Antwerp >>Ladies' pairs tournament and 12 pairs turn up, I have the right to >>order them to play 33 boards and end at 12:30, even if they expected >>only 28 and a 11:30 finish. >> > > Do you get another engagement? > Oh yes! Once I explain to them that the alternative is to play 22 boards, they play till 12:30. They will be in the bar until 01:30 anyway. > > > When all but two pairs have completed all their plays at 1130PM and the two > remaining pairs are in the situation starting this thread: Not scheduled to > play each other but not having played a particular board due to an error in > which they are completely innocent. > > You request them to sit down for an extra round following the end of the > session according to the announced schedules and play that board while every > other pair in the tournament are just waiting for the final results and to > leave for home. > > These two pairs were never scheduled to play that board between them and you > will have to make up on the fly instructions on which pair will occupy which > seats. > > You may certainly try that on me and may even succeed, but following a > complaint by me to your organization you will never see me again as a > participant in any event which you shall direct. > > And why not? You as player Sven, may well object to my ordering you to play. You may even complain to the SO, and when I order you to play until 5AM, I'm certain the SO will indeed punish me. You may even try and use blackmail tactics. But that does not answer the question as to whether or not my instructions would be legal. Suppose you score a zero. You complain to the SO. You ask for me to be removed as TD, because I gave the silly order to play after midnight. You might well succeed. You might even successfully ask for a refund for the taxi you had to pay when the public transport shut down. Now what if on top of that complaint you ask for the score (zero) to be changed to Av+. Now you need to put forward an argument stating that I was wrong to order you to play and that I should have awarded Av+. Suppose the SO has not written into the CoC that no late plays can be ordered by the TD. What Law do you intend to use to get your score changed into Av+? > >>You are right, Sven, in insisting that there are numerous tournaments >>where the TD would be wrong to order such an extra play. But accept >>from me that there are also tournaments where the TD would not be >>wrong in doing so. Yet even in those tournaments the players could be >>objecting, not because they have a late play, but simply because they >>prefer to score Av+ against a particular opponent. >>My question is simply if the TD has the right to order them to play. >>You have not answered that question. >> > > I thought I had made it clear that the Director is not unlimited in his > powers. > > No I do not think he has the power to dramatically alter the published > conditions (including the schedules) for an event after the event has > started. > > A general (and reasonable) delay in the progress of an event is not in my > opinion a dramatic alteration. > > Requesting an unscheduled extra round is such an alteration which in my > opinion requires more specific powers than the general powers granted to the > Director in laws 5, 8, 81 and 82. Law 15A2 gives the Director such powers > applicable only against pairs at fault. > Now at last you hae used the words "in my opinion". You state that this alteration is more specific than Laws 5 and 8 permit. On what basis do you find that Laws 5 and 8 only talk of the initial movement and not of the changes thereto? Let's use a different scenario: rather than a late play, there is just a mix-up between rows. Both pairs are playing the right boards, but not against the right opponents. The two other pairs can easily play the board against each other, in the correct time slot. No problem with time. Would this be a specific or a generic change. Or in a second session a contestant discovers he has to go up some stairs. The TD orders another pair to change places with him. Generic or specific? Allowed or not? You are painting yourself into a corner here, Sven! > > >>>That the Director can invite such play is a completely different matter, >>> >>but >> >>>anyway my experience with the movements we are using in Norway - mainly >>>barometer, Howell and Mitchell - is that this is hardly ever feasible. >>> >>> >> >>And my experience is that it is eminently feasible in Belgium. So? >> > > Different cultures, different experience > Isn't that what blml is all about? Getting the different cultures on the same line with regards to the laws? > Sven > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jun 3 16:33:43 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:33:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: <200306031533.LAA10565@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > The moment the CoC includes the information that for instance Mitchell > movements will be used then the actual schedules become part of the CoC. This may be the source of the disagreement. Certainly if the SO publishes in advance that Mitchell movements will be used, the TD has to go along. Normally, however, choice of movement is left to the TD under L81B1. The SO can properly say "all competitors must meet all others" or "all competitors must play N boards" or even "everyone has to be out of the room by 11 PM," but in general the details of how these requirements are to be achieved should be left to the TD. (And what if some of the SO conditions are incompatible?) But what about this: two sections, A with 17 tables and B with 16. This is the ACBL, so both will play 13 rounds of two boards each. (You might have used an entirely different setup, but please ignore that.) In B there will need to be a skip after the eighth (?) round, while in A there is no need for a skip but it does no harm. Can the TD choose whether or not to order a skip in Section A? Can he make this decision at round 8, or must he make it sometime earlier? If a skip is at the TD's discretion, why not other changes? From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 3 17:06:39 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:06:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] No agreement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:46:34 BST." Message-ID: <200306031606.JAA05104@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > I've just checked, and this seems not to be covered by the Laws of > Online Bridge, which is a fairly remarkable omission since > self-alerting is one of the most significant ways in which the practice > of online bridge differs from that of F2F. Sadly, this is not surprising to me. Unless the Laws of Online Bridge have changed since the last time I looked at them, they seem to be a quite shoddy effort. They just took the regular Laws and added a few paragraphs about specific problem situations such as claims. They didn't go through the Laws to figure out what might or might not make sense any more, or what might need modification. For crying out loud, they didn't even remove or modify Law 7B1, which says "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen", which is physically impossible in online bridge, thus guaranteeing that everyone who ever plays a hand of online bridge is going to be a lawbreaker. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 3 16:57:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:57:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? In-Reply-To: <000201c3299b$3dd16a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 6/3/03 at 8:42 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > In practice: For a Howell schedule you look at the guide cards present on > each table (if you are not so lucky as to have the master guide card > available). For barometer and Mitchell the progression of boards and players > is "linear" so it is a simple matter of calculating a sum. I suppose your grasp of the math is quicker than mine. I *can* work it out (usually) if I can figure out how many tables there are, and how many pairs, but with people standing around, the TD running around, and folks at my table wanting to start bidding NOW, I just don't seem to have the time. > Typical picture of a director not in control. > > Apparently we live in two different worlds. Oh, indeed. :) 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 kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 17:21:24 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:21:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] No agreement-Laws of Online References: <200306031606.JAA05104@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Where can I see the Laws of Online Bridge. Thanks! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] No agreement > > Gordon wrote: > > > I've just checked, and this seems not to be covered by the Laws of > > Online Bridge, which is a fairly remarkable omission since > > self-alerting is one of the most significant ways in which the practice > > of online bridge differs from that of F2F. > > Sadly, this is not surprising to me. Unless the Laws of Online Bridge > have changed since the last time I looked at them, they seem to be a > quite shoddy effort. They just took the regular Laws and added a few > paragraphs about specific problem situations such as claims. They > didn't go through the Laws to figure out what might or might not make > sense any more, or what might need modification. For crying out loud, > they didn't even remove or modify Law 7B1, which says "Each player > counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen", which > is physically impossible in online bridge, thus guaranteeing that > everyone who ever plays a hand of online bridge is going to be a > lawbreaker. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From h.ugba@caramail.com Tue Jun 3 17:50:45 2003 From: h.ugba@caramail.com (ugba halpos) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:50:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] ATTN Message-ID: <20030603165052.0EDDA2B92F@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Sir=2FMa=2C This invitation might be of great surprise to you as you read but it may please you to know that it is real=2E The eventuality of this would have us in possession of some substantial sum of money=2E I am kalu williams by name=2C a 16yr=2E old Nigerian=2C born to the Western part of he nation=2C but bred in the East=2C specifically in Onitsha=2E Right now=2C I reside with my late father's friend by name Prof=2E Emeke Attah who has been responsible for my upkeep and security=2E You might be interested to know the whereabouts of my parents=2E My mother died in a fatal plane crash when I was just 12yrs old and my father has since then suffered from shock which eventually led to his demise a forthnight ago=3B he left behind a vast proportion of wealth for me to inherit as the first son amongst many children born to different women=2E A few days before he died=2C he secretly made all his assets known to me comprising both real and monetary=2E He also gave me a platinum bracelet and some other gold jewelries to sell whenever I am in need=2E The night before he died=2C he told me he already transferred a sum of #1=2C233=2C000=2C000 which is about 9=2C000=2C000us dollars into 13 different accounts in separate banks and gave me the bank account numbers=2E He secretly made all these known to me and instructed his friend to take me into hiding for reason that the other wives are hatching plans to kill me and take those assets for their selfish reasons=2E As you may know=2C the African culture demands that the 1st son=2C irrespective of age is entitled to the wealth of his father=2E My entitlement is almost incapacitated due to the wicked plans of my stepmothers and greedy relatives=2E Fortunately for me=2Cmy father before his death concluded plans with his friend=5BProf=2E Emeka=5D to send me abroad to further my education and afterwards reside there permanently=2E It is really imperative I leave Nigeria soon because my stepmothers and relatives are bent on taking my life=3B but I cannot leave until I get somebody in whose account I shall transfer all the money into=2E I have contacted you as a confidant and friend whom I can trust=2E I need you to contact me through email AS SOON AS POSSIBLE so that with the help of Prof=2EEmeka=2C I can conclude all the plans and modalities for transfer of the funds to your account=2E I really appreciate your patience to read my plight and your anticipated assistance=3Band I promise to make you smile after all has been done=2E Yours in friendship=2C kalu williams PS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE=2E From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 3 18:14:27 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:14:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] ATTN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:50:45 BST." <20030603165052.0EDDA2B92F@rhubarb.custard.org> Message-ID: <200306031714.KAA06093@mailhub.irvine.com> Kalu Williams wrote: > Dear Sir/Ma, > This invitation might be of great surprise to you as you read > but it may please you to know that it is real. The eventuality of > this would have us in possession of some substantial sum of money. > I am kalu williams by name, a 16yr. old Nigerian, born to the > Western part of he nation, but bred in the East, specifically in > Onitsha. It's always nice to know that young people are showing an interest in bridge. Lord knows, we don't have enough of them. However, it's hard for us to answer your question without more details about Nigerian alerting rules. If you could provide those for us, or at least point us to the Nigerian Bridge League's website so that we can look it up, we will be happy to answer your question. Sheesh. -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jun 3 22:40:33 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: <200306032140.RAA12786@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> I wrote: > > But what about this: two sections, A with 17 tables and B with 16. > > This is the ACBL, so both will play 13 rounds of two boards each. (You > > might have used an entirely different setup, but please ignore that.) > > In B there will need to be a skip after the eighth (?) round, while in > > A there is no need for a skip but it does no harm. As two people have pointed out to me (Thanks!): > Something very bad indeed happens from round 9 onward if you do a skip in > a section with an odd number of tables. Yes, sorry, quite right: the example is very poor. > You do, of course, have a choice whether to tell Section B to skip after > the 6th, 7th or the 8th round, and if you wanted, you could tell section A > to skip *two* tables at the same time .... but I can't imagine why you > would. Yes, these would work as examples. In Section B, perhaps the director has to leave briefly and wants to be sure the skip is accomplished, so he orders it after Round 6 or 7. In Section A -- more in keeping with the original thread -- perhaps a player has accidentally seen a hand, so the TD arranges for the player to skip that board. (Lucky indeed if it's possible.) Does anyone (besides Sven) claim such unanticipated changes to the movement violate the CoC? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 3 23:30:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:30:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: [big snip] >Does anyone (besides Sven) claim such unanticipated >changes to the movement violate the CoC? Richard replied: *If* an SO has foolishly promulgated a detailed & rigid CoC, without a clause permitting variance of the CoC by the TD in specified emergency circumstances - *Then* the TD is bound by Law 81B2 to run the movement in an idiotic way if such an emergency occurs. However, a more usual circumstance is that the SO's CoC is incomplete. If a problem occurs which is not mentioned by the CoC, then the TD is free to make up their own ad hoc rule to deal with the emergency, under the power given to the TD by Law 81C3. Best wishes Richard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 4 00:31:39 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 00:31:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement-Laws of Online In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <866AF810-961B-11D7-B0AC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 05:21 PM, kaima wrote: > Where can I see the Laws of Online Bridge. > Thanks! http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/online_laws/default.asp -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 4 00:37:17 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 00:37:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement In-Reply-To: <200306031606.JAA05104@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4FE07364-961C-11D7-B0AC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 05:06 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Gordon wrote: > >> I've just checked, and this seems not to be covered by the Laws of >> Online Bridge, which is a fairly remarkable omission since >> self-alerting is one of the most significant ways in which the >> practice >> of online bridge differs from that of F2F. > > Sadly, this is not surprising to me. Unless the Laws of Online Bridge > have changed since the last time I looked at them, they seem to be a > quite shoddy effort. They just took the regular Laws and added a few > paragraphs about specific problem situations such as claims. They > didn't go through the Laws to figure out what might or might not make > sense any more, or what might need modification. For crying out loud, > they didn't even remove or modify Law 7B1, which says "Each player > counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen", which > is physically impossible in online bridge, thus guaranteeing that > everyone who ever plays a hand of online bridge is going to be a > lawbreaker. Yes, I was deeply disappointed in them when they first came out, and amazed that someone here welcomed them as a fine piece of work. It almost seemed as though they were written by people who haven't played online bridge much (or even at all). -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Jun 4 06:06:48 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:06:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] SO Duties and Powers Message-ID: Dear blml'rs, As a continuation to the "No agreement" post, it appears that the ruling was not correct per L75.C (I base this statement on the so-far unanimous opinions of blml experts, thank you for your opinions). The SO = the online club made that ruling and after a letter to appeal maintained that ruling, a question: Has the SO exceeded its powers in establishing its own rules/regulations which are in conflict with existing Laws of Duplicate Bridge? L80.F? Personally, as just a player there, I truly don't care one bit what the answer to that is and I will play by whatever rules the club has because I like it there otherwise, but I think the club rules should NOT be misrepresented as the Laws and the club subsequently cannot claim they operate tournaments subject to the Laws. What amazes me more than anything is that the management and appeals director of that club are the ONLY people who think the ruling is correct - everyone else from laws experts to rank players are reading the Law differently. Opinions and statements I have heard about this vary from * Waving the magic band and chanting "full disclosure" will not make the Laws go away; to * Throw out that TD; to * The Director was mistaken, it is a common error; to the more factual * Ruling is not correct. Once more, thank you all for your time. Kaima aka D R Davis ---- Original Message ----- From: "kaima" To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 7:25 PM Subject: [blml] No agreement > Dear blml'ers, > > I would like to present a situation for your review and opinions. Your > comments very much appreciated. > > The hands are not shown because IMHO that information appears irrelevant. > If the hands are needed, can provide. Also any other information, if I have > it. This took place in an international on-line bridge club's tournament, > where opponents may privately ask questions from the bidder, the bidder's > partner, or from both opponents regarding their system and agreements. The > spirit of full disclosure is in effect. > > IMPs > Dlr: South > Vul: E-W > > S W N E > 2D P P 3H > P 3NT P* All pass > > South's 2D opening was a weak two in diamonds. EW play standard (standard > in ACBL) defensive methods, i.e. - Overcall non-forcing but forward going - > DBL is takeout - 2NT 15-17(18) with diam stopped - 4D asks partner to pick a > major - No other agreements. EW are high Flight B/low Flight A level. NS > are approximately the same level. > > *At his second turn to call, North asked East "What does your 3H mean?". > East responded "We have no agreement and this is the first time it occurred. > Never discussed. My partner knows as much as you do" > North called the Director. > Director required that East answer the question and said that "no agreement" > is not an acceptable response; one must explain as 'full disclosure' > applies. > East's second answer was "Considering vulnerability, this jump should be a > pretty good hand, would be foolish otherwise in these colors" > Both Director and North requested a detailed response. > Upon demand, though clearly reluctantly, East's third answer was "Good long > hearts and at least intermediate or better hand" > Board was played. > > The questions I have: > 1) Is Director's ruling correct? > 2) Which Laws apply? > 3) Any other comments? > > Best regards, and thank you all in advance for your time. > Kaima > aka D R Davis > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 4 14:46:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:46:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604143814.01d55a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, This strange blackout from me was caused by a trip to Juan les Pins for the best reason in the world. I came back with a stange feeling about the umpiring there. Since the TDs seemed rather competent (thank you, David), I have to conclude that the instructions they were given were absurd. Please feel free to comment. We had the TD at our table five times. Once, the matter was qickly settled : my partner had made a non-systemic lead, this had confused declarer, but the TD swept this away on seeing that the lead had fooled me too and that the explanation was conform to the CC. As for the other four cases : 1. Ax --- xx A10xxxxx AKJx 8xxxx AKJxx x pass 1S X 4S 5H X ...pass pass 6D This was our very first deal. After the very slow pass, may you jump out of the 5H frying pan ? No, of cf course. The TD decided that East wasn't allowed to correct the contract, and had to use L12C. Strangely enough, he decided that declarer would always pick the Diamonds (Qx were offside). Only one down. 2. my hand : xx dummy : Ax Kx QJ10x AKxx xxx A10xx Kxxx I opened a weak NT, and an intricated sequence led to 3S by LHO. Partner led a small heart, and I didn't cover the Queen, of course (declarer was known to have 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds). Three tricks from the end, I realized I had only two cards remaining. Director ! The HA was found lying on the floor, partny covered by RHO's handbag. Remains me of an exam question. I knew I counted my cards ; but I could have miscounted them, of course, or it could barely have jumped out of my cards when counting, due to my peculiar way of fanning them when under stress (we were scoring very heavily at the time). The TD established that no revoke had happened. It turned out that : a) my drastic underbid combined with partner's weak-sounding bidding had put them into near-stratospheric levels. b) the serendipitous defense of not covering when holding AK, providing dummy with a greek-gift reentry, earned us a near-top (3 down, vulnerable, against a small partscore). I was ready to accept 96%, minus 20% for miscounting, as the rabbit's share, but the TD came back with the decision : Avg+ to both sides ! We were too astounded to appeal (and he didn't mention this possibility). 3. The bidding : 1NT(wk) ...pass pass 2S Once again, a very slow pass (what I mean by this is about 40 seconds) and a bid by LHO. Once again a TD summoned. He wrote the case down and let us play, of course. My partner passed, Rightie hesitated once more (I can undersand this, seeing his hand thereafter : AK - Kxxx - 10xxxxx - x), and *at this time* the LOL on my left put her cards back in the BB. Then Rightie passed. He was very surprised, er, offended, when we called the TD once more. And smiled when my partner led face down, forgetting I *still* could bid. Anyway, I ddin't want to. It turned that LHO had a 5332 9-count. Of course the TD had to correct the score, and it wasn't obvious how many tricks we'd have made in 1NT. L12C2 could have meant a split score (7 tricks should be made and no doubt Nicole would have made them ; 8 are possible if the defense block their suits). The TD decided ... 40 / 60. Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we once again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to decline. 4. Once again a weak NT was opened by Nicole (want to know why we fared so well ?). My hand was a 4333 5-count. RHO doubled. This was alerted, as "any length" [une longueur]. I asked for a repeat (this was strange against a weak NT, and their French and English were unstable). RHO said : "any length ... well, some strength too". Our agreements say that : a) after a strong double, XX shows length in any suit, asking partner to bid 2C ; 2C is a general save ; 2D asks to choose between D,H,S. b) after an artificial double, "system is on". I therefore passed, only to see LHO pass too. -500 wasn't a good score. RHO had a balanced 18-count; LHO had an ace in an otherwise blank hand and dull pattern. We found it strange enough to call the TD once more. There was some confusion thereafter, mainly because it was difficult to know whether LHO's intricated explanations to the TD were caused by embarrassment, lie, or limited knowledge of foreign languages. Anyway, the TD decided that there was MI, and accepted my explanation that I would have bid 2C over the double, had I recieved the correct information, catching partner with 5 goodish clubs and no way for them to double (2C should be at least one down). Now he had to decide a score. It was ... you guessed it, 40/60. This time, *the opponents* appealed, only to have the score confirmed. To be fair, it is difficult to decide what would have happened after 1NT-X-2C-p-p, but is this enough of an excuse ? I have the feeling that all four of these decisions were wrong, most probably illegal. What do you think ? Thank you for your comments. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 4 15:11:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:11:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604143814.01d55a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c32aa3$40603ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> You asked for an opinion and here is mine: 1:"When in Rome do as the Romans do", that is I have no knowledge of the local culture at the event you visited so I can only tell you how I = would have treated your cases had I been the Director here in Norway. My = comments are inserted after each case below. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 4. juni 2003 15:46 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins >=20 > Dear blmlists, >=20 > This strange blackout from me was caused by a trip to Juan les Pins = for > the > best reason in the world. > I came back with a stange feeling about the umpiring there. > Since the TDs seemed rather competent (thank you, David), I have to > conclude that the instructions they were given were absurd. > Please feel free to comment. >=20 > We had the TD at our table five times. Once, the matter was qickly = settled > : my partner had made a non-systemic lead, this had confused declarer, = but > the TD swept this away on seeing that the lead had fooled me too and = that > the explanation was conform to the CC. As for the other four cases : >=20 > 1. Ax --- > xx A10xxxxx > AKJx 8xxxx > AKJxx x >=20 > pass > 1S X 4S 5H > X ...pass pass 6D >=20 > This was our very first deal. > After the very slow pass, may you jump out of the 5H frying pan ? No, = of > cf > course. > The TD decided that East wasn't allowed to correct the contract, and = had > to > use L12C. > Strangely enough, he decided that declarer would always pick the = Diamonds > (Qx were offside). > Only one down. If they convince me that they "always top with nine cards to AKJ" I = might accept a drop of the Queen, otherwise definitely not. (But I would like = to know why West did not bid 2NT rather than double if she wanted to = fight?) >=20 > 2. my hand : xx dummy : Ax > Kx QJ10x > AKxx xxx > A10xx Kxxx >=20 > I opened a weak NT, and an intricated sequence led to 3S by LHO. = Partner > led a small heart, and I didn't cover the Queen, of course (declarer = was > known to have 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds). Three tricks from the end, I > realized I had only two cards remaining. Director ! >=20 > The HA was found lying on the floor, partny covered by RHO's handbag. > Remains me of an exam question. > I knew I counted my cards ; but I could have miscounted them, of = course, > or > it could barely have jumped out of my cards when counting, due to my > peculiar way of fanning them when under stress (we were scoring very > heavily at the time). >=20 > The TD established that no revoke had happened. >=20 > It turned out that : > a) my drastic underbid combined with partner's weak-sounding bidding = had > put them into near-stratospheric levels. > b) the serendipitous defense of not covering when holding AK, = providing > dummy with a greek-gift reentry, earned us a near-top (3 down, = vulnerable, > against a small partscore). >=20 > I was ready to accept 96%, minus 20% for miscounting, as the rabbit's > share, but the TD came back with the decision : Avg+ to both sides !=20 WHAT????? And there is absolutely no reason for a PP (for miscounting) in this = case, your error did not make it necessary for any competitor to take an = adjusted score. The result should have stood as obtained. > We were too astounded to appeal (and he didn't mention this = possibility). >=20 > 3. The bidding : 1NT(wk) ...pass pass 2S > Once again, a very slow pass (what I mean by this is about 40 seconds) = and > a bid by LHO. Once again a TD summoned. He wrote the case down and let = us > play, of course. > My partner passed, Rightie hesitated once more (I can undersand this, > seeing his hand thereafter : AK - Kxxx - 10xxxxx - x), and *at this = time* > the LOL on my left put her cards back in the BB. Then Rightie passed. > He was very surprised, er, offended, when we called the TD once more. = And > smiled when my partner led face down, forgetting I *still* could bid. > Anyway, I ddin't want to. >=20 > It turned that LHO had a 5332 9-count. > Of course the TD had to correct the score, and it wasn't obvious how = many > tricks we'd have made in 1NT. L12C2 could have meant a split score (7 > tricks should be made and no doubt Nicole would have made them ; 8 are > possible if the defense block their suits). > The TD decided ... 40 / 60. > Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we once > again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to = decline. Good question. But this one could be marginal. If an investigation on = what had happened at the other tables show a 1NT contract made with 7 tricks = to be more or less standard I would quite likely adjust to this result as = an assigned score also for your table.=20 >=20 > 4. Once again a weak NT was opened by Nicole (want to know why we = fared so > well ?). > My hand was a 4333 5-count. RHO doubled. This was alerted, as "any = length" > [une longueur]. I asked for a repeat (this was strange against a weak = NT, > and their French and English were unstable). RHO said : "any length = ... > well, some strength too". >=20 > Our agreements say that : > a) after a strong double, XX shows length in any suit, asking partner = to > bid 2C ; 2C is a general save ; 2D asks to choose between D,H,S. > b) after an artificial double, "system is on". >=20 > I therefore passed, only to see LHO pass too. > -500 wasn't a good score. > RHO had a balanced 18-count; LHO had an ace in an otherwise blank hand = and > dull pattern. > We found it strange enough to call the TD once more. >=20 > There was some confusion thereafter, mainly because it was difficult = to > know whether LHO's intricated explanations to the TD were caused by > embarrassment, lie, or limited knowledge of foreign languages. > Anyway, the TD decided that there was MI, and accepted my explanation = that > I would have bid 2C over the double, had I recieved the correct > information, catching partner with 5 goodish clubs and no way for them = to > double (2C should be at least one down). Now he had to decide a score. >=20 > It was ... you guessed it, 40/60. >=20 > This time, *the opponents* appealed, only to have the score confirmed. = To > be fair, it is difficult to decide what would have happened after > 1NT-X-2C-p-p, but is this enough of an excuse ? Yes it could be if the Director finds it impossible to decide a fair = number of tricks, but my impression at this stage is of a Director who never = got past Law 12C1 when learning how to assess results. >=20 > I have the feeling that all four of these decisions were wrong, most > probably illegal. What do you think ? Case 2 is definitely the worst, closely followed by case 1. The other = cases could at least possibly be discussed. The main problem with the Director's solutions is that assigned scores = are effective for the ranging of all other results on that board, artificial scores are not. Therefore artificial scores should be avoided as much as possible. Regards Sven =20 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Jun 4 15:17:12 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:17:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins Message-ID: The French are famous for their artificial adjusted scores. With my interpretation of the laws (L 12 it is) it is possible to award an artificial score when a result has been obtained. But the French do exaggerate that idea. The reason is clear and you proved their wisdom: less appeals. Had they given 60/60 (50/60) in your last case the opponents wouldn't have appealed that decision. Can you tell what happened in 6D? Made apparently. And why did 5HX go one off in the adjustment? ton > > Dear blmlists, > > This strange blackout from me was caused by a trip to Juan > les Pins for the > best reason in the world. > I came back with a stange feeling about the umpiring there. > Since the TDs seemed rather competent (thank you, David), I have to > conclude that the instructions they were given were absurd. > Please feel free to comment. > > We had the TD at our table five times. Once, the matter was > qickly settled > : my partner had made a non-systemic lead, this had confused > declarer, but > the TD swept this away on seeing that the lead had fooled me > too and that > the explanation was conform to the CC. As for the other four cases : > > 1. Ax --- > xx A10xxxxx > AKJx 8xxxx > AKJxx x > > pass > 1S X 4S 5H > X ...pass pass 6D > > This was our very first deal. > After the very slow pass, may you jump out of the 5H frying > pan ? No, of cf > course. > The TD decided that East wasn't allowed to correct the > contract, and had to > use L12C. > Strangely enough, he decided that declarer would always pick > the Diamonds > (Qx were offside). > Only one down. > > 2. my hand : xx dummy : Ax > Kx QJ10x > AKxx xxx > A10xx Kxxx > > I opened a weak NT, and an intricated sequence led to 3S by > LHO. Partner > led a small heart, and I didn't cover the Queen, of course > (declarer was > known to have 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds). Three tricks from > the end, I > realized I had only two cards remaining. Director ! > > The HA was found lying on the floor, partny covered by RHO's handbag. > Remains me of an exam question. > I knew I counted my cards ; but I could have miscounted them, > of course, or > it could barely have jumped out of my cards when counting, due to my > peculiar way of fanning them when under stress (we were scoring very > heavily at the time). > > The TD established that no revoke had happened. > > It turned out that : > a) my drastic underbid combined with partner's weak-sounding > bidding had > put them into near-stratospheric levels. > b) the serendipitous defense of not covering when holding AK, > providing > dummy with a greek-gift reentry, earned us a near-top (3 > down, vulnerable, > against a small partscore). > > I was ready to accept 96%, minus 20% for miscounting, as the rabbit's > share, but the TD came back with the decision : Avg+ to both sides ! > We were too astounded to appeal (and he didn't mention this > possibility). > > 3. The bidding : 1NT(wk) ...pass pass 2S > Once again, a very slow pass (what I mean by this is about 40 > seconds) and > a bid by LHO. Once again a TD summoned. He wrote the case > down and let us > play, of course. > My partner passed, Rightie hesitated once more (I can undersand this, > seeing his hand thereafter : AK - Kxxx - 10xxxxx - x), and > *at this time* > the LOL on my left put her cards back in the BB. Then Rightie passed. > He was very surprised, er, offended, when we called the TD > once more. And > smiled when my partner led face down, forgetting I *still* could bid. > Anyway, I ddin't want to. > > It turned that LHO had a 5332 9-count. > Of course the TD had to correct the score, and it wasn't > obvious how many > tricks we'd have made in 1NT. L12C2 could have meant a split score (7 > tricks should be made and no doubt Nicole would have made > them ; 8 are > possible if the defense block their suits). > The TD decided ... 40 / 60. > Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, > we once > again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right > to decline. > > 4. Once again a weak NT was opened by Nicole (want to know > why we fared so > well ?). > My hand was a 4333 5-count. RHO doubled. This was alerted, as > "any length" > [une longueur]. I asked for a repeat (this was strange > against a weak NT, > and their French and English were unstable). RHO said : "any > length ... > well, some strength too". > > Our agreements say that : > a) after a strong double, XX shows length in any suit, asking > partner to > bid 2C ; 2C is a general save ; 2D asks to choose between D,H,S. > b) after an artificial double, "system is on". > > I therefore passed, only to see LHO pass too. > -500 wasn't a good score. > RHO had a balanced 18-count; LHO had an ace in an otherwise > blank hand and > dull pattern. > We found it strange enough to call the TD once more. > > There was some confusion thereafter, mainly because it was > difficult to > know whether LHO's intricated explanations to the TD were caused by > embarrassment, lie, or limited knowledge of foreign languages. > Anyway, the TD decided that there was MI, and accepted my > explanation that > I would have bid 2C over the double, had I recieved the correct > information, catching partner with 5 goodish clubs and no way > for them to > double (2C should be at least one down). Now he had to decide a score. > > It was ... you guessed it, 40/60. > > This time, *the opponents* appealed, only to have the score > confirmed. To > be fair, it is difficult to decide what would have happened after > 1NT-X-2C-p-p, but is this enough of an excuse ? > > I have the feeling that all four of these decisions were wrong, most > probably illegal. What do you think ? > > Thank you for your comments. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 4 15:49:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:49:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604164702.01d5b510@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:17 4/06/2003 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >The French are famous for their artificial adjusted scores. >With my interpretation of the laws (L 12 it is) it is possible to award an >artificial score when a result has been obtained. But the French do >exaggerate that idea. >The reason is clear and you proved their wisdom: less appeals. >Had they given 60/60 (50/60) in your last case the opponents wouldn't have >appealed that decision. > >Can you tell what happened in 6D? Made apparently. And why did 5HX go one >off in the adjustment? AG : 6D made. Spade lead to the Ace, two top diamond tricks (no choice here), duck a heart. 5H was down because I held KQJx (remember the double ?) From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 4 15:50:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:50:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604165000.01d577d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:17 4/06/2003 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >The French are famous for their artificial adjusted scores. >With my interpretation of the laws (L 12 it is) it is possible to award an >artificial score when a result has been obtained. But the French do >exaggerate that idea. >The reason is clear and you proved their wisdom: less appeals. >Had they given 60/60 (50/60) in your last case the opponents wouldn't have >appealed that decision. AG : do you really mean they should have escaped with 60% ? I didn't find the smillie. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jun 4 16:31:28 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:31:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604165000.01d577d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c32aae$a812b420$2adef1c3@LNV> > At 16:17 4/06/2003 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >The French are famous for their artificial adjusted scores. > >With my interpretation of the laws (L 12 it is) it is possible to award an > >artificial score when a result has been obtained. But the French do > >exaggerate that idea. > >The reason is clear and you proved their wisdom: less appeals. > >Had they given 60/60 (50/60) in your last case the opponents wouldn't have > >appealed that decision. > > AG : do you really mean they should have escaped with 60% ? I didn't find > the smillie. sorry, it was there. ton From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jun 4 17:00:16 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins Message-ID: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > I have the feeling that all four of these decisions were wrong, most > probably illegal. What do you think ? David S. would no doubt say they are illegal. As he reads L12C1, it is illegal to use it when a result has been obtained. (I feel fairly confident about David's opinion on this subject because he and I have had extensive discussions of it, although not in the past year.) Like Ton, I don't believe it is strictly illegal to use L12C1, but it is a dreadful idea. What is wrong with 12C2? Surely that is much fairer to everyone. (Case 3, where the number of tricks won in 1NT is in doubt, might be a candidate for L12C3 if it is enabled.) One would almost think this tournament was in the ACBL. :-( From gillp@bigpond.com Wed Jun 4 17:06:48 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:06:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins Message-ID: <002501c32ab3$53568ec0$e18d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Since the TDs seemed rather competent (thank you, David), >I have to conclude that the instructions they were given were >absurd. Please feel free to comment. > >We had the TD at our table five times. Once, the matter was >quickly settled : my partner had made a non-systemic lead, >this had confused declarer, but the TD swept this away on >seeing that the lead had fooled me too and that the >explanation was conform to the CC. For consistency, surely there was some way to award 40/60? :) >As for the other four cases : > >2. my hand : xx dummy : Ax > Kx QJ10x > AKxx xxx > A10xx Kxxx > >I opened a weak NT, and an intricated sequence led to 3S >by LHO. Partner led a small heart, and I didn't cover the >Queen, of course (declarer was known to have 5+ Spades >and 4+ Diamonds). Three tricks from the end, >I realized I had only two cards remaining. Director ! > >The HA was found lying on the floor, partly covered by >RHO's handbag.... In France , I believe that cases where a man tries to slip his ace or king of hearts into a pretty lady's handbag - and manages to miss the target - are somewhat suspect. I am not saying that this is what you did (deliberately, subconsciously, whatever), but that one must look at this from a Gallic perspective and see what they might think that you have tried to do, and alter our thinking to take account of their possible suspicions. :) Peter Gill. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 4 21:35:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:35:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: ACBL regulations specify that if a player makes an alertable bid which is above the level of 3NT at or after opening bidder's second turn to call, that alert should not be made immediately, but should be delayed until (a) for defenders, after the opening lead is made face down, but before it is faced, or (b) for declarer or dummy, before the opening lead is made. Suppose now this occurs: in the course of the auction, West makes a call which requires a delayed alert from East. South becomes declarer. West makes the opening lead - face up. East cannot now comply with the alert regulation. I suppose his proper action is to call the TD - but how does the TD deal with this situation? Going back a step, if the opening lead is made face down, and the alert is then made, I would think that the declaring side cannot claim MI (which would allow their last pass to be retracted under Law 21, and might result in an adjusted score), because the alert was made IAW SO regs (see Law 40B). And I don't think the face up lead changes that, in principle. So what, if anything should a TD say in this case? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 4 22:21:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:21:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c32adf$52c71c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Do the ACBL regulations not include specifications on the consequences = of failing to follow these regulations? Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in some words on that too. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ed > Reppert > Sent: 4. juni 2003 22:35 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] >=20 > ACBL regulations specify that if a player makes an alertable bid which = is > above > the level of 3NT at or after opening bidder's second turn to call, = that > alert > should not be made immediately, but should be delayed until (a) for > defenders, > after the opening lead is made face down, but before it is faced, or = (b) > for > declarer or dummy, before the opening lead is made. >=20 > Suppose now this occurs: in the course of the auction, West makes a = call > which > requires a delayed alert from East. South becomes declarer. West makes = the > opening lead - face up. East cannot now comply with the alert = regulation. > I > suppose his proper action is to call the TD - but how does the TD deal > with this > situation? Going back a step, if the opening lead is made face down, = and > the > alert is then made, I would think that the declaring side cannot claim = MI > (which > would allow their last pass to be retracted under Law 21, and might = result > in an > adjusted score), because the alert was made IAW SO regs (see Law 40B). = And > I > don't think the face up lead changes that, in principle. So what, if > anything > should a TD say in this case? >=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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jun 5 01:54:09 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:54:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604143814.01d55a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030604203915.00b5a640@mail.vzavenue.net> At 09:46 AM 6/4/2003, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >1. Ax --- > xx A10xxxxx > AKJx 8xxxx > AKJxx x > > pass >1S X 4S 5H >X ...pass pass 6D > >This was our very first deal. >After the very slow pass, may you jump out of the 5H frying pan ? No, of >cf course. >The TD decided that East wasn't allowed to correct the contract, and had >to use L12C. >Strangely enough, he decided that declarer would always pick the Diamonds >(Qx were offside). >Only one down. Whether this ruling is right depends on the level of the event and on the information from the play. A good East will have a count on trumps, and will try to ruff out the CQ before taking the diamond finesse. If South turns up with at least five spades (for the opening), three hearts, and three clubs, then East is entitled to count the hand and refuse the diamond finesse. Otherwise, either the finesse or drop is a reasonable play, and thus the offenders get the worse result. (Is this the same TD who insisted on giving average-plus on the other hands?) >2. my hand : xx dummy : Ax > Kx QJ10x > AKxx xxx > A10xx Kxxx > >I opened a weak NT, and an intricated sequence led to 3S by LHO. Partner >led a small heart, and I didn't cover the Queen, of course (declarer was >known to have 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds). Three tricks from the end, I >realized I had only two cards remaining. Director ! > >The HA was found lying on the floor, partny covered by RHO's handbag. >Remains me of an exam question. >I knew I counted my cards ; but I could have miscounted them, of course, >or it could barely have jumped out of my cards when counting, due to my >peculiar way of fanning them when under stress (we were scoring very >heavily at the time). > >The TD established that no revoke had happened. > >It turned out that : >a) my drastic underbid combined with partner's weak-sounding bidding had >put them into near-stratospheric levels. >b) the serendipitous defense of not covering when holding AK, providing >dummy with a greek-gift reentry, earned us a near-top (3 down, vulnerable, >against a small partscore). > >I was ready to accept 96%, minus 20% for miscounting, as the rabbit's >share, but the TD came back with the decision : Avg+ to both sides ! >We were too astounded to appeal (and he didn't mention this possibility). How does a TD manage to make a ruling like this one? A+/A+ is correct as a ruling only if neither side is at fault, and if neither side is at fault, there is no infraction on which to make an adjustment. >3. The bidding : 1NT(wk) ...pass pass 2S >Once again, a very slow pass (what I mean by this is about 40 seconds) and >a bid by LHO. Once again a TD summoned. He wrote the case down and let us >play, of course. >My partner passed, Rightie hesitated once more (I can undersand this, >seeing his hand thereafter : AK - Kxxx - 10xxxxx - x), and *at this time* >the LOL on my left put her cards back in the BB. Then Rightie passed. >He was very surprised, er, offended, when we called the TD once more. And >smiled when my partner led face down, forgetting I *still* could bid. >Anyway, I ddin't want to. > >It turned that LHO had a 5332 9-count. >Of course the TD had to correct the score, and it wasn't obvious how many >tricks we'd have made in 1NT. L12C2 could have meant a split score (7 >tricks should be made and no doubt Nicole would have made them ; 8 are >possible if the defense block their suits). >The TD decided ... 40 / 60. >Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we once >again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to decline. This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several scores is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't consider it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. >4. Once again a weak NT was opened by Nicole (want to know why we fared so >well ?). >My hand was a 4333 5-count. RHO doubled. This was alerted, as "any length" >[une longueur]. I asked for a repeat (this was strange against a weak NT, >and their French and English were unstable). RHO said : "any length ... >well, some strength too". > >Our agreements say that : >a) after a strong double, XX shows length in any suit, asking partner to >bid 2C ; 2C is a general save ; 2D asks to choose between D,H,S. >b) after an artificial double, "system is on". > >I therefore passed, only to see LHO pass too. >-500 wasn't a good score. >RHO had a balanced 18-count; LHO had an ace in an otherwise blank hand and >dull pattern. >We found it strange enough to call the TD once more. > >There was some confusion thereafter, mainly because it was difficult to >know whether LHO's intricated explanations to the TD were caused by >embarrassment, lie, or limited knowledge of foreign languages. >Anyway, the TD decided that there was MI, and accepted my explanation that >I would have bid 2C over the double, had I recieved the correct >information, catching partner with 5 goodish clubs and no way for them to >double (2C should be at least one down). Now he had to decide a score. > >It was ... you guessed it, 40/60. > >This time, *the opponents* appealed, only to have the score confirmed. To >be fair, it is difficult to decide what would have happened after >1NT-X-2C-p-p, but is this enough of an excuse ? Again, the L12C2 cop-out. Here, it seems that the TD threw up his hands, and tied the AC's hands. From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Jun 5 02:30:03 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:30:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32adf$52c71c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: snip Sven wrote: Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in some words on that too. K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in announcing RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during auctionwhich RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other reasons, I can't think of. In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL regulation. Kaima, just a rank player in ACBL aka D R Davis Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed > Reppert > Sent: 4. juni 2003 22:35 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > > ACBL regulations specify that if a player makes an alertable bid which is > above > the level of 3NT at or after opening bidder's second turn to call, that > alert > should not be made immediately, but should be delayed until (a) for > defenders, > after the opening lead is made face down, but before it is faced, or (b) > for > declarer or dummy, before the opening lead is made. > > Suppose now this occurs: in the course of the auction, West makes a call > which > requires a delayed alert from East. South becomes declarer. West makes the > opening lead - face up. East cannot now comply with the alert regulation. > I > suppose his proper action is to call the TD - but how does the TD deal > with this > situation? Going back a step, if the opening lead is made face down, and > the > alert is then made, I would think that the declaring side cannot claim MI > (which > would allow their last pass to be retracted under Law 21, and might result > in an > adjusted score), because the alert was made IAW SO regs (see Law 40B). And > I > don't think the face up lead changes that, in principle. So what, if > anything > should a TD say in this case? > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." > Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, > 2001 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 5 03:56:58 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:56:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> In article <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> I have the feeling that all four of these decisions were wrong, most >> probably illegal. What do you think ? > >David S. would no doubt say they are illegal. As he reads L12C1, it is >illegal to use it when a result has been obtained. (I feel fairly >confident about David's opinion on this subject because he and I have >had extensive discussions of it, although not in the past year.) I am entirely in accord with DWS on this. Once a score has been obtained I am not at liberty to award an Artificial score, I have to decide what the probable outcomes would have been absent infractions, weight them as necessary and award an Adjusted score. It only goes to prove the superiority of the English over those continentals, proven down the centuries. Remember Agincourt!! > >Like Ton, I don't believe it is strictly illegal to use L12C1, but it >is a dreadful idea. What is wrong with 12C2? Surely that is much >fairer to everyone. (Case 3, where the number of tricks won in 1NT is >in doubt, might be a candidate for L12C3 if it is enabled.) > >One would almost think this tournament was in the ACBL. :-( > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jun 5 07:10:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:10:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Teams of six movements Message-ID: 1. Team of six (ABC) versus team of six (XYZ) movement Introduction: The ACT Open Team and the ACT Women's Team played against each other in a practice match prior to the Interstate Teams in Darwin. Each pair played 30 boards (10 boards against each opposing pair), but the teams contested 45 boards, thus giving the respective captains plenty of food for thought. Stanza One Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair A Pair X 1-5 Two Pair B Pair Y 6-10 Three Pair C Pair Z 11-15 Stanza Two Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair Z Pair A 6-10 Two Pair X Pair B 11-15 Three Pair Y Pair C 1-5 Score-up and reshuffle boards after Stanza Two Stanza Three Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair A Pair Y 11-15 Two Pair B Pair Z 1-5 Three Pair C Pair X 6-10 Stanza Four Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair X Pair A 1-5 Two Pair Y Pair B 6-10 Three Pair Z Pair C 11-15 Score-up and reshuffle boards after Stanza Four Stanza Five Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair A Pair Z 6-10 Two Pair B Pair X 11-15 Three Pair C Pair Y 1-5 Stanza Six Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair Y Pair A 11-15 Two Pair Z Pair B 1-5 Three Pair X Pair C 6-10 Final score-up= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 5 07:15:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:15:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Teams of six movements Message-ID: 2. Team of six (ABC) vs team of six (XYZ) vs team of four (PQ) movement= Introduction: The ACT Open Team, the ACT Seniors' Team and two pairs from the ACT Youth Team scheduled a three-way practice match prior to the Interstate Teams in Darwin. The movement allows each team-of-four pair to play each opposing pair once. The movement also allows each team-of-six pair to play each opposing pair at least once (twice against one pair from the other team-of-six). Tables 1 & 2 share boards throughout. Tables 3 & 4 share boards throughout. Teams compare scores after every stanza. Reshuffle boards= after Stanza Three. Stanza One Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair A 1-5 Two Pair X Pair Q 1-5 Three Pair Y Pair B 16-20 Four Pair C Pair Z 16-20 Stanza Two Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair X 6-10 Two Pair B Pair Q 6-10 Three Pair Y Pair A 21-25 Four Pair C Pair Z 21-25 Stanza Three Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair B 11-15 Two Pair Y Pair Q 11-15 Three Pair X Pair C 26-30 Four Pair A Pair Z 26-30 Reshuffle boards after Stanza Three Stanza Four Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair Y 16-20 Two Pair C Pair Q 16-20 Three Pair X Pair A 1-5 Four Pair B Pair Z 1-5 Stanza Five Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair C 21-25 Two Pair Z Pair Q 21-25 Three Pair X Pair A 6-10 Four Pair B Pair Y 6-10 Stanza Six Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair Z 26-30 Two Pair A Pair Q 26-30 Three Pair X Pair B 11-15 Four Pair C Pair Y 11-15 Final score-up= From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 07:15:30 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:15:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> Message-ID: <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > I am entirely in accord with DWS on this. Once a score has been obtained > I am not at liberty to award an Artificial score, I have to decide what > the probable outcomes would have been absent infractions, weight them as > necessary and award an Adjusted score. It only goes to prove the > superiority of the English over those continentals, proven down the > centuries. > I am almost entirely in agreement with David and John on this one. It's not as if the English have the monopoly on common sense. > Remember Agincourt!! > I knew you had moved on in age, John, but I did not know it's that bad! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 07:20:00 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:20:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030604203915.00b5a640@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <3EDEE110.1080102@skynet.be> David J. Grabiner wrote: >> The TD decided ... 40 / 60. >> Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we once >> again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to decline. > > > This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD > should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several scores > is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't consider > it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. > This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. Mind you, it is wrong to present this as A+/A-, but I doubt if the TD at Juan used those words at the table. He probably sais "soixante/quarante". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jun 5 07:52:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:52:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > > Once a score has been obtained > > I am not at liberty to award an Artificial score, > +=+ The first sentences of 12C1 and 12C2 make it wholly clear that you cannot do so under Law 12C. The only device by which you may do so is to say the score has not been obtained through 'normal' play and you are applying 12A2. Since 12C specifies clearly as to what is done after an irregularity the 12A2 use of 'normal' must mean that something more extreme than merely the occurrence of an irregularity is called for to invoke 12A2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From henk@ripe.net Thu Jun 5 08:18:27 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:18:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EDEE110.1080102@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > David J. Grabiner wrote: > > >> The TD decided ... 40 / 60. > >> Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we once > >> again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to decline. > > > > > > This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD > > should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several scores > > is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't consider > > it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. > > > > > This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different > L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is > entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would > indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent > the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. Well, if and only if there is a value of x between 0 and 100 that results in a weighted score of 60%. (Say, if 1NT= scores 50% of the MP, 1N+1 70%). If both contracts score below (or above) 60%, then the weighted average should be less (more) than 60%. (Say, if 1N scores 10% and 1N,+1 30%, the TD could award 20/80 but not 60/40). Henk > Mind you, it is wrong to present this as A+/A-, but I doubt if the TD at > Juan used those words at the table. He probably sais > "soixante/quarante". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 5 08:30:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:30:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c32b34$51c6e970$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: kaima=20 > snip > Sven wrote: >=20 > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in = some > words on that too. >=20 > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in = announcing > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during = auctionwhich > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other > reasons, I can't think of. >=20 > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL = regulation. Are you saying that the bidding side uses delayed alert for their own purpose and not for the favor of opponents? That would not be "poor = excuse" that would be plain cheating! Regards Sven From moranl@netvision.net.il Thu Jun 5 10:33:45 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:33:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000001c32b34$51c6e970$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030605111704.022aa3b0@mail.netvision.net.il> I think you have misunderstood, Sven. The logic of the no-alert (or post alert) above the 3NT level is that generally alerts at this level (where the auctions are usually uncontested) are more likely to help the alerters rather than the opponents. The opponents always have the opportunity to ask about a bid whether alerted or not, and post alerting eliminates any defense play mistakes caused by not understanding the bidding. The example that Kaima gave is: with alerting- an alert of RKCB would remind the partner that they were playing this system and would (probably) be of no benefit during the auction to the defenders with post-alerts - the defenders are in the same position, but the bidders are not in a position to receive UI from alerts. The same logic applies to many bids above the 3NT level which are also often misunderstood. AND - before we bash the ACBL, you should know that these alert regulations also apply to EBL and WBF competitions played without screens.(however a conventional opening bid above 3NT must be alerted). Eitan Levy At 09:30 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: > > From: kaima > > snip > > Sven wrote: > > > > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be > > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in some > > words on that too. > > > > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't > > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in announcing > > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during auctionwhich > > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he > > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other > > reasons, I can't think of. > > > > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL regulation. > >Are you saying that the bidding side uses delayed alert for their own >purpose and not for the favor of opponents? That would not be "poor excuse" >that would be plain cheating! > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 5 10:04:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:04:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20030605111704.022aa3b0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <000901c32b41$74b874a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Eitan Levy=20 > I think you have misunderstood, Sven. Well, I hoped I had misunderstood something, but I am not so sure. We have the same alert rules in Norway that except for conventional = opening bids no call is alerted above 3NT. The difference seems to be that we = have no such thing as delayed alerts; it was the purpose of those I = questioned. Do ACBL for instance require a delayed alert of RKCB while the original Blackwood shall not be alerted? Or do they require all conventional use = of 4NT to be post-alerted? (In which case the alert does not serve any real purpose at all as far as I can see). A rather common question from defender(s) before making their opening = leads (and particularly recommended when opponents have had a lengthy auction) = is: "What are we entitled to know about your hands"? Or: "What has been = shown by your auction"? That places the responsibility upon the declaring side to reveal = absolutely everything relevant to the defense without the defense needing to ask detailed questions and sorting out the information given during the = progress of the auction. Sven > The logic of the no-alert (or post alert) above the 3NT level is that > generally alerts at this level (where the auctions are usually > uncontested) > are more likely to help the alerters rather than the opponents. The > opponents always have the opportunity to ask about a bid whether = alerted > or > not, and post alerting eliminates any defense play mistakes caused by = not > understanding the bidding. > The example that Kaima gave is: > with alerting- an alert of RKCB would remind the partner that they = were > playing this system and would (probably) be of no benefit during the > auction to the defenders > with post-alerts - the defenders are in the same position, but the = bidders > are not in a position to receive UI from alerts. > The same logic applies to many bids above the 3NT level which are also > often misunderstood. > AND - before we bash the ACBL, you should know that these alert > regulations > also apply to EBL and WBF competitions played without screens.(however = a > conventional opening bid above 3NT must be alerted). > Eitan Levy >=20 >=20 > At 09:30 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: > > > From: kaima > > > snip > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can = be > > > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in > some > > > words on that too. > > > > > > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > > > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) = don't > > > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in > announcing > > > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during > auctionwhich > > > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner = when he > > > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any = other > > > reasons, I can't think of. > > > > > > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL > regulation. > > > >Are you saying that the bidding side uses delayed alert for their own > >purpose and not for the favor of opponents? That would not be "poor > excuse" > >that would be plain cheating! > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From moranl@netvision.net.il Thu Jun 5 11:35:32 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:35:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000901c32b41$74b874a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.1.6.1.20030605111704.022aa3b0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030605121028.025fb1a0@mail.netvision.net.il> >Do ACBL for instance require a delayed alert of RKCB while the original >Blackwood shall not be alerted? Or do they require all conventional use of >4NT to be post-alerted? (In which case the alert does not serve any real >purpose at all as far as I can see). I agree in this example. But there are many other situations where seemingly "innocent" bids may have special meanings. >A rather common question from defender(s) before making their opening leads >(and particularly recommended when opponents have had a lengthy auction) is: >"What are we entitled to know about your hands"? Or: "What has been shown by >your auction"? Yes, this is a good habit for defenders to develop, but >That places the responsibility upon the declaring side to reveal absolutely >everything relevant to the defense without the defense needing to ask >detailed questions and sorting out the information given during the progress >of the auction. But it also places the responsibilty on the defending side TO ASK - whereas a post alert places the responsibilty on the declaring side to reveal relevant agreements to the defenders, even if not asked. I am fairly neutral about this myself and realise that post alerts are "more honored in the breach than in the observance", but they do place the responsibility for disclosure squarely on the bidders. Eitan >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 5 10:51:16 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:51:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EDEE110.1080102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4044BD13-973B-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 07:20 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>> The TD decided ... 40 / 60. >>> Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we >>> once again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to >>> decline. >> This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD >> should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several >> scores is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't >> consider it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. > > > This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different > L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is > entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would > indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent > the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. Mind > you, it is wrong to present this as A+/A-, but I doubt if the TD at > Juan used those words at the table. He probably sais > "soixante/quarante". Are such directors going to come back and recalculate it as, for example 58%/42% if one of the other results on the board changes? It shouldn't be any trouble for someone who has such a command of scoring that they can work out "X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1" and then convert it directly into MPs and then percentages without even looking at the rest of the results on the board. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 11:57:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:57:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> Gratta, how can you say something like this ? Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >>>Once a score has been obtained >>>I am not at liberty to award an Artificial score, >>> > +=+ The first sentences of 12C1 and 12C2 make > it wholly clear that you cannot do so under Law > 12C. You are apparently forgetting that L12C (at least in Europe) has three parts. I see nothing in L12C3 that precludes an artificial score there. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 11:59:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:59:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: Message-ID: <3EDF227C.9020105@skynet.be> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >> >>This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different >>L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is >>entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would >>indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent >>the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. >> > > Well, if and only if there is a value of x between 0 and 100 that results > in a weighted score of 60%. (Say, if 1NT= scores 50% of the MP, 1N+1 > 70%). If both contracts score below (or above) 60%, then the weighted > average should be less (more) than 60%. (Say, if 1N scores 10% and 1N,+1 > 30%, the TD could award 20/80 but not 60/40). > Well, IMO, he is allowed to award 60/40, but he'd be wrong to do so. > Henk > > > > >>Mind you, it is wrong to present this as A+/A-, but I doubt if the TD at >>Juan used those words at the table. He probably sais >>"soixante/quarante". >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 12:04:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:04:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <4044BD13-973B-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EDF23BB.7000909@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different >> L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is >> entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would >> indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent >> the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. Mind >> you, it is wrong to present this as A+/A-, but I doubt if the TD at >> Juan used those words at the table. He probably sais "soixante/quarante". > > > Are such directors going to come back and recalculate it as, for example > 58%/42% if one of the other results on the board changes? > > It shouldn't be any trouble for someone who has such a command of > scoring that they can work out "X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1" and > then convert it directly into MPs and then percentages without even > looking at the rest of the results on the board. > I am not saying that I agree with a director who awards 60/40. I can only say that this award is _legal_. I am fully in favour of such a score in boards that have not progressed far enough to be able to limit the number of scores that need to be attributed weights. I can agree with CTD's who instruct their TD's to not waste their time figuring out appropriate weights and award 60/40 more regularly. Don't forget either that scoring programs do not regularly include options for weighted scores. Rather, the TD needs to check the frequencies (something he can only do at the end) and then award, say 58/42. Why not allow him to rule 60/40 straight away? > -- > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 5 13:23:38 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:23:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EDF23BB.7000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <88FCFA46-9750-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 12:04 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I am not saying that I agree with a director who awards 60/40. I can > only say that this award is _legal_. I realise that's what you're saying. I'm saying I think you are wrong. > I am fully in favour of such a score in boards that have not > progressed far enough to be able to limit the number of scores that > need to be attributed weights. I can agree with CTD's who instruct > their TD's to not waste their time figuring out appropriate weights > and award 60/40 more regularly. > Don't forget either that scoring programs do not regularly include > options for weighted scores. Isn't the general idea to develop software that assists directors in making legal rulings, rather than allowing illegal rulings because it's convenient for the software? > Rather, the TD needs to check the frequencies (something he can only > do at the end) and then award, say 58/42. Why not allow him to rule > 60/40 straight away? Because it has no basis in law, and it leads to the confusion that we've already seen when 60/40 results are equated with A+/A- results. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Jun 5 13:55:51 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:55:51 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B6D2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eitan Levy wrote: I think you have misunderstood, Sven. The logic of the no-alert (or post alert) above the 3NT level is that=20 generally alerts at this level (where the auctions are usually uncontested)= are more likely to help the alerters rather than the opponents. The=20 opponents always have the opportunity to ask about a bid whether alerted or= not, and post alerting eliminates any defense play mistakes caused by not= understanding the bidding. The example that Kaima gave is: with alerting- an alert of RKCB would remind the partner that they were=20 playing this system and would (probably) be of no benefit during the=20 auction to the defenders with post-alerts - the defenders are in the same position, but the bidders= are not in a position to receive UI from alerts. The same logic applies to many bids above the 3NT level which are also=20 often misunderstood. AND - before we bash the ACBL, you should know that these alert regulations= also apply to EBL and WBF competitions played without screens.(however a= conventional opening bid above 3NT must be alerted). ----- Where on earth did you find this alert regulation (last paragraph above)? I certainly have never heard of it. The WBF Alerting Policy doesn't mention i= t. The Norwegian Bridge Federation has not been informed about this, neither= directly or through the EBL TD's courses. Regards, Harald ----- Eitan Levy At 09:30 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: > > From: kaima > > snip > > Sven wrote: > > > > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be > > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in some > > words on that too. > > > > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't > > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in announc= ing > > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during auctionwhi= ch > > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he > > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other > > reasons, I can't think of. > > > > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL regulati= on. > >Are you saying that the bidding side uses delayed alert for their own >purpose and not for the favor of opponents? That would not be "poor excuse" >that would be plain cheating! > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** 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 henk@ripe.net Thu Jun 5 14:13:25 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:13:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EDF23BB.7000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > Don't forget either that scoring programs do not regularly include > options for weighted scores. Fix the software. > Rather, the TD needs to check the frequencies (something he can only do > at the end) and then award, say 58/42. Why not allow him to rule 60/40 > straight away? If the TD knows that his (properly) weighted score will work out to 58/42, then I have no problem with awarding 60/40. Problem is that he doesn't. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 14:22:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:22:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <88FCFA46-9750-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EDF4431.8010001@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 12:04 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I am not saying that I agree with a director who awards 60/40. I can >> only say that this award is _legal_. > > > I realise that's what you're saying. I'm saying I think you are wrong. > Please tell me why. >> I am fully in favour of such a score in boards that have not >> progressed far enough to be able to limit the number of scores that >> need to be attributed weights. I can agree with CTD's who instruct >> their TD's to not waste their time figuring out appropriate weights >> and award 60/40 more regularly. >> Don't forget either that scoring programs do not regularly include >> options for weighted scores. > > > Isn't the general idea to develop software that assists directors in > making legal rulings, rather than allowing illegal rulings because it's > convenient for the software? > Yes it is - but that does not mean that all software has this option. Rather, no single software (yet) has the option of weighted scores. So whatever you might think of the legality, the software will ask to reeceive a 58/42 score - and that would be a legal L12C3 one. So why should 60/40 be illegal? >> Rather, the TD needs to check the frequencies (something he can only >> do at the end) and then award, say 58/42. Why not allow him to rule >> 60/40 straight away? > > > Because it has no basis in law, and it leads to the confusion that we've > already seen when 60/40 results are equated with A+/A- results. > The first is not true - L12C2 specifically allows this, so why not L12C3? The second is true - it is confusing, but that does not make it illegal, does it? > -- > 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 moranl@netvision.net.il Thu Jun 5 15:57:58 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:57:58 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030605163256.00a072a0@mail.netvision.net.il> I was referring to the non-alerting of 4 level bids. Look at the WBF Alerting Policy http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/Systems/alerts.htm at the paragraph that begins "when screens are not in use" I can't think of a recent EBL tournament without screens, but the last World Junior Pairs Championships in Stargard Poland included the "no alert at four level or higher" regulation. If you are referring to post-alerts, it is true that these regulations do not specifically mention them. I would think that the words "players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter" leads to uusual bids and doubles being alerted after the bidding, in order to inform opponents of such. Of course opponents always asking at the end of high level bidding would also work, but the problem of low-level doubles would remain, and as I mentioned before, it places the onus on the opponents not the bidders. And come to think of it - what is wrong with post-alerts? There's no risk, they inform opponents of bidding agreements without any danger of UI. Regards Eitan At 14:55 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: >AND - before we bash the ACBL, you should know that these alert >regulations also apply to EBL and WBF competitions played without >screens.(however a conventional opening bid above 3NT must be alerted). >----- >Where on earth did you find this alert regulation (last paragraph above)? I >certainly have never heard of it. The WBF Alerting Policy doesn't mention it. >The Norwegian Bridge Federation has not been informed about this, neither >directly or through the EBL TD's courses. > >Regards, >Harald >----- >Eitan Levy > > >At 09:30 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: > > > From: kaima > > > snip > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be > > > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in some > > > words on that too. > > > > > > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > > > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't > > > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in > announcing > > > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during auctionwhich > > > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he > > > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other > > > reasons, I can't think of. > > > > > > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL > regulation. > > > >Are you saying that the bidding side uses delayed alert for their own > >purpose and not for the favor of opponents? That would not be "poor excuse" > >that would be plain cheating! > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >********************************************************************** >This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by >MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > >Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports >********************************************************************** > > > >************************************************************************** >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom >they are addressed. If you have received this email in error >please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. > >Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no > >This footnote also confirms that this email message has been >swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > >Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports >************************************************************************** > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gester@lineone.net Thu Jun 5 14:59:04 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins > > > You are apparently forgetting that L12C > (at least in Europe) has three parts. I see > nothing in L12C3 that precludes an > artificial score there. > +=+ Then your understanding of English is different from mine. The power given in 12C3 is to "vary", to modify, "an assigned score" - not to institute an artificial score, as I understand the language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ================================ This gester address will be an uncertain quantity for a while. The PC that carries it is being moved from one site to another after today. Please use the cyaxares or the grandeval address instead. cyaxares@lineone.net grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jun 5 15:16:03 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:16:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins Message-ID: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Grattan, how can you say something like this ? Why should not Grattan say what is the simple truth? >You are apparently forgetting that L12C (at least in Europe) has three parts. I see nothing in L12C3 that precludes an artificial score there. Then you are not looking. Law 12C1 says that an artificial score may be awarded when no result can be obtained. It may not be awarded when a result has been obtained. Then (Law 12C2), an assigned score must be awarded. This may be varied (Law 12C3) by an appeals committee, but "vary" does not mean "transformed into another type of score altogether". In jurisdictions where directors are allowed to use 12C3, they have the power to award "variations" on an assigned score. But this does not mean that they may award an artificial score when a result has been obtained. They may not, and the "60/40" results dished out at Juan were illegal. Herman, does it ever occur to you that when you are the only person who holds an opinion that you have repeatedly been told by everyone else is nonsense, it is possible that the opinion may be an error? David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 5 15:26:32 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <200306051426.KAA07096@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eitan Levy > I was referring to the non-alerting of 4 level bids. Look at the WBF > Alerting Policy > http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/Systems/alerts.htm > at the paragraph that begins "when screens are not in use" Thanks, Eitan. The ACBL and WBF policies are not quite the same, aside from the differences in what is alertable in the first place. Eitan mentioned the delayed alerts in the ACBL, which are not required in the WBF. Another difference is that in the ACBL, only _bids_ receive delayed alerts. A pass, double, or redouble that requires an alert gets one immediately, even if it is above 3NT and after the first round of the auction. (Not everyone in the ACBL realizes this, and in my opinion the alert rule should have spelled it out more clearly.) The ACBL rule seems to be a good one in principle, but it may be more complicated than players would prefer. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 5 15:34:38 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins Message-ID: <200306051434.KAA07600@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > I realise that's what you're saying. I'm saying I think you are wrong. This is a pointless argument. Opinion is divided, and there is no convincing either side. (David: Herman is not alone this time.) The important point is that artificial scores are a really bad idea. Don't give them unless there is no alternative, as for example when play of the board is impossible. I trust we all agree on this! From gester@lineone.net Thu Jun 5 16:03:06 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:03:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306051434.KAA07600@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001301c32b73$b7bf3220$051f2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins > > I realise that's what you're saying. I'm saying > > I think you are wrong. > > This is a pointless argument. Opinion is divided, > and there is no convincing either side. (David: > Herman is not alone this time.) > > The important point is that artificial scores are a > really bad idea. Don't give them unless there is > no alternative, as for example when play of the > board is impossible. I trust we all agree on this! > +=+ I think it is equally important not to think that 'varying' an assigned score can mean to substitute an artificial score for it. To 'vary' it is to modify it whilst retaining its essential nature. If opinion is divided there is a failure to understand a piece of simple English. +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 5 16:30:26 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:30:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030604203915.00b5a640@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604143814.01d55a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030605172636.01d60400@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:54 4/06/2003 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 09:46 AM 6/4/2003, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>1. Ax --- >> xx A10xxxxx >> AKJx 8xxxx >> AKJxx x >> >> pass >>1S X 4S 5H >>X ...pass pass 6D >> >>This was our very first deal. >>After the very slow pass, may you jump out of the 5H frying pan ? No, of >>cf course. >>The TD decided that East wasn't allowed to correct the contract, and had >>to use L12C. >>Strangely enough, he decided that declarer would always pick the Diamonds >>(Qx were offside). >>Only one down. > >Whether this ruling is right depends on the level of the event and on the >information from the play. A good East will have a count on trumps, and >will try to ruff out the CQ before taking the diamond finesse. If South >turns up with at least five spades (for the opening), three hearts, and >three clubs, then East is entitled to count the hand and refuse the >diamond finesse. Otherwise, either the finesse or drop is a reasonable >play, and thus the offenders get the worse result. AG : my hand was 6.4.2.1 I suppose it could have been 5.4.3.1 with the same bidding. >(Is this the same TD who insisted on giving average-plus on the other hands?) AG : nope. This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several scores is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't consider it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. AG : if you intend to say that, because the result was serendipitously fair, the ruling was, I have to disagree. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 5 16:34:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:34:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030605173056.01d62340@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:56 5/06/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> From: Alain Gottcheiner > >> I have the feeling that all four of these decisions were wrong, most > >> probably illegal. What do you think ? > > > >David S. would no doubt say they are illegal. As he reads L12C1, it is > >illegal to use it when a result has been obtained. (I feel fairly > >confident about David's opinion on this subject because he and I have > >had extensive discussions of it, although not in the past year.) > >I am entirely in accord with DWS on this. Once a score has been obtained >I am not at liberty to award an Artificial score, I have to decide what >the probable outcomes would have been absent infractions, weight them as >necessary and award an Adjusted score. AG : I wonder what the weighted adjusted score could be on hand #4. It is really difficult to guess what would have happened after 1NT X 2C p p. Anyway, the most favorable result -to us- is easy to determine : it is 2C-1 undoubled, and it is plausible enough to be taken into account for L12C2a purposes. So, WTP ? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 5 15:03:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:03:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000901c32b41$74b874a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 6/5/03 at 11:04 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > We have the same alert rules in Norway that except for conventional opening > bids no call is alerted above 3NT. The difference seems to be that we have > no such thing as delayed alerts; it was the purpose of those I questioned. I'm not sure what the ACBL had in mind when they implemented these things. The regs don't say. and I wasn't around back then. > Do ACBL for instance require a delayed alert of RKCB while the original > Blackwood shall not be alerted? Or do they require all conventional use of > 4NT to be post-alerted? (In which case the alert does not serve any real > purpose at all as far as I can see). "In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue-bids, strong artificial 2 openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes." Regarding ace-asking bids, any variety of Blackwood, and "expected responses thereto", is not alertable, if it's initiated by a 4NT bid. This would seem to make Byzantine Blackwood not alertable, which seems a bit much to me. One example given under delayed alerts is: 1H-(P)-1S-(P)-4C, where 4C is a splinter. It requires an alert because it's conventional; it meets the criteria for a delayed alert, so the alert is to be delayed. > A rather common question from defender(s) before making their opening leads > (and particularly recommended when opponents have had a lengthy auction) is: > "What are we entitled to know about your hands"? Or: "What has been shown by > your auction"? > > That places the responsibility upon the declaring side to reveal absolutely > everything relevant to the defense without the defense needing to ask > detailed questions and sorting out the information given during the progress > of the auction. That's a Law 20 question. Your 2nd paragraph, IMO, shows why Law 20 says to ask questions about the whole auction, rather than specific calls.:-) 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 Thu Jun 5 16:39:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:39:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: References: <3EDEE110.1080102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030605173646.01d63140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:18 5/06/2003 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > > >> The TD decided ... 40 / 60. > > >> Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we once > > >> again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to decline. > > > > > > > > > This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD > > > should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several scores > > > is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't consider > > > it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. > > > > > > > > > This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different > > L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is > > entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would > > indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent > > the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. > >Well, if and only if there is a value of x between 0 and 100 that results >in a weighted score of 60%. (Say, if 1NT= scores 50% of the MP, 1N+1 >70%). If both contracts score below (or above) 60%, then the weighted >average should be less (more) than 60%. (Say, if 1N scores 10% and 1N,+1 >30%, the TD could award 20/80 but not 60/40). AG : I'm not sure about that, but 1NT= scored about 63% IIRC, thus 60% is indeed impossible to obtain as a linear combination of 1NT= and 1NT+1. However, this was not needed. We would have felt equity was restored with a score of 1NT=. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 5 18:15:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:15:38 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <200306051426.KAA07096@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 6/5/03 at 10:26 AM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > (Not everyone in the ACBL realizes this, and in my opinion > the alert rule should have spelled it out more clearly.) There's a lot of things the alert rules should have spelled out more clearly. :) > The ACBL rule seems to be a good one in principle, but it may be more > complicated than players would prefer. Which, of course, doesn't absolve players from following it. :) 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jun 5 19:11:40 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:11:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604143814.01d55a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030605172636.01d60400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002401c32b8e$1b3a45a0$8e3df0c3@LNV> > This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD should > not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several scores is most > likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't consider it a serious > violation here because the A+ was a fair score. I hope not to disappoint some of the blml-ers but I don't consider its opinion that important (anymore), though having consensus would be worth noticing. Let us be pratical, half the world - and considering the ACBL, France and the Netherlands being part of it I might estimate that percentage higher - does give artificial scores even when a board has been played out. And if I was not in favour of doing so the Netherlands might have another approach, so you know my opinion. And I use 12C1, because I can't ignore the laws as you will understand, to defend this view. If a side has committed an irregularity and damage occurs and I am not able to decide the contract and/or the number of tricks without that infraction 'no result can be obtained'. Don't start numerous messages telling that I am not able to read and interpret simple English, I am the first to admit. But this is how more than half of the bridge world is giving artificial scores. And yes, we have a problem then, because some of us are too eager to give artificial scores. We should try better to establish an assigned adjusted score. Having 12C3 now, that should be more easy than before. But then going one step further in pragmatism: you only use 12C3 in the right way if after calculating and using 7 alternative outcomes on the board the difference with average+/- is less than 1%. I did not write this to defend Herman, he still needs to answer David's challenging question about his (s)t.. enacity. ton From nancy@dressing.org Thu Jun 5 19:59:46 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:46 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: Message-ID: <002801c32b94$a1d2d950$6401a8c0@hare> Further to this thread, ACBL requires that all opening leads be made face down! Another often abused rule. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > On 6/5/03 at 10:26 AM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > > > (Not everyone in the ACBL realizes this, and in my opinion > > the alert rule should have spelled it out more clearly.) > > There's a lot of things the alert rules should have spelled out more clearly. > :) > > > The ACBL rule seems to be a good one in principle, but it may be more > > complicated than players would prefer. > > Which, of course, doesn't absolve players from following it. :) > > 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 hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 20:18:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:18:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> Message-ID: <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> Well Grattan, gester@lineone.net wrote: > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Liverpool: European Capital of Culture, > 2008. Sorry Grattan, I had congratulated David as soon as I heard but had neglected some other Lever-pullers. > >> >>You are apparently forgetting that L12C >>(at least in Europe) has three parts. I see >>nothing in L12C3 that precludes an >>artificial score there. >> >> > +=+ Then your understanding of English is > different from mine. The power given in 12C3 > is to "vary", to modify, "an assigned score" - not > to institute an artificial score, as I understand > the language. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I was first of all commenting on your saying that since L12C1 and L12C2 did not allow for the possibility, then nor could L12C. that is manifestly untrue. Now you are stating that L12C3 can also not be used. I don't really see why not. L12C2 specifically authorizes a score to be given in MP directly. IMO "60% of available MP" is authorized by the second part of L12C2, while indeed not by the first. But varying such a score should IMO include changing one amount of MP into another. Again mind you, I am not in favour of this when it is used lazily. But sometimes we cannot do otherwise. Suppose I open 1NT and my LHO overcalls 2H. This is misexplained. What AS to give? A look at the frequency table reveals that there are 8 possible scores. Do you really expect the AC to come up with satisfactory weights for each and every one of them? Would it end up far from 60%? I would like to draw Grattan's attention to Appeal 10 from Sorrento, including the footnote. In that appeal, the TD had awarded 60%. The AC refined this to 20% of 5H-1 and 80% of 4H=. That turned out to be 70.96%. Rather than stress that the TD had acted illegally, the AC confirmed that it had noticed that the TD's had been extremely busy during the session. > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 20:25:30 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:25:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Grattan, how can you say something like this ? >> > > Why should not Grattan say what is the simple truth? > Grattan said that since L12C1 and L12C2 preclude something, then so does L12C. A manifest error. > >>You are apparently forgetting that L12C (at least in Europe) has three parts. I see nothing in L12C3 that precludes an artificial score there. >> > > Then you are not looking. Law 12C1 says that an artificial score may be awarded when no result can be obtained. It may not be awarded when a result has been obtained. Then (Law 12C2), an assigned score must be awarded. This may be varied (Law 12C3) by an appeals committee, but "vary" does not mean "transformed into another type of score altogether". In jurisdictions where directors are allowed to use 12C3, they have the power to award "variations" on an assigned score. But this does not mean that they may award an artificial score when a result has been obtained. They may not, and the "60/40" results dished out at Juan were illegal. > Why do you insist on calling 60% an "artificial score"? Artificial scores are defined in L12C1 as "average (plus/minus)". I have often stressed that the 60% awarded at the EBU appeal and at Juan are not Average plusses, but rather "scores assigned in matchpoints". I continue to maintain that such scores are legal. Lazy, but legal. > Herman, does it ever occur to you that when you are the only person who holds an opinion that you have repeatedly been told by everyone else is nonsense, it is possible that the opinion may be an error? > David, has it ever occured to you that I may be right, in spite of a number of people saying that I am right? Has it ever occured to you that several people may see no problem with this legality, and yet remain silent? Has it ever occured to you that CTD's at major European Tournaments and at Juan (where the CTD is quite probably a big name too) don't seem to think they are acting illegally? Why do you insist that I am the only one defending this? Maybe because you believe it is an argument that will silence me? You should know better by now. :-) > David Burn > London, England > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 5 20:26:39 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:26:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306051434.KAA07600@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3EDF996F.6020407@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>I realise that's what you're saying. I'm saying I think you are wrong. >> > > This is a pointless argument. Opinion is divided, and there is no > convincing either side. (David: Herman is not alone this time.) > see, David? And that from a part of the world where IMHO these kinds of scores ARE illegal! > The important point is that artificial scores are a really bad idea. > Don't give them unless there is no alternative, as for example when > play of the board is impossible. I trust we all agree on this! > Absolutely! Please don't be lazy. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 5 20:43:10 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:43:10 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 6/5/03 at 11:04 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > > > We have the same alert rules in Norway that except for conventional opening > > bids no call is alerted above 3NT. The difference seems to be that we have > > no such thing as delayed alerts; it was the purpose of those I questioned. > > I'm not sure what the ACBL had in mind when they implemented these things. The > regs don't say. and I wasn't around back then. They are still fairly new animals. I keep thinking maybe people just aren't aware of the rule yet (though some of them are and ignore it, as they ignore announcing all NT ranges.) > > Do ACBL for instance require a delayed alert of RKCB while the original > > Blackwood shall not be alerted? Or do they require all conventional use of > > 4NT to be post-alerted? (In which case the alert does not serve any real > > purpose at all as far as I can see). > "In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, > however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during > the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue-bids, strong > artificial 2 openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes." > > Regarding ace-asking bids, any variety of Blackwood, and "expected responses > thereto", is not alertable, if it's initiated by a 4NT bid. This would seem to > make Byzantine Blackwood not alertable, which seems a bit much to me. This is true. However: the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted, ALSO says that if you have used any species of Blackwood/Gerber/Voidwood/RKC/whatever, you shall say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" after the auction. In practice, even fewer people follow that rule than follow the basic delayed-alert procedure. Many don't say, others volunteer "1430" or "RKC" or something. It's funny the way people jump to conclusions when I post-alert one of my 4NT bids... I have an awful time getting a word in edgewise to warn them it isn't ace-asking most of the time in my partnership:) GRB From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jun 5 21:23:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:23:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Transfer of PC to fresh site. Message-ID: <000d01c32ba0$5e787460$8316e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <200306052123.OAA17412@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon Bower wrote: > This is true. However: the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT > on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted, ALSO says that if > you have used any species of Blackwood/Gerber/Voidwood/RKC/whatever, you > shall say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" after the auction. I don't think this is correct. From "ACBL Alert Procedure" on their website: 3) ACE ASKING BIDS 4NT Blackwood (any variety over suits) and 4C Gerber (any variety over notrump) and expected responses thereto do not require an Alert of any kind. All other ace-asking bids and responses require an Alert, but some of these Alerts must be "delayed." Ace-asking bids at the level of 3NT or below and usages on the first round (other than Blackwood and Gerber as described above), require an immediate Alert. Unusual ace-asking bids above the level of 3NT starting with opener's second turn to call require a delayed Alert. EXAMPLES: 1S-P-4H-P-4S If you have agreed to play 4S as an ace-asking bid, make a delayed Alert! Furthermore, the responses to 4S and to subsequent asking bids require a delayed Alert. 1C-P-4C If this is Gerber, the 1C opener should say "Alert" immediately after the 4C bid. 1H-P-4NT If this 4NT is Blackwood, no Alert or delayed Alert is required. Normal responses to any variety Blackwood do not require an Alert. >From the "ACBL Alert Changes" on their website: II. Conventional Bids -- All conventional bids are Alertable, except for: . . . c. Gerber (4 either immediately or delayed over partner's notrump asking for aces), Blackwood (4NT), their variations (e.g., KCB, RKCB, 1430, etc.), and expected responses thereto. (Note: Non-4NT ace-asking bids such as Kickback, those below 3NT, opening ace-asking bids, and any of their responses require either an Alert or Delayed Alert.) I could find no reference to the phrase "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" in these documents; and since that's where "the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted" is located, I think Gordon's assertion is incorrect. Gordon, if you can still find the rule somewhere, could you let us know where? So no, you don't have to say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred". If you use 4NT Blackwood, or 4C Gerber over notrump, you generally don't have to say anything. If you use some other bid (including 4C Gerber in a suit auction), you have to make an Alert or Delayed Alert. I seem to recall that there used to be a rule that some non-standard ace-asking conventions (including RKCB) had to be announced after the auction, even if 4NT was the asking bid. But I believe this is an old rule that is no longer in effect. -- Adam From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 5 22:49:10 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:49:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Well Grattan, > >gester@lineone.net wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Liverpool: European Capital of Culture, >> 2008. > > >Sorry Grattan, I had congratulated David as soon as I heard but had >neglected some other Lever-pullers. > > >> >>> >>>You are apparently forgetting that L12C >>>(at least in Europe) has three parts. I see >>>nothing in L12C3 that precludes an >>>artificial score there. >>> >>> >> +=+ Then your understanding of English is >> different from mine. The power given in 12C3 >> is to "vary", to modify, "an assigned score" - not >> to institute an artificial score, as I understand >> the language. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > >I was first of all commenting on your saying that since L12C1 and >L12C2 did not allow for the possibility, then nor could L12C. that is >manifestly untrue. > >Now you are stating that L12C3 can also not be used. I don't really >see why not. L12C2 specifically authorizes a score to be given in MP >directly. IMO "60% of available MP" is authorized by the second part >of L12C2, while indeed not by the first. 60% expressed as mps is different from A+. Different laws give rise to what in this case would be the same outcome. I could award 72% expressed as mps but would be hard pushed to get that score using an A+/A- formula. >But varying such a score should IMO include changing one amount of MP >into another. >Again mind you, I am not in favour of this when it is used lazily. But >sometimes we cannot do otherwise. > >Suppose I open 1NT and my LHO overcalls 2H. This is misexplained. What >AS to give? A look at the frequency table reveals that there are 8 >possible scores. Do you really expect the AC to come up with >satisfactory weights for each and every one of them? Would it end up >far from 60%? I have frequently awarded scores based on 5 possible outcomes. 8 would not stretch the imagination. > >I would like to draw Grattan's attention to Appeal 10 from Sorrento, >including the footnote. >In that appeal, the TD had awarded 60%. The AC refined this to 20% of >5H-1 and 80% of 4H=. That turned out to be 70.96%. Rather than stress >that the TD had acted illegally, the AC confirmed that it had noticed >that the TD's had been extremely busy during the session. > > >> >> >> >> > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 5 22:51:01 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:51:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <4044BD13-973B-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3EDEE110.1080102@skynet.be> <4044BD13-973B-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <4044BD13-973B-11D7-BA67-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 07:20 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> David J. Grabiner wrote: >> >>>> The TD decided ... 40 / 60. >>>> Since 60% was about what we'd have scored in 1NT just making, we >>>> once again didn't bother to appeal. Wonder whether we were right to >>>> decline. >>> This is the popular misuse of L12C2; the BLML consensus is that a TD >>> should not award A+/A- when he cannot determine which of several >>> scores is most likely, but few TD's seem to understand this. I don't >>> consider it a serious violation here because the A+ was a fair score. >> >> >> This is not a misuse of L12C2. Unless the TD is reading a different >> L12C2. This is L12C3. If the TD is entitled to use L12C3, then he is >> entitled to rule it as X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1. Now I would >> indeed give something like this but IMO there is nothing to prevent >> the TD from expressing this directly into MP and award 60%/40%. Mind >> you, it is wrong to present this as A+/A-, but I doubt if the TD at >> Juan used those words at the table. He probably sais >> "soixante/quarante". > >Are such directors going to come back and recalculate it as, for >example 58%/42% if one of the other results on the board changes? > >It shouldn't be any trouble for someone who has such a command of >scoring that they can work out "X% of 1NT= plus (100-X)% of 1NT+1" and >then convert it directly into MPs and then percentages without even >looking at the rest of the results on the board. A decent scoring program does this for you. > >-- >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 john@asimere.com Thu Jun 5 22:53:07 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:53:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> References: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >> Herman wrote: >> >> > > >Why do you insist on calling 60% an "artificial score"? >Artificial scores are defined in L12C1 as "average (plus/minus)". >I have often stressed that the 60% awarded at the EBU appeal and at >Juan are not Average plusses, but rather "scores assigned in >matchpoints". I continue to maintain that such scores are legal. >Lazy, but legal. > > >> Herman, does it ever occur to you that when you are the only person who holds >an opinion that you have repeatedly been told by everyone else is nonsense, it >is possible that the opinion may be an error? >> > > >David, has it ever occured to you that I may be right, in spite of a >number of people saying that I am right? Herman is right IMO. >Has it ever occured to you that several people may see no problem with >this legality, and yet remain silent? >Has it ever occured to you that CTD's at major European Tournaments >and at Juan (where the CTD is quite probably a big name too) don't >seem to think they are acting illegally? > >Why do you insist that I am the only one defending this? Maybe because >you believe it is an argument that will silence me? You should know >better by now. :-) > > >> David Burn >> London, England >> > >> > > -- 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 Thu Jun 5 23:09:25 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:09:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3EDFBF95.4020705@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>Now you are stating that L12C3 can also not be used. I don't really >>see why not. L12C2 specifically authorizes a score to be given in MP >>directly. IMO "60% of available MP" is authorized by the second part >>of L12C2, while indeed not by the first. >> > > 60% expressed as mps is different from A+. Different laws give rise to > what in this case would be the same outcome. I could award 72% expressed > as mps but would be hard pushed to get that score using an A+/A- > formula. > Exactly. And I agree with all of you that it is illegal to award Av+ when a score has been obtained. But I maintain that it is not illegal to award 60% of MP under L12C3. Incidentally, that means that IMO this type of score IS illegal in the ACBL. And also, I don't agree with Ton's analysis that since it is _too difficult_ to find a normal score, this authorizes the TD to award a L12C1 60% score. I don't believe that this is correct. > > I have frequently awarded scores based on 5 possible outcomes. 8 would > not stretch the imagination. > But can't you imagine that if it you begin from close to the start of the auction, the weightings wil be quite similar to the actual frequencies around the room, and 50% the normal outcome - or 60% with liberal weightings? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 5 23:35:06 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:35:06 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <200306052123.OAA17412@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > This is true. However: the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT > > on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted, ALSO says that if > > you have used any species of Blackwood/Gerber/Voidwood/RKC/whatever, you > > shall say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" after the auction. > > I don't think this is correct. This is very interesting. The requirement to say an ace-asking sequence occurred was added the same time as delayed alerts were added (1997 revision? I don't think it was as early as the 1994 revision.) Looking at the 2002 update on the ACBL's webpage, I see that - as you point out - this requirement has been very quietly removed from the section on delayed alerts. However, they also provide a summary of changes made in 2002, where they say "Delayed Alerts: No Changes." Digging a little deeper, I find that, in fact, it was gone from the 2000 revision too. When they first imposed the requirement I found it a bit odd (it was strange, because there were no other announcements at the time... it felt very foreign the first few times I had to make the announcement at the end of the auction) ... given how much time I have spent reading proposed alert procedures and sending emails to Memphis about them, I am really surprised I didn't notice this get repealed. Anyone happen to know when it happened? I can't find anything old enough to confirm whether it was retracted almost as soon as it was added, or if it was in place for the "3-year moratorium period" (1997-2000) and just removed silently at the end of it. At least I know now why my opponents have been failing to do it and giving me weird looks when I do. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 5 23:25:31 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:25:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 6/5/03 at 11:43 AM, siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > I'm not sure what the ACBL had in mind when they implemented these > > things. The regs don't say. and I wasn't around back then. > > They are still fairly new animals. So? I guess I must be newer. > I keep thinking maybe people just aren't aware of the rule yet > (though some of them are and ignore it, as they ignore announcing all > NT ranges.) Why would you think that? What does it matter? If they don't obey the rule because they aren't aware of it, educate them. If they're ignoring it, penalize them until they stop. > This is true. However: the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT > on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted, ALSO says that if > you have used any species of Blackwood/Gerber/Voidwood/RKC/whatever, you > shall say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" after the auction. No it doesn't. Not in the version I read on the ACBL website. Have you another version? 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 kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 00:16:47 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:16:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: Message-ID: Gordon, I hope you will take a leadership role in this and make ACBL straighten out their Alert Chart to a legible and understandable version. I can just hear in my head the cheers (perhaps jeers...) from the players when YET ANOTHER alert procedure change is communicated to them, hehe, although this time it would be just to correct existing errors/inconsistencies. Kaima aka D R Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > > > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > This is true. However: the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT > > > on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted, ALSO says that if > > > you have used any species of Blackwood/Gerber/Voidwood/RKC/whatever, you > > > shall say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" after the auction. > > > > I don't think this is correct. > > This is very interesting. > > The requirement to say an ace-asking sequence occurred was added the same > time as delayed alerts were added (1997 revision? I don't think it was as > early as the 1994 revision.) > > Looking at the 2002 update on the ACBL's webpage, I see that - as you > point out - this requirement has been very quietly removed from the > section on delayed alerts. However, they also provide a summary of changes > made in 2002, where they say "Delayed Alerts: No Changes." > > Digging a little deeper, I find that, in fact, it was gone from the 2000 > revision too. > > When they first imposed the requirement I found it a bit odd (it was > strange, because there were no other announcements at the time... it felt > very foreign the first few times I had to make the announcement at the end > of the auction) ... given how much time I have spent reading proposed > alert procedures and sending emails to Memphis about them, I am really > surprised I didn't notice this get repealed. > > Anyone happen to know when it happened? I can't find anything old enough > to confirm whether it was retracted almost as soon as it was added, or if > it was in place for the "3-year moratorium period" (1997-2000) and just > removed silently at the end of it. > > At least I know now why my opponents have been failing to do it and giving > me weird looks when I do. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jun 6 07:42:44 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030604143814.01d55a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030605172636.01d60400@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002401c32b8e$1b3a45a0$8e3df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001601c32bf6$e9c99fc0$941ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins > Let us be practical, half the world - and considering the ACBL, > France and the Netherlands being part of it I might estimate > that percentage higher - does give artificial scores even when > a board has been played out. And if I was not in favour of > doing so the Netherlands might have another approach, so > you know my opinion. < +=+ I would not have a strong objection in principle to allowing artificial scores in some situations following an irregularity, even though the board has been played out. I just think it is a waste of time writing laws that say this is not the method if people are going to do it anyway. Perhaps we should forget the idea of laws and just let every SO do what it thinks best. +=+ < > And I use 12C1, because I can't ignore the laws as you will > understand, to defend this view. If a side has committed an > irregularity and damage occurs and I am not able to decide > the contract and/or the number of tricks without that infraction > 'no result can be obtained'. > +=+ I do not quite understand this statement. Are we not talking about a situation where a result has been obtained? If the Director is going to say "because I cannot determine a score without the infraction no result can be obtained", even though a result has been obtained and is sitting there under his nose, we desperately need to change the wording of Law 12C. IMO if an artificial score is substituted for an assigned score in these circumstances it is not a 12C score but is based upon a reading of 'normal' in 12A2 - a reading which has been introduced IMO after we set up this law. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 07:55:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:55:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <200306052230.SAA23011@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3EE03AF5.4090409@skynet.be> Quite right, Steve. Steve Willner wrote: >>But I maintain that it is not illegal to award 60% of MP under L12C3. >> > > If so, it is also legal under L12C2. > Yes, but L12C2 has a strange double twist. On the one hand, it defines the AS as "the best ..." and "the worst ...", but on the other hand it says that such score can be given directly into MP. I don't see the use of the second part if the first is taken literally. Giving 60% of MP is certainly legal under L12C2, but it can hardly conform to the best ... > >>Incidentally, that means that IMO this type of score IS illegal in the >>ACBL. >> > > This debate has no end! > True. When reading Ton's post, stating that the ACBL, the NBB and the FFB have long since been giving Av+ in such cases, my reaction was, "that does not make it right". The only reason I can find for awarding 60% when a board has finished is the one put forward in L12C3: when the L12C2 AS would be too much of a benefit for the NOS. When we don't know with enough certainty how the game will progress after the correction of the infraction. When the "best possible" is only one of several equally possible outcomes. Then we should be able to award an average of all. And yes, sadly that leaves the ACBL without possibility for an equitable outcome. They should accept L12C3, if they want to be able to give 60% scores. All this is my personal opinion, of course. > Cheers. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jun 6 08:41:25 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:41:25 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990021B6F3@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eitan Levy wrote: I was referring to the non-alerting of 4 level bids. Look at the WBF=20 Alerting Policy http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/Systems/alerts.htm at the paragraph that begins "when screens are not in use" I can't think of a recent EBL tournament without screens, but the last=20 World Junior Pairs Championships in Stargard Poland included the "no alert= at four level or higher" regulation. If you are referring to post-alerts, it is true that these regulations do= not specifically mention them. I would think that the words "players must= respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter" leads to uusual=20 bids and doubles being alerted after the bidding, in order to inform=20 opponents of such. Of course opponents always asking at the end of high=20 level bidding would also work, but the problem of low-level doubles would= remain, and as I mentioned before, it places the onus on the opponents not= the bidders. And come to think of it - what is wrong with post-alerts? There's no risk,= they inform opponents of bidding agreements without any danger of UI. ----- I was referring to the post-alerts. They're not mentioned in the WBF Alert Policy. And thus not a part of the WBF or EBL alert procedure. Of course I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with post-alerts. Quite the contr= ary. But I guess it's difficult to implement, except at top level. And there you mostly play with screens - no problem. Regards Harald ----- Regards Eitan At 14:55 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: >AND - before we bash the ACBL, you should know that these alert=20 >regulations also apply to EBL and WBF competitions played without=20 >screens.(however a conventional opening bid above 3NT must be alerted). >----- >Where on earth did you find this alert regulation (last paragraph above)? I >certainly have never heard of it. The WBF Alerting Policy doesn't mention = it. >The Norwegian Bridge Federation has not been informed about this, neither= >directly or through the EBL TD's courses. > >Regards, >Harald >----- >Eitan Levy > > >At 09:30 05/06/03 +0200, you wrote: > > > From: kaima > > > snip > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be > > > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in so= me > > > words on that too. > > > > > > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > > > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't > > > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in=20 > announcing > > > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during auctionw= hich > > > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he > > > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other > > > reasons, I can't think of. > > > > > > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL=20 > regulation. > > > >Are you saying that the bidding side uses delayed alert for their own > >purpose and not for the favor of opponents? That would not be "poor excu= se" > >that would be plain cheating! > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >********************************************************************** >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 _______________________________________________ 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jun 6 09:03:04 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:03:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002801c32c02$1a3eb5e0$7cc7f1c3@LNV> > >Why do you insist on calling 60% an "artificial score"? > >Artificial scores are defined in L12C1 as "average (plus/minus)". > >I have often stressed that the 60% awarded at the EBU appeal and at > >Juan are not Average plusses, but rather "scores assigned in > >matchpoints". I continue to maintain that such scores are legal. > >Lazy, but legal. > > > > > >> Herman, does it ever occur to you that when you are the only person who holds > >an opinion that you have repeatedly been told by everyone else is nonsense, it > >is possible that the opinion may be an error? > >> > > > > > >David, has it ever occured to you that I may be right, in spite of a > >number of people saying that I am right? > > Herman is right IMO. Herman is wrong. It is true that 12C2 gives the possibility to award a score in matchpoints. But then the TD should award the score in matchpoints, isn't it? This is not just hair splitting. I am 99,9% sure (which is somewhat more than Herman can be in many of his statements) that in Juan and in Eur or World ch. a 60% so given is treated as an A.A.S., meaning that it changes when the real score in the session is higher than 60%. This is a score given under 12C1 and Herman should stop saying otherwise. What he could have said is that we should change such adjusted score in one given under 12C2. But then to avoid a supposed illegal decision we come up with a strange solution and strange result just to avoid comments. Not my approach. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 09:34:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:34:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> <002801c32c02$1a3eb5e0$7cc7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3EE05200.3010004@skynet.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: >>>Why do you insist on calling 60% an "artificial score"? >>>Artificial scores are defined in L12C1 as "average (plus/minus)". >>>I have often stressed that the 60% awarded at the EBU appeal and at >>>Juan are not Average plusses, but rather "scores assigned in >>>matchpoints". I continue to maintain that such scores are legal. >>>Lazy, but legal. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Herman, does it ever occur to you that when you are the only person who >>>> > holds > >>>an opinion that you have repeatedly been told by everyone else is >>> > nonsense, it > >>>is possible that the opinion may be an error? >>> >>> >>>David, has it ever occured to you that I may be right, in spite of a >>>number of people saying that I am right? >>> >>Herman is right IMO. >> > > > > > Herman is wrong. It is true that 12C2 gives the possibility to award a score > in matchpoints. But then the TD should award the score in matchpoints, isn't > it? > This is not just hair splitting. I am 99,9% sure (which is somewhat more > than Herman can be in many of his statements) that in Juan and in Eur or > World ch. a 60% so given is treated as an A.A.S., meaning that it changes > when the real score in the session is higher than 60%. This is a score given > under 12C1 and Herman should stop saying otherwise. > Well Ton, in that case I want to side with David, David, and all the others who have said that to award an artificial score under L12C1 is ILLEGAL. It detracts the TD from his duties under L12C2. I don't care if this is what people have been doing all the time, it is illegal. I wanted to give you an escape route by telling you that such scores are legal under L12C3, but apparently you don't want that escape route. Well Ton, good luck on you, the dutch, the french and the americans for doing something that according to us is illegal. > What he could have said is that we should change such adjusted score in one > given under 12C2. But then to avoid a supposed illegal decision we come up > with a strange solution and strange result just to avoid comments. Not my > approach. > What is so strange about considering these scores as legal under L12C3? After all, they are equitable. Even Alain, when given a score of 60% when even 1NT= would have been better, did not think it worth to appeal. The score of 60% is eminently equitable. As a solution under L12C3 (with all the safeguards needed to do so - competent directors or only ACs) it is perfectly acceptable. Why don't you accept that this is the perfect compromise to an otherwise endless discussion as to whether this is legal? > ton > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jun 6 10:24:20 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:24:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> <002801c32c02$1a3eb5e0$7cc7f1c3@LNV> <3EE05200.3010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004e01c32c0f$8d28d1a0$7cc7f1c3@LNV> > > Well Ton, in that case I want to side with David, David, and all the > others who have said that to award an artificial score under L12C1 is > ILLEGAL. It detracts the TD from his duties under L12C2. I don't care > if this is what people have been doing all the time, it is illegal. > > I wanted to give you an escape route by telling you that such scores > are legal under L12C3, but apparently you don't want that escape route. > > Well Ton, good luck on you, the dutch, the french and the americans > for doing something that according to us is illegal. > Not just those. Add chief TD's in world and eur. ch. (as you did before) and even in festivals around the world. And they already did so before 12C3 became available for them. And they don't need luck, it has been proven to work for a long time already. But there still is the danger of using the aas too often, which is not solved by your suggestions either. ton > > > What he could have said is that we should change such adjusted score in one > > given under 12C2. But then to avoid a supposed illegal decision we come up > > with a strange solution and strange result just to avoid comments. Not my > > approach. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 11:07:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 12:07:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <4587760.1054822563258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3EDF992A.7030103@skynet.be> <002801c32c02$1a3eb5e0$7cc7f1c3@LNV> <3EE05200.3010004@skynet.be> <004e01c32c0f$8d28d1a0$7cc7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3EE067D4.7020501@skynet.be> I don't understand you guys. Here we have a genuine problem. Cases sometimes come up where, although the infraction is clear, it is unclear what the adjustment should be. A literal application of L12C2 leads to an absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely to really happen, and we don't want to give that. Instead, we feel that 60% is an equitable result. The NOs agrees even. Now it turns out that L12C1, according to most (including some of the one camp) cannot be applied. And so a problem arises. There are two camps: One camp, which I shall call the realists, and which includes no less than the chairman of the WBFLC, says that this is what has always been done, that it is accepted by the players, and that according to one reading (on which they don't agree among themselves), it is in fact legal. The other camp, which apparently contains mostly Englishmen, are the legalists. They insist that L12C1 and 2 preclude the practice and insist that it is illegal. To make matters even worse, they are not certain of their case as such that they have included into EBU regulations one that again renders the practice illegal. Yet they then proceed to publish an appeal in which the practice is used to the extreme (by awarding 40/60 - advantageous to OS!). Now I do detect some points of agreement between both camps: Many people from the realist camp agree that the practice might be illegal, and many of the legalist camp agree that the scores thus given are in fact equitable. In steps a Belgian. Belgians are famous for compromises. You should see our political scene! The Belgian finds a solution. The practice of giving such a score is undoubtably legal under L12C3. So what's the problem? The problem is that the Belgian gets the flack from both camps. The legalists turn themselves into all sorts of corners in trying to prove that the practice remains illegal, despite the formulation of L12C3 which seems to allow almost everything. And the realists, rather than being happy that they now have an excuse, insist that they don't need an excuse. Ah well, I'll return to Belgian politics. Nothing silly there. Belgium's the country where a man called "Dewael" (the walloon) was premier of Flanders. He will now become vice-premier of Belgium. The new premier of Flanders was supposed to gonna be Mr van Mechelen, but now instead it will be the mayor of ... Mechelen. Well, at least he's called Somers (summers), not De Winter - president of the extreme right party that gained as many votes as any of the big three (four). Anyway, the compromise is there, those that wish can use it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 6 11:33:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:33:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE067D4.7020501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c32c17$23ce04c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > I don't understand you guys. >=20 > Here we have a genuine problem. >=20 > Cases sometimes come up where, although the infraction is clear, it is > unclear what the adjustment should be. A literal application of L12C2 > leads to an absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely > to really happen, and we don't want to give that. Instead, we feel > that 60% is an equitable result. The NOs agrees even. >=20 > Now it turns out that L12C1, according to most (including some of the > one camp) cannot be applied. And so a problem arises. >=20 > There are two camps: >=20 > One camp, which I shall call the realists, and which includes no less > than the chairman of the WBFLC, says that this is what has always been > done, that it is accepted by the players, and that according to one > reading (on which they don't agree among themselves), it is in fact = legal. >=20 > The other camp, which apparently contains mostly Englishmen, are the > legalists. They insist that L12C1 and 2 preclude the practice and > insist that it is illegal I am not quite sure to which camp I shall be counted by Herman, but I = shall like to ask one question before proceeding any further: Due to a revoke = the defense loses their trick won by the Ace of trumps (revoke penalty). The result is that NOS gets all thirteen tricks and a clean top. You may = even make this an extreme case by saying that declaring side because of a = mistake in their auction bid a grand slam vulnerable in a match for teams, it = was doubled and redoubled and eventually won only because of this revoke. I = do not care to figure out the number of IMPs won on this single board, = normally I believe it should be sufficient to win the entire match. So, as a Director do you find cause for saying that they do not deserve = this victory and adjust the result back to 7S** -1 for the NOS? I bet (and = hope) that you do not because that would indisputably be illegal anywhere in = the world (law 12B), but why not according to your logic on Law 12C = adjustments? Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 12:27:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:27:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000201c32c17$23ce04c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> Sorry Sven, totally irrelevant to the discussion. Sven Pran wrote: > > So, as a Director do you find cause for saying that they do not deserve this > victory and adjust the result back to 7S** -1 for the NOS? I bet (and hope) > that you do not because that would indisputably be illegal anywhere in the > world (law 12B), but why not according to your logic on Law 12C adjustments? > > Regards Sven > The problem we are talking of is the decision on what AS to give. The real score is scrapped and has to be substituted. On a literal reading of L12C2, 3NTXX= might be the AS. We don't feel that NOS merit this. We want to give them 60%. We can. Nothing to do with revokes. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 6 12:46:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:46:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c32c21$51f37b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sorry Sven, totally irrelevant to the discussion. Is it? In your post you wrote: "A literal application of L12C2 leads to = an absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely to really = happen, and we don't want to give that". In my example I showed another scenario (which in fact has happened on = some occasions) where following the laws leads to an equally unlikely (if not = to say impossible) result. But in my scenario the Director has no choice = but to use Law 64A2 and adjust the result on the board from one down (the = actual result at the table) to grand slam made. Where is the logic in letting the Director's opinion on what the NOS deserves be relevant under Law 12C when it is not relevant in Law 64A? = If the NOS can show the possibility of a good result for their side had the irregularity not occurred why should they not receive this result when = Law 12C2 is applicable? (And it is my firm opinion that L12C2 should take precedence over Law 12C1 whenever possible.) Sven =20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > So, as a Director do you find cause for saying that they do not = deserve > this > > victory and adjust the result back to 7S** -1 for the NOS? I bet = (and > hope) > > that you do not because that would indisputably be illegal anywhere = in > the > > world (law 12B), but why not according to your logic on Law 12C > adjustments? > > > > Regards Sven > > >=20 >=20 > The problem we are talking of is the decision on what AS to give. The > real score is scrapped and has to be substituted. On a literal reading > of L12C2, 3NTXX=3D might be the AS. We don't feel that NOS merit this. > We want to give them 60%. We can. > Nothing to do with revokes. >=20 >=20 > > > > >=20 >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 6 13:13:19 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:13:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: References: <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030606080007.00a0e1d0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:49 PM 6/5/03, John wrote: >In article <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Suppose I open 1NT and my LHO overcalls 2H. This is misexplained. What > >AS to give? A look at the frequency table reveals that there are 8 > >possible scores. Do you really expect the AC to come up with > >satisfactory weights for each and every one of them? Would it end up > >far from 60%? > >I have frequently awarded scores based on 5 possible outcomes. 8 would >not stretch the imagination. I can't imagine having to weight eight scores, but why should that ever happen? The first thing you do is pick the one outcome -- possibly two in a minority of cases -- that satisfies L12C2. Most of the time, presumably, you are done, unless you determine that the L12C2 adjustment fails to "do equity". In the latter case, you go to L12C3, and compute a combination of the L12C2 score with one, parhaps two, alternative possible results, each appropriately weighted. If that doesn't suffice to "do equity" you should at least consider that you may be misguided in your view of what equity is for the deal. Keep in mind that L12C3 doesn't require you to assign the mathematically optimal result under the tenets of proability theory; it only requires you to find an adjustment which you believe "does equity". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Jun 6 14:48:20 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:48:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? References: Message-ID: <013301c32c36$00a3d960$37053dd4@b0e7g1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:30 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Can the director order pairs to play? > > Steve Willner asked: > > [big snip] > > >Does anyone (besides Sven) claim such unanticipated > >changes to the movement violate the CoC? > > Richard replied: > > *If* an SO has foolishly promulgated a detailed & rigid > CoC, without a clause permitting variance of the CoC by > the TD in specified emergency circumstances - > > *Then* the TD is bound by Law 81B2 to run the movement > in an idiotic way if such an emergency occurs. > > However, a more usual circumstance is that the SO's CoC > is incomplete. If a problem occurs which is not > mentioned by the CoC, then the TD is free to make up > their own ad hoc rule to deal with the emergency, under > the power given to the TD by Law 81C3. > > And Law82B2 (two pairs at fault) Ben From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jun 6 15:49:10 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:49:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000201c32c17$23ce04c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c32c3a$cb385da0$a9518351@com> Herman wrote: > Sorry Sven, totally irrelevant to the discussion. It has everything to do with the discussion. You are forbidden by law from varying a penalty because you consider the application of law to be too harsh or too lenient. You are forbidden by law from expressing an assigned adjusted score other than in terms of bridge results, contracts and numbers of tricks that would with varying degrees of probability be reached absent an infraction. You do both of these things, and you contend that to do them is legal. It is not, and the chairman of the WBFLC can swear that it is until he is blue in the face without it making any difference. Just because they do things in the Netherlands does not make those things legal. Law 12C2 makes it absolutely clear that assigned adjusted scores must be expressed in terms of bridge results. You can express them in matchpoints if you like, but this means only that you may tell the scorers: "North-South receive half the matchpoints for 4H one down and half those for 4H making; East-West receive all the matchpoints for 4H making". It does not mean that you can say: "North-South receive 60% on this board as an assigned adjusted score", and to say that it does is to read the words wholly out of context. Once an assigned adjusted score has been awarded under 12C2, then whoever has the power to vary it may do so under 12C3; but as Grattan and I have said, to "vary" a thing means to alter certain attributes of the thing while leaving its nature unchanged. It does not mean to change the nature of a thing, as by changing an assigned score to an artificial score. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jun 6 16:11:43 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:11:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? Message-ID: <005a01c32c3d$f1194c20$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> You frequently encounter a law you dislike. What do you? We have seen four BLML approaches: 1. Kooijiman: WISHFUL THINKER: Claim the law says something different; or was intended to mean something else. 2. Jaap van der Neut. MACHOMAN: Judge the law to be mad/unenforceable. Invent your own law and abide by it e.g slow play at the first trick, fielding red psyches, etc, etc... 3. Herman de Wael. LAWYER: Find another seemingly contradictory law which can be stretched to cover these circumstances (for which it wasn't intended). 4. David Burns. FUNDAMENTALIST: Apply the letter of the laws (but complain occasionally). 5. REFORMER. (1) Get carte-blanche endorsement from WBF, NBOs etc, etc, (2) Experiment, locally, with consistent, simpler, more objective laws, now, for a few weeks. (3) Publish draft proposals on web for feedback over a month or so. (4) Then impose the same laws everywhere in months rather than years. (5) Promise early review. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 6 16:19:14 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Compromise ? Message-ID: <200306061519.LAA17759@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > Law 12C2 makes it absolutely clear that assigned adjusted scores must be > expressed in terms of bridge results. You can express them in matchpoints if > you like, but this means only that you may tell the scorers: "North-South > receive half the matchpoints for 4H one down and half those for 4H making; > East-West receive all the matchpoints for 4H making". Without getting into the contentious issue... Does the above mean that weighted scores are legal under L12C2? I have always thought of them as a 12C3 phenomenon, but "assigned ... in matchpoints" (L12C2) must mean something. If 12C2 allows weighted scores, then what is the need for L12C3? > From: Herman De Wael > Cases sometimes come up where, although the infraction is clear, it is > unclear what the adjustment should be. A literal application of L12C2 > leads to an absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely > to really happen, and we don't want to give that. I don't understand this, and I think Sven may be having the same problem. If "a literal application of L12C2" leads to a complete top for the NOS, why wouldn't we want to give it to them? They had a substantial chance (at least 1/3 in the ACBL) of scoring that result, absent the infraction. Why should an opponent's infraction take that away from them? From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 16:26:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:26:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000301c32c21$51f37b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE0B299.5040505@skynet.be> Sorry Sven, but in your case L12 never enters the picture. Sven Pran wrote: > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 16:42:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:42:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000201c32c17$23ce04c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> <001701c32c3a$cb385da0$a9518351@com> Message-ID: <3EE0B65A.6040501@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Sorry Sven, totally irrelevant to the discussion. >> > > It has everything to do with the discussion. No it has not. Sven was talking about revokes. Nothing whatsoever to do with L12. > You are forbidden by law from > varying a penalty because you consider the application of law to be too > harsh or too lenient. No you are not. L12C3 expressely authorizes us to vary a L12C2 score in order to do equity. I don't want to call that "application of the law to be too harsh", but you might. In that case you are not forbidden to do so. If you don't call that "application ..." then we have nothing to discuss. > You are forbidden by law from expressing an assigned > adjusted score other than in terms of bridge results, contracts and numbers > of tricks that would with varying degrees of probability be reached absent > an infraction. No you are not. L12C2 expressely allows you to express the score in MP. > You do both of these things, and you contend that to do them > is legal. I don't do the first, but if you insist that I do, then that is precisely what L12C3 allows me to do. And I do do the second, and I do believe that it is legal. > It is not, and the chairman of the WBFLC can swear that it is > until he is blue in the face without it making any difference. Just because > they do things in the Netherlands does not make those things legal. > That is true. But the WBFLCC does not say the same thing I do. > Law 12C2 makes it absolutely clear that assigned adjusted scores must be > expressed in terms of bridge results. You can express them in matchpoints if > you like, but this means only that you may tell the scorers: "North-South > receive half the matchpoints for 4H one down and half those for 4H making; > East-West receive all the matchpoints for 4H making". No it does not. L12C2 gives no authorisation for weighted scores. So your sentence above is complete nonsense. L12C2 allows the TD to state "North-South receive 12MP, East-West 14 MP". Why the TD would want to do so is beyond me, but perhaps some scoring program or other is incapable of introducing the split score that L12C2 expressely allows. Anyway, I make a small extrapolation here in saying that if the TD can award 14MP, he can also award 60% of available MP, or, in short, 60%. I hope you don't object to the shorthand. Mind you that this is NOT average plus! I shall now read beyond your non-sensical statement above and substitute your "L12C2" for "L12C3" to end up with: (under L12C3) you may tell the scorers: "North-South receive half the matchpoints for 4H one down and half those for 4H making; East-West receive all the matchpoints for 4H making". Now that is a sensical statement, but sadly it is not true. L12C3 says nothing of the sort. We have interpreted L12C3 into weighted scores, but a careful read (and it is a short law) reveals that nothing is being said about weighted scores. I conclude that under L12C3 I am allowed to say that I award to NS 14.57 MP and to EW 12.35 MP. I don't have to tell anyone how I arrive at those numbers, although I will usually do so. > It does not mean that > you can say: "North-South receive 60% on this board as an assigned adjusted > score", and to say that it does is to read the words wholly out of context. > Who is reading what words out of context? Tell me the exact words in L12C3 that forbid me from saying: "North South receive a number of matchpoints equal to 60% of matchpoints available"? (not precisely what you wrote above, but also usually contracted to "NS get 60%". > Once an assigned adjusted score has been awarded under 12C2, then whoever > has the power to vary it may do so under 12C3; but as Grattan and I have > said, to "vary" a thing means to alter certain attributes of the thing while > leaving its nature unchanged. It does not mean to change the nature of a > thing, as by changing an assigned score to an artificial score. > And as I said twice before, 60% of MP is NOT, I repeat NOT, an artificial score. I do not use L12C1. I will not use L88 on it. David, I am on your side, in one aspect. I don't believe it is legal to award Average plus in these cases. I don't agree with Ton who says it is. But nothing can stop me from awarding 60% of available MP, if under time pressure I decide that such is an equitable score. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 6 16:47:29 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:47:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <200306061519.LAA17759@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3EE0B791.1060406@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "David Burn" >>Law 12C2 makes it absolutely clear that assigned adjusted scores must be >>expressed in terms of bridge results. You can express them in matchpoints if >>you like, but this means only that you may tell the scorers: "North-South >>receive half the matchpoints for 4H one down and half those for 4H making; >>East-West receive all the matchpoints for 4H making". >> > > Without getting into the contentious issue... > > Does the above mean that weighted scores are legal under L12C2? I have > always thought of them as a 12C3 phenomenon, but "assigned ... in > matchpoints" (L12C2) must mean something. If 12C2 allows weighted > scores, then what is the need for L12C3? > This sentence was from David. I have already discussed the non-sensical nature of it. > >>From: Herman De Wael >>Cases sometimes come up where, although the infraction is clear, it is >>unclear what the adjustment should be. A literal application of L12C2 >>leads to an absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely >>to really happen, and we don't want to give that. >> > > I don't understand this, and I think Sven may be having the same > problem. If "a literal application of L12C2" leads to a complete top > for the NOS, why wouldn't we want to give it to them? They had a > substantial chance (at least 1/3 in the ACBL) of scoring that result, > absent the infraction. Why should an opponent's infraction take that > away from them? > Sometimes people feel that it is not equitable to award 4H+1 if the chance of making 11 tricks is estimated at 33%. Rather, they award 33% of +450 and 67% of +420. You may have little experience with such scores, but players genuinely accept them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 6 18:06:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:06:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE0B791.1060406@skynet.be> References: <200306061519.LAA17759@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030606190203.024839f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:47 6/06/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Sometimes people feel that it is not equitable to award 4H+1 if the chance >of making 11 tricks is estimated at 33%. Rather, they award 33% of +450 >and 67% of +420. >You may have little experience with such scores, but players genuinely >accept them. AG : I remember having learned that, in order to ensure that the NOS doesn't suffer from the irregularity, you should tilt the scales in their favor, eg if you estimate the probability of making 4H at 33%, you should award 50% of 450 and 50% of 450. This is just in case your estimation was wrong. And yes, players readily accept such scores when there were reasons to use them. ACs where I served used them several times. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 6 17:48:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:48:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE0B299.5040505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c32c4b$661ea6c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sorry Sven, but in your case L12 never enters the picture. Of course I am aware of that, and I do believe I indicated as much. Now please stop beating around the bush: Why do you want to take away from NOS a favorable result which they are entitled to when applying Law 12C2 on the ground that you do not feel (believe, think?) that result to be "fair"? An infraction has been = committed and what is "fair" (or "equity") must be judged in this context, not assuming that no infraction has taken place. If a non-offending contestant shows that he has been deprived the possibility of obtaining a certain favorable result which he very well = might have obtained absent the irregularity then Law 12C2 tells us to award = him that result - period. Law 12B specifically prohibits the Director from applying his own = judgment against a penalty prescribed by the laws; and I see no reason why Law = 12C2 should be exempted from the laws "providing a penalty" as referred to in = Law 12B. I introduced the revoke example as a case where the Director is bound to award a result which the non-offending side could definitely not have obtained without the revoke and where the Director has no option for judgment. I have no idea why Law 12C3 was added in 1997, but it seems reasonable = to me that the primary (or only?) purpose must have been to provide an appeals committee with means for varying an assigned adjusted score which they = found to be insufficient as compensation to a non-offending side after an irregularity.=20 This would be consistent with Law 12A1 which authorizes the Director to "award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant.....". Incidentally, I have long time wondered if the apparent inconsistency between Law 12A1 as quoted above and the current version of Law 12B is accidental or intentional.=20 Either in 1963 or in 1975 Law 12B was changed from the previous text: ".....either unduly severe on the offending side or unduly advantageous = to the non-offending side" to the present version. I cannot help feeling = that the original text is by far much better. (For those (if any) who do not immediately grasp the difference let me = point out that the current version also prohibits the director from awarding = an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided is unduly severe = on the non-offending side or unduly advantageous to the offending side!) Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Jun 6 18:53:39 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:53:39 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE0B791.1060406@skynet.be> Message-ID: To start the thread, Herman de Wael wrote: >Cases sometimes come up where, although the infraction is clear, it is >unclear what the adjustment should be. A literal application of L12C2 >leads to an absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely >to really happen, and we don't want to give that. This I don't follow. L12C2 requires the most favourable result *that was likely*, and you're worried about a L12C2 assignment being "too unlikely to really happen"? That sounds more like a misapplication of L12C2 to me. And later he wrote: > > Sometimes people feel that it is not equitable to award 4H+1 if the > chance of making 11 tricks is estimated at 33%. Rather, they award 33% > of +450 and 67% of +420. > You may have little experience with such scores, but players genuinely > accept them. Indeed, coming from the ACBL I have little experience with weighted scores. Surprise: players genuinely accept L12C2 adjustments, too, just like they accept mechanical revoke penalties, if they understand where they come from. If they don't believe such a result was likely, they can appeal, and maybe get the score changed to something they feel was more likely. Among the L12C3-adjustment cases I have seen presented on BLML, only in a very tiny fraction of them has it seemed appropriate to use 12C3 and not 12C2. Indeed, on some level, 12C3 contradicts 12C2, because "equity" is something less than the NOS is entitled and something more than the OS is entitled. To sum up my position: I find L12C3 unnecessary and downright dangerous, and am sorry it was ever added to the book; and I am in the camp (as are others in the ACBL, though perhaps not all!) who think artificial scores when results are obtained are illegal; in fact, I think the "the ACBL does it anyway" crowd are living in the past a bit... the quality of directing in the ACBL has, to my eye, improved considerably of late, and most of the directors happily conform to the laws once they know what they are. The only place I differ from the standard reading of L12, I think, is when I occasionally claim that L12C1 would let me choose to award 80% (or 100%!) for A+ if I wanted to, since it just says "at least 60" and "at most 40", then referring to L88 for a specific example of a situation when giving more than 60 is appropriate. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 6 21:22:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:22:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE0B791.1060406@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 6/6/03 at 5:47 PM, hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > Sometimes people feel that it is not equitable to award 4H+1 if the > chance of making 11 tricks is estimated at 33%. Rather, they award 33% > of +450 and 67% of +420. > You may have little experience with such scores, but players genuinely > accept them. Perhaps they do. I wouldn't, but then I'm in the ACBL, and 12C3 is not available here. Aside from that, as I understand it, the ACBL has established that 33% is sufficient. That being the case, where does somebody's feeling come into it? When the SO says award 4H+1 if there's a 33% chance they could have made that, you award 4H+1, you don't award something else just 'cause you feel like it. 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 Fri Jun 6 21:26:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:26:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 6/6/03 at 9:53 AM, siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) wrote: > the quality of directing in the ACBL has, to my eye, improved > considerably of late, and most of the directors happily conform to > the laws once they know what they are. If you're speaking of tournament level directors, I suppose you're right, although I haven't played in many lately. If you're speaking of club directors, I suspect the quality of directing varies widely from region to region, or perhaps from club to club. 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 Jun 7 03:56:10 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:56:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: Message-ID: <001e01c32ca0$5ba5fc20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" > > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > "In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, > > however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during > > the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue-bids, strong > > artificial 2 openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes." > > > > Regarding ace-asking bids, any variety of Blackwood, and "expected responses > > thereto", is not alertable, if it's initiated by a 4NT bid. This would seem to > > make Byzantine Blackwood not alertable, which seems a bit much to me. Why? It's plainly shown on the CC, as are all Blackwood variations. However, an "actively ethical player" will tell the opponents about any convention used by his side, Alertable or not. > > This is true. However: the rule which says conventional bids above 3NT > on the 2nd or later rounds of bidding shall be alerted, ALSO says that if > you have used any species of Blackwood/Gerber/Voidwood/RKC/whatever, you > shall say "an ace-asking sequence has occurred" after the auction. Where is that written, please? I can't find it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, Californial From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Jun 7 04:05:21 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 20:05:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32adf$52c71c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002901c32ca1$a3532d80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "kaima" > snip > Sven wrote: > > Actually I have great problems understanding what if anything can be > achieved by your delayed alerts and should be rather interested in some > words on that too. > > K: Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't see the logic in them. > Practically all but the top level players a) dont use them b) don't > understand why that regulation exists. I can see some logic in announcing > RKC and responses later, in case bidding side forgets during auctionwhich > RKC they are using , thereby not getting reminder from partner when he > alerts and responds if opponents ask. Poor excuse, I think. Any other > reasons, I can't think of. > > In reality they are not used although they should be, per ACBL regulation. > > Kaima, just a rank player in ACBL > aka D R Davis > I believe the delayed Alert was invented mainly because of Kickback, which is often a suit bid that sounds quite normal. Players were forgetting their agreement until an Alert woke them up. The BoD thought it wise (as do I) to do away with the immediate Alerting of Kickback, along with other Alertable conventions coming above the level of 3NT at or after the opening bidder's second call. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 7 07:50:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 08:50:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <002901c32ca1$a3532d80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ........... > I believe the delayed Alert was invented mainly because of Kickback, = which > is often a suit bid that sounds quite normal. Players were forgetting > their agreement until an Alert woke them up. The BoD thought it wise = (as > do I) to do away with the immediate Alerting of Kickback, along with = other > Alertable conventions coming above the level of 3NT at or after the > opening bidder's second call. I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed alert. I just do not understand its purpose. 1: What options are available for opponents when they get the alert on a call say two rounds back?=20 2: What is the possible penalty for failing to produce a delayed alert = when required? Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Jun 7 08:09:48 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 09:09:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000201c32c17$23ce04c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> <001701c32c3a$cb385da0$a9518351@com> Message-ID: <000201c32cc4$7b2aa3b0$21c7f1c3@LNV> > It has everything to do with the discussion. You are forbidden by law from > varying a penalty because you consider the application of law to be too > harsh or too lenient. Interesting statement, which probably is true but not relevant. If you are phrasing 12B here I like to emphasize that it says that a director should not change a PENALTY into an adjusted score. So even the French are not changing a two trick penalty for a revoke into a 40/60, I hope? Law 12C3 certainly gives the TD the possibility to vary an adjusted score because he considers applying 12C2 too harsh. So your statement surprises me. You are forbidden by law from expressing an assigned > adjusted score other than in terms of bridge results, contracts and numbers > of tricks that would with varying degrees of probability be reached absent > an infraction. You do both of these things, and you contend that to do them > is legal. It is not, and the chairman of the WBFLC can swear that it is > until he is blue in the face without it making any difference. Just because > they do things in the Netherlands does not make those things legal. My 'defence' was that more than half the bridge world is doing so, and though the Netherlands is trying to get there this is too much honour at the moment. What surprises me in Herman's approach is that we arrive at the same result and then he accuses more than half of the bridge world of illegal activities while he describes an approach that is followed nowhere in the whole bridge world, probably not even in his own club since the software doesn't allow it. > > Law 12C2 makes it absolutely clear that assigned adjusted scores must be > expressed in terms of bridge results. Yes, but I read 12C2 as making it legal to assign just matchpoints, which is a bridge result, without the strong relation towards numbers of tricks won you suggest here. And of course such decision is appealable and of course the TD should be able to explain why he gave this number, but not necessarily by showing an exact calculation. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Jun 7 09:57:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 10:57:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000101c32c4b$661ea6c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE1A8EE.1080806@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sorry Sven, but in your case L12 never enters the picture. >> > > Of course I am aware of that, and I do believe I indicated as much. > > Now please stop beating around the bush: > > Why do you want to take away from NOS a favorable result which they are > entitled to when applying Law 12C2 on the ground that you do not feel > (believe, think?) that result to be "fair"? An infraction has been committed > and what is "fair" (or "equity") must be judged in this context, not > assuming that no infraction has taken place. > Becasue L12C3 explicitely says that a lesser score can be given in order to "do equity". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Jun 7 10:02:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:02:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: Message-ID: <3EE1AA1A.10103@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On 6/6/03 at 5:42 PM, hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > >>No you are not. L12C2 expressely allows you to express the score in MP. >> > > To express a score in matchpoints is to say how many matchpoints that score is, > not to say "60%", As I've said before, I don't see any difference. particularly if that means "or more if the pair's average on > other boards is higher than that", as many would assume. "Many" would assume wrong. As I've said before. And if I were running > the computer, using ACBLscore, and found a pickup slip with "60%" written on it, > I'd enter it in the computer as an ArtAS, absent specific guidance otherwise. But you would get specific guidance from me. > The computer would then change that score to whatever higher average that pair > had on their other boards, if they did have a higher average. And that *is* > illegal (and, IMO, the fault of the ruling, not the scorer). > Yes, that would be illegal, and it would be the fault of the Director for not telling the scorer otherwise. So you have once again said that it is confusing. We knew that already. Does that make it illegal? I don't think so. > Regards, > > Ed > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 7 10:38:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 11:38:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE1A8EE.1080806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c32cd8$8f7455f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Herman De Wael > >>Sorry Sven, but in your case L12 never enters the picture. > >> > > > > Of course I am aware of that, and I do believe I indicated as much. > > > > Now please stop beating around the bush: > > > > Why do you want to take away from NOS a favorable result which they = are > > entitled to when applying Law 12C2 on the ground that you do not = feel > > (believe, think?) that result to be "fair"? An infraction has been > committed > > and what is "fair" (or "equity") must be judged in this context, not > > assuming that no infraction has taken place. > > >=20 >=20 > Becasue L12C3 explicitely says that a lesser score can be given in > order to "do equity". No, it doesn't. It says that the score can be "varied" in order to do equity. The only place I have found the word "equity" elsewhere in the laws is = in the header of Law 64C which instructs the Director to assign an adjusted score if he finds that NOS is insufficiently compensated for the damage caused by a revoke. It does for instance not allow the Director to = reduce the revoke penalty on the ground that the final result including the = revoke penalty is ridiculously advantageous for NOS. >From where has the interpretation aroused that Law 12C3 can be used to = take away from NOS a compensation they are entitled to according to Law 12B? = (... the most favorable result that was likely ...)=20 (As I have stated in another post I find it more reasonable to interpret = Law 12C as the formal tool for an AC to increase the assigned score for NOS and/or reduce the score for OS if the AC finds the originally assigned scores to be insufficient for NOS and/or undue advantageous for OS. NOS = may for instance have appealed with a claim that the Director overlooked or ignored the most favorable result that was likely) Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Jun 7 11:44:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:44:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000101c32cd8$8f7455f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE1C219.2050606@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Becasue L12C3 explicitely says that a lesser score can be given in >>order to "do equity". >> > > No, it doesn't. It says that the score can be "varied" in order to do > equity. > And have you ever seen it "varied" to something higher than the L12c2 score for the NOs? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jun 7 15:03:35 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <200306071403.KAA14631@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed > alert. I just do not understand its purpose. > > 1: What options are available for opponents when they get the alert on a > call say two rounds back? Oh, come on, Sven. There is no remedy for the auction. Players are supposed to know that certain bids won't be alerted regardless of what they mean. They have to ask if they need to know. It helps a lot that passes, doubles, and redoubles receive immediate alerts if they are alertable. Those are the calls most likely to make a difference during the auction. What the delayed alert accomplishes is to make sure opponents are aware during the play. Yes, an alternative would be for opening leader and declarer always to ask, "Please explain your auction," but not everyone does that. The delayed alert places responsibility for disclosure on the side that used alertable bids. In practice, of course, it is almost always the declaring side that will be obliged to give delayed alerts. All alert systems I know about have their flaws, but this particular portion of the ACBL's system strikes me as pretty good. > 2: What is the possible penalty for failing to produce a delayed alert when > required? It is MI, the same as any other missed alert, and all the usual rules apply. As usual, there can be a PP for aggravated cases. From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 7 15:10:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:10:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <3EE1C219.2050606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c32cfe$8da015e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > >>Because L12C3 explicitly says that a lesser score can be given in > >>order to "do equity". > >> > > > > No, it doesn't. It says that the score can be "varied" in order to = do > > equity. > > >=20 >=20 > And have you ever seen it "varied" to something higher than the L12c2 > score for the NOs? I don't think I ever have seen or heard of L25C3 being used in Norway. = (But that is not to claim that it hasn't been used here!) What I have experienced is assigned scores (L12C2) awarded as the score = for the most favorable result that was at all likely for NOS and "varied" to = a still more favorable result in recognition of a small but significant = chance that the contestant might have obtained even that result absent the irregularity. Similarly for OS I have seen their assigned score (also = under L12C2) been calculated as a weighted score based on probabilities. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 7 17:31:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:31:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 6/7/03 at 8:50 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed > alert. I just do not understand its purpose. Given that the ACBL are now saying that players should offer to provide a full explanation of *any* auction before the opening lead is faced, I suppose delayed alerts are somewhat redundant. I guess the next step is to eliminate them, and *require* an explanation of the auction. > 1: What options are available for opponents when they get the alert on a > call say two rounds back? Hm. I think none, though at least now they have more information about what's going on, for the defense. > 2: What is the possible penalty for failing to produce a delayed alert when > required? It's a procedural error, so I suppose a procedural penalty is possible. 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 Jun 7 17:56:29 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 09:56:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c32d15$c05a1c80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > Marvin French ........... > I believe the delayed Alert was invented mainly because of Kickback, which > is often a suit bid that sounds quite normal. Players were forgetting > their agreement until an Alert woke them up. The BoD thought it wise (as > do I) to do away with the immediate Alerting of Kickback, along with other > Alertable conventions coming above the level of 3NT at or after the > opening bidder's second call. I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed alert. I just do not understand its purpose. ###### The obvious purpose is to prevent a bidder from learning that they have made a mistake in the auction, when partner Alerts a call they thought was natural, or gives an explanation that is a surprise to the bidder. Unopposed auction: 1C=3C=4D meant as a splinter, Alerted and correctly explained as key-card asking. Opener now knows that responder's next bid shows key cards, and no one is likely to catch what has happened. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From bbickford@charter.net Sat Jun 7 18:14:20 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:14:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c32d15$c05a1c80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ca01c32d18$3bdc6370$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> My intuitive problem with delayed alerts is the possibility/likelihood that I can be placed in the position of either clearing up a possible opponent misunderstanding and creating UI for partner, or possibly foregoing my last chance of a good board. For example, the last two opponents bids were 4D and 4S. 4D was Kickback and 4S the appropriate reply, but could have been a suit based on the prior auction. Obviously, the opponents could be having a misunderstanding. If they are, any question I might ask clears this up for them. However, if I fail to ask and a turns out that an otherwise impossible spade lead would beat the contract, how can I recover?? I am ACBL by the way. Cheers......................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Marvin French > ........... > > I believe the delayed Alert was invented mainly because of Kickback, > which > > is often a suit bid that sounds quite normal. Players were forgetting > > their agreement until an Alert woke them up. The BoD thought it wise (as > > do I) to do away with the immediate Alerting of Kickback, along with > other > > Alertable conventions coming above the level of 3NT at or after the > > opening bidder's second call. > > I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed > alert. I just do not understand its purpose. > > ###### > The obvious purpose is to prevent a bidder from learning that they have > made a mistake in the auction, when partner Alerts a call they thought was > natural, or gives an explanation that is a surprise to the bidder. > > Unopposed auction: 1C=3C=4D meant as a splinter, Alerted and correctly > explained as key-card asking. Opener now knows that responder's next bid > shows key cards, and no one is likely to catch what has happened. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Jun 7 18:16:05 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:16:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: Message-ID: <001001c32d18$7c8594a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" < > (Sven Pran) wrote: > > > I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed > > alert. I just do not understand its purpose. > > Given that the ACBL are now saying that players should offer to provide a full > explanation of *any* auction before the opening lead is faced, I suppose delayed > alerts are somewhat redundant. I guess the next step is to eliminate them, and > *require* an explanation of the auction. Yes, why not? The current "should" policy is observed by few, and there is no penalty for not following it if the undisclosed information does not involve an Alertable call. All the ACBL has to do is make an explanation of the auction a requirement for declarer and dummy, and the delayed Alert goes away for the declaring side. However, defenders may disclose only Delayed-Alertable bids, and may not give an unrequested complete explanation of their auction. Besides requiring the declaring side to so disclose, there is the matter of disclosure by defenders (who may have much more to say than a declarer might think). I guess a disclosure request could remain a "should" for the declaring side, but then Delayed Alerts still would be required for defenders. > > > 1: What options are available for opponents when they get the alert on a > > call say two rounds back? > > Hm. I think none, though at least now they have more information about what's > going on, for the defense. > > > 2: What is the possible penalty for failing to produce a delayed alert when > > required? > > It's a procedural error, so I suppose a procedural penalty is possible. > Also an adjustment is possible, as this is an MI case. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jun 6 08:37:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:37:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reflected glory. References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009e01c32d2d$2d393d10$9417e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: .................................................................... > >> Liverpool: European Capital of Culture, > >> 2008. > > > > > > Sorry Grattan, I had congratulated David > > as soon as I heard but had > > neglected some other Lever-pullers. > > +=+ David???? If that is DWS, he does not even live in Liverpool (as he reminded me a little while back when I loosely included his village, in a different county on the other side of the River Mersey, in the Liverpool bailiwick!). Lever-pulling? Could be. Our trustees may well put a piece of the fund that I administer into the implementation of the programme - that might be a drop in the bucket like £0.5/£1 m. . ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Jun 7 21:30:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:30:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c32d15$c05a1c80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00ca01c32d18$3bdc6370$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <007601c32d33$93811c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Bill Bickford" of ACBL-land > My intuitive problem with delayed alerts is the possibility/likelihood that > I can be placed in the position of either clearing up a possible opponent > misunderstanding and creating UI for partner, or possibly foregoing my last > chance of a good board. For example, the last two opponents bids were 4D > and 4S. 4D was Kickback and 4S the appropriate reply, but could have been a > suit based on the prior auction. Obviously, the opponents could be having a > misunderstanding. If they are, any question I might ask clears this up for > them. They are not allowed to become clear about their auction in this way. Sometimes hard to prove that, however. > However, if I fail to ask and it turns out that an otherwise > impossible spade lead would beat the contract, how can I recover?? Through the TD. The failure to delay-Alert is misinformation, for which there are remedies when damage results. A big problem is that opponents may need to know about the delay-Alertable bid right now, when it happens, in order to counter it. Perhaps pairs should have the option of asking that all Alerts be made immediately and not delayed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jun 7 21:36:50 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:36:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? References: <000201c32c17$23ce04c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> <001701c32c3a$cb385da0$a9518351@com> <000201c32cc4$7b2aa3b0$21c7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <010f01c32d34$99dfdbc0$9417e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David Burn" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Compromise ? > > I read 12C2 as making it legal to assign just > matchpoints, which is a bridge result, without > the strong relation towards numbers of tricks > won you suggest here. And of course such > decision is appealable and of course the TD > should be able to explain why he gave this > number, but not necessarily by showing an > exact calculation. > +=+ This takes us back pretty well to the EBL pre-1987 stance. Scores were assigned that were considered to be a fair outcome between the pairs given the circumstances. It was in order not to yield to the concept of extremes embodied in the phrases "most favourable result that was likely" and "most unfavourable result that was at all possible" that the EBL resisted absolutely any move to introduce these excessively punitive ideas, as the EBL LC of the day asserted them to be, without the relief from them that is embodied today in 12C3. So, to answer a question put by Sven Pran, the original purpose in demanding the 12C3 facility was in order to be able to mitigate the effects of giving the NOS and the OS each the most extreme likelihood/probability in their scores. I do believe that true equity in the score lies not in the most extreme positions, favourably and unfavourably, but in the assessment of a value that expresses the balance of the probable outcome had the infraction not occurred; I am also of the firm opinion that if you find reason to punish a contestant it is misconceived if this is done in the adjustment of the score, perhaps affecting the comparisons: it should be done separately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jun 8 09:16:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:16:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c32d15$c05a1c80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00ca01c32d18$3bdc6370$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> <007601c32d33$93811c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002b01c32d97$0087d780$7183403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > > Through the TD. The failure to delay-Alert > is misinformation, for which there are > remedies when damage results. > > A big problem is that opponents may need > to know about the delay-Alertable bid right > now, when it happens, in order to counter it. > Perhaps pairs should have the option of > asking that all Alerts be made immediately > and not delayed. > +=+ I have not been following this thread so I may be covering ground already covered, and - better - I know nothing about the ACBL use of delayed alerts. However, not knowing what we are talking about is no bar to contribution here. :-) It seems to me that a key principle of disclosure is that opponents should be put in possession of information before the moment when they might want to use it. In respect of anything unusual that they might need to discuss the time for disclosure is whilst they still have an opportunity for discussion. It is inadequate, in my opinion, to tell them after the event if they might have adopted countermeasures or if the meanings of their own calls could be affected by the nature of the opponents' action. This is the import (IMO) of 'prior' in L40A. I would also note that it is usual to allow that the meaning of an unalerted call is to be taken in a given way - as 'natural' unless the regulations specify a meaning, whereas an alert announces that the meaning is other than that, often with scope for multiple possibilities. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jun 8 10:45:29 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 11:45:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reflected glory. References: <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> <009e01c32d2d$2d393d10$9417e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3EE305B9.50402@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > bailiwick!). Lever-pulling? Could be. Our Surely Grattan realizes where the pun "I'm a born lever-puller" comes from. (Ringo in "the Yellow Submarine") > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Sun Jun 8 11:20:02 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:20:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030606080007.00a0e1d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003401c32da7$88093900$2fea7f50@Default> Eric: > I can't imagine having to weight eight scores, but why should that ever > happen? > > The first thing you do is pick the one outcome -- possibly two in a > minority of cases -- that satisfies L12C2. Most of the time, > presumably, you are done, unless you determine that the L12C2 > adjustment fails to "do equity". In the latter case, you go to L12C3, > and compute a combination of the L12C2 score with one, parhaps two, > alternative possible results, each appropriately weighted. If that > doesn't suffice to "do equity" you should at least consider that you > may be misguided in your view of what equity is for the deal. > > Keep in mind that L12C3 doesn't require you to assign the > mathematically optimal result under the tenets of proability theory; it > only requires you to find an adjustment which you believe "does equity". 5 to 8 weigthed scores. Of course this is completely crazy. Because it takes to long to be practical. Because it suggest a precision which is not there. I/we tend to do three maximum. If there is really some serious 4th or 5th you compensate that with the weights of the principal alternatives. Anyway if it is so complicated I have no real problem by scoring it directly as 60-30 or +4 or whatever. But I prefer weighting (at least in the decision proces) because this gives some justification of the result. There is one big but. I prefer C3 often to C2 because C2 can get you overboard. It can force you to award a top (or +13) for a minor infraction. Unliky a revoke (you do or do not) in the UI / wrong explanation department things tend to be less clear. But then I don't like the concept 'to do equity'. Nobody knows what it means. Everybody has a different opinion about equity. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins > At 05:49 PM 6/5/03, John wrote: > > >In article <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > > writes > > > >Suppose I open 1NT and my LHO overcalls 2H. This is misexplained. What > > >AS to give? A look at the frequency table reveals that there are 8 > > >possible scores. Do you really expect the AC to come up with > > >satisfactory weights for each and every one of them? Would it end up > > >far from 60%? > > > >I have frequently awarded scores based on 5 possible outcomes. 8 would > >not stretch the imagination. > > I can't imagine having to weight eight scores, but why should that ever > happen? > > The first thing you do is pick the one outcome -- possibly two in a > minority of cases -- that satisfies L12C2. Most of the time, > presumably, you are done, unless you determine that the L12C2 > adjustment fails to "do equity". In the latter case, you go to L12C3, > and compute a combination of the L12C2 score with one, parhaps two, > alternative possible results, each appropriately weighted. If that > doesn't suffice to "do equity" you should at least consider that you > may be misguided in your view of what equity is for the deal. > > Keep in mind that L12C3 doesn't require you to assign the > mathematically optimal result under the tenets of proability theory; it > only requires you to find an adjustment which you believe "does equity". > > > 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 Sphboc@aol.com Fri Jun 6 14:08:13 2003 From: Sphboc@aol.com (Sphboc@aol.com) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:08:13 EDT Subject: [blml] FAQ; How Extend an Existing Thread if I receive Digest Form Message-ID: <1d2.b409a5d.2c11ec3d@aol.com> --part1_1d2.b409a5d.2c11ec3d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm new subscriber; does not appear that there's any posted list of Frequently asked questions. Also, if I want to reply to already-posted message (thus extending an existing thread, vice starting new one), how do I format subject and body, of my new posting, to accomplish this? (I am receiving Digest form, as opposed to individual email's). --part1_1d2.b409a5d.2c11ec3d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm new subscriber; does not appear that there's any= posted list of Frequently asked questions. 

Also, if I want to reply to already-posted message (thus extending an existi= ng thread, vice starting new one), how do I format subject and body, of my n= ew posting, to accomplish this?  (I am receiving Digest form, as oppose= d to individual email's). 

--part1_1d2.b409a5d.2c11ec3d_boundary-- From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jun 8 15:49:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:49:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> <200306041600.MAA14001@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <62lvB9C6Fr3+Ewtf@asimere.com> <3EDEE002.1070904@skynet.be> <002301c32b2f$323c5d60$d842e150@endicott> <3EDF222D.8030505@skynet.be> <003201c32b6b$087fe3c0$69242850@pacific> <3EDF9778.3010703@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030606080007.00a0e1d0@pop.starpower.net> <003401c32da7$88093900$2fea7f50@Default> Message-ID: <3EE34D0F.8050204@skynet.be> It seems as if Jaap and I have finally found a discussion we're on the same side of. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Eric: > > 5 to 8 weigthed scores. > > Of course this is completely crazy. Because it takes to long to be > practical. Because it suggest a precision which is not there. > Exactly. > I/we tend to do three maximum. If there is really some serious 4th or 5th > you compensate that with the weights of the principal alternatives. Anyway > if it is so complicated I have no real problem by scoring it directly as > 60-30 or +4 or whatever. Is this a typo, Jaap ? Should that not be 60-40 ? After all, when weighting we usually give both sides the same score(s). But I prefer weighting (at least in the decision > proces) because this gives some justification of the result. > Indeed. And sometimes a TD does not have enough time to do the polling needed to come up with sensible weights. > There is one big but. I prefer C3 often to C2 because C2 can get you > overboard. It can force you to award a top (or +13) for a minor infraction. > Unliky a revoke (you do or do not) in the UI / wrong explanation department > things tend to be less clear. But then I don't like the concept 'to do > equity'. Nobody knows what it means. Everybody has a different opinion about > equity. > Isn't that what this list is about? Is your opinion about equity so different from mine? Don't we both agree that the weights should reflect the probabilities of each occurence? Haven't we established, at least in the EBL appeal committees that we've sat together on, and with Grattan, that the weights should reflect "true" expectations, not liberal ones? I think that we have come quite to grips with what equity in L12C3 should mean. Incidentally, considering that we want "true" expectations, should't a "lazy" TD score under L12C3 not more generally be "50/50" rather than "60/40". If you're gonna be lazy, be lazy throughout. The real expectation at the start of the auction is 50%, not 60. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 8 16:39:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:39:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EE34D0F.8050204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c32dd4$2193b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 ........ > Isn't that what this list is about? Is your opinion about equity so > different from mine? Don't we both agree that the weights should > reflect the probabilities of each occurence? Haven't we established, > at least in the EBL appeal committees that we've sat together on, and > with Grattan, that the weights should reflect "true" expectations, not > liberal ones? I think that we have come quite to grips with what > equity in L12C3 should mean. Grattan has clarified to my satisfaction some of the background for = L12C3, but I still feel bewildered on the application of the term "equity". = (And I still consider the L12C2 text "that was likely" a sufficient safeguard against forcing the Director to assign unduly extreme results to NOS.). Your question above gives me the opportunity to challenge the term = "equity" on a specific point: Given that an L12C2/C3 adjusted score is applicable, and let us for simplicity assume that half the field scored +620, the other half -100. Assume further that NOS presents some reason why he could play the board = for a cold +620 had he got his chance to play the board out. His "problem" would of course be to convince the Director (and AC?) that = he would indeed have seen this line of play in time and that it is not just some wise afterthought how he could avoid any guessing. Is your understanding of "equity" that he shall still be awarded +260 because that is the weighted average score on the board, or will you = award him the full +620?=20 (Or heaven forbid: Will you award him for instance +440 considering that being of his "class of player" he would have been among the successful players on this board with a probability of something like 75%?) Shall his final result in the tournament influence your judgment (in particular if you take his "class of player" into consideration as a relevant criterion)? What if the player does not volunteer a line of play; shall the Director = ask him how he would have playyed the board or just apply his own = mathematics?=20 (In case anybody wonders: I still consider the term "equity" in L12C3 undefined). Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jun 8 16:57:37 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:57:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <000c01c32dd4$2193b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE35CF1.6080407@skynet.be> Very sensible questions here, Sven. I'll be glad to answer quite fully. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> > ........ > > Grattan has clarified to my satisfaction some of the background for L12C3, > but I still feel bewildered on the application of the term "equity". (And I > still consider the L12C2 text "that was likely" a sufficient safeguard > against forcing the Director to assign unduly extreme results to NOS.). > Well, your case below is a very fine example. Whether we estimate the probability of the contract at 50% or at 25%, awarding the contract 100% of the time seems like an extreme result. > Your question above gives me the opportunity to challenge the term "equity" > on a specific point: > > Given that an L12C2/C3 adjusted score is applicable, and let us for > simplicity assume that half the field scored +620, the other half -100. > Very good example. Let's immediately say that the +620 will receive 75% of available MP, the -100 will get 25%. OK? > Assume further that NOS presents some reason why he could play the board for > a cold +620 had he got his chance to play the board out. > Assume first of all that the NOS does no such thing. Do you consider awarding him 75% of MP equitable? I don't. I prefer awarding him 50% of +620 and 50% of -100, arriving at 50% of MP. Now let's go on as above. > His "problem" would of course be to convince the Director (and AC?) that he > would indeed have seen this line of play in time and that it is not just > some wise afterthought how he could avoid any guessing. > Such as a particular opponent having bid something, when at other tables none have. If the player can convince the AC that he would make the contract, when half the room has failed, then by all means give him the 75% score. > Is your understanding of "equity" that he shall still be awarded +260 > because that is the weighted average score on the board, or will you award > him the full +620? > I do hope you understand how to calculate weighted scores. Of course he does not get +260, he gets 50% of the MP for -100 (50% of 25%) and 50% of the MP for +620 (50% of 75%), which totals to 50% of MP. > (Or heaven forbid: Will you award him for instance +440 considering that > being of his "class of player" he would have been among the successful > players on this board with a probability of something like 75%?) > Why "heaven forbid"? It could well be that the particular advantage this player has over the field turns out to be such that he would make the contract 3/4 times, not 1/2. Might well happen - Suppose all other tables need to make two finesses (and thus only 25% score +620, for 87.5MP), while he has to make only one. Now his score might well be 50% of 87.5MP + 50% of 37.5MP = 62.5MP. > Shall his final result in the tournament influence your judgment (in > particular if you take his "class of player" into consideration as a > relevant criterion)? > Well, nothing prevents us from judging that a particular player would find a particular line with a greater certainty than the average of the field. > What if the player does not volunteer a line of play; shall the Director ask > him how he would have playyed the board or just apply his own mathematics? > Well, how do you normally decide, after a table has played 1DXX-1, how many tricks that table would have scored in 4Sp the other direction? The problem is the same for L12C2 or L12C3. > (In case anybody wonders: I still consider the term "equity" in L12C3 > undefined). > Why would it need defining? It's a perfectly valid English word, if not in quite regular usage. > 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jun 8 19:14:19 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:14:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c32d15$c05a1c80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00ca01c32d18$3bdc6370$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> <007601c32d33$93811c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002b01c32d97$0087d780$7183403e@endicott> Message-ID: <000a01c32de9$c991a0a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > I would also note that it is usual to allow > that the meaning of an unalerted call is to be > taken in a given way - as 'natural' unless the > regulations specify a meaning, whereas an > alert announces that the meaning is other > than that, often with scope for multiple > possibilities. > Yes indeed. The default meanings of unAlerted calls should be specified by regulation, with players having the right to assume the default meaning in the absence of an Alert. Currently in ACBL-land, players are expected to "protect themselves" if an opponent fails to Alert a call whose meaning is not unusual, putting the onus on the wrong side. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 8 20:17:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:17:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EE35CF1.6080407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c32df2$8c6b8ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Very sensible questions here, Sven. I'll be glad to answer quite = fully. >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: .............. > > Given that an L12C2/C3 adjusted score is applicable, and let us for > > simplicity assume that half the field scored +620, the other half = -100. > > >=20 >=20 > Very good example. Let's immediately say that the +620 will receive > 75% of available MP, the -100 will get 25%. OK? I must admit I was thinking (without really reasoning) teams of four and IMPs, but that makes no difference, yes your assumption above is quite = OK =20 >=20 > > Assume further that NOS presents some reason why he could play the = board > for > > a cold +620 had he got his chance to play the board out. > > >=20 >=20 > Assume first of all that the NOS does no such thing. Do you consider > awarding him 75% of MP equitable? I don't. I prefer awarding him 50% > of +620 and 50% of -100, arriving at 50% of MP. Consistently following this logic you will always end up with 50% score = for Law 12C2 adjustments unless you have special reason to "bias" your = weighted averages one way or the other. If I understand your opinion on adjusted scores correct I shall next = expect you "in order to do equity" also on artificial scores to argue for a = change in Law 12C1 so that any adjusted artificial score shall be 50%, no more = no less; because when you have no basis for knowing how well or bad a contestant would have done on a board then the mathematical weighted = average must come out at exactly that value? This opinion could stand up if you = add that a contestant at fault shall always receive a procedure penalty of = for instance 10% of the top score (effectively resulting in 50%-40% scores). = Do we want to abolish the 10% above average score as compensation for a = board not played by a contestant not in any way at fault ("in order to do equity")? >=20 > Now let's go on as above. >=20 >=20 > > His "problem" would of course be to convince the Director (and AC?) = that > he > > would indeed have seen this line of play in time and that it is not = just > > some wise afterthought how he could avoid any guessing. > > >=20 >=20 > Such as a particular opponent having bid something, when at other > tables none have. If the player can convince the AC that he would make > the contract, when half the room has failed, then by all means give > him the 75% score. Or simply that our player is aware of a line of play that most other = players have overlooked. But I have the impression that you agree he deserves = his full share of the top result. I am glad you see and accept my point = here. >=20 >=20 > > Is your understanding of "equity" that he shall still be awarded = +260 > > because that is the weighted average score on the board, or will you > award > > him the full +620? > > >=20 >=20 > I do hope you understand how to calculate weighted scores. Of course > he does not get +260, he gets 50% of the MP for -100 (50% of 25%) and > 50% of the MP for +620 (50% of 75%), which totals to 50% of MP. Yes, sloppy wording by me. >=20 >=20 > > (Or heaven forbid: Will you award him for instance +440 considering = that > > being of his "class of player" he would have been among the = successful > > players on this board with a probability of something like 75%?) > > >=20 >=20 > Why "heaven forbid"? It could well be that the particular advantage > this player has over the field turns out to be such that he would make > the contract 3/4 times, not 1/2. > Might well happen - Heaven forbid, because this will bring us back to the hopeless project = of adjudicating results based upon the "class of player" concept which = assumes that a good player never makes any mistake and a poor player always = makes mistakes. (Ref. the long lasting discussion on ruling after incomplete claims and where we draw the line for "irrational" plays). > Suppose all other tables need to make two finesses (and thus only 25% > score +620, for 87.5MP), while he has to make only one. Now his score > might well be 50% of 87.5MP + 50% of 37.5MP =3D 62.5MP. I was more thinking of the player who is the only one to find a line of = play where he has full control.=20 >=20 >=20 > > Shall his final result in the tournament influence your judgment (in > > particular if you take his "class of player" into consideration as a > > relevant criterion)? > > >=20 >=20 > Well, nothing prevents us from judging that a particular player would > find a particular line with a greater certainty than the average of > the field. Shall this be according to some "objective" assessment? We don't want = our Directors to be subjective in their rulings do we? ("Usually I kill people for 50 cents but you Antonio, you are my friend = - I kill you for nothing!") >=20 >=20 > > What if the player does not volunteer a line of play; shall the = Director > ask > > him how he would have playyed the board or just apply his own > mathematics? > > >=20 >=20 > Well, how do you normally decide, after a table has played 1DXX-1, how > many tricks that table would have scored in 4Sp the other direction? > The problem is the same for L12C2 or L12C3. You have to ask and judge the credibility of what the player tells you = on how he would play it out. Or you cannot even assume he would end up in = 4S and assign a weighted score assuming nothing - which then necessarily = will have to be 50% because you have no reason to bias your assessment either way.=20 >=20 >=20 > > (In case anybody wonders: I still consider the term "equity" in = L12C3 > > undefined). > > >=20 >=20 > Why would it need defining? It's a perfectly valid English word, if > not in quite regular usage. No "equity" is a subjective term which is taken differently by different people, in particular when they are themselves affected. Law 12C3 doesn't even tell us whether "equity" shall be focused on NOS = alone (as in Law 64C), on both NOS and OS (as I suspect is the intention) or = even on the competition as a whole.=20 As it is now Law 12 doesn't "hang together". Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jun 8 22:08:38 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:08:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Snapshot appraisal of progressed inherent equity. References: <000c01c32dd4$2193b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3EE35CF1.6080407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c32e0b$038a7770$361be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > > > Grattan has clarified to my satisfaction some > > of the background for L12C3, but I still feel > > bewildered on the application of the term > > "equity". < +=+ it was a positive decision not to place a value on a partnership's equity (interest) in the score in the instant before the infraction. This was left for the decision of the Director and the AC, and for guidance from the regulating authority according to its light. The less the law sought to describe how the equity was to be judged (and the more this question was remitted to the regulating authority) the greater the chance that member authorities would warm to the principle that the law invoked. The WBF has been content only to point in the direction it wishes to encourage regulators to go, leaving it for them to trim the sails. As gentle readers will have noted, even in the Laws Committee some individuals sail closer to the wind than others. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 02:21:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:21:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <007601c32d33$93811c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Saturday, June 7, 2003, at 04:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: > The failure to delay-Alert is misinformation, for which > there are remedies when damage results. > Yes. If that's what you meant in your last message, rather than that there is MI because the alert, although made, was delayed, then I apologize for mis-reading you. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 02:27:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:27:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c32d97$0087d780$7183403e@endicott> Message-ID: <97BD692E-9A19-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 04:16 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > It seems to me that a key principle of > disclosure is that opponents should be put in > possession of information before the moment > when they might want to use it. In respect of > anything unusual that they might need to discuss > the time for disclosure is whilst they still have an > opportunity for discussion. It is inadequate, in > my opinion, to tell them after the event if they > might have adopted countermeasures or if the > meanings of their own calls could be affected > by the nature of the opponents' action. This is > the import (IMO) of 'prior' in L40A. It seems you're saying the regulation is flawed, a point with which I don't necessarily disagree. :) However, it does exist, so it seems to me it would be rather awkward, to say the least, for an ACBL TD to rule, or an ACBL player to expect a TD to rule, that an infraction of law has occurred when a pair has complied with the alert regulation and delayed their alert(s). Am I wrong? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 02:53:42 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:53:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <000d01c32df2$8c6b8ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <32C0743C-9A1D-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 03:17 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael >> Why would it need defining? It's a perfectly valid English word, if >> not in quite regular usage. > > No "equity" is a subjective term which is taken differently by different > people, in particular when they are themselves affected. That people don't know the definition of a word, and assume it means something other than what it does mean, does *not* mean that the meaning is not in fact what the dictionary says it is. OTOH, human language is dynamic, not static, and it's quite possible that the meaning of a word may change over time. OTGH, I'm no expert in how "the meaning has changed" is determined, so I tend to go with the dictionary. An equitable score is one determined without bias towards one side or the other. And that is *all* it means. People may wish to argue that a decision against their interests is prima facie not equitable, but IMNSHO that's a bunch of sour grapes, unless they can provide *evidence* of bias. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jun 9 06:57:08 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:57:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <97BD692E-9A19-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c32e4b$f815a9a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 04:16 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > It seems to me that a key principle of > > disclosure is that opponents should be put in > > possession of information before the moment > > when they might want to use it. In respect of > > anything unusual that they might need to discuss > > the time for disclosure is whilst they still have an > > opportunity for discussion. It is inadequate, in > > my opinion, to tell them after the event if they > > might have adopted countermeasures or if the > > meanings of their own calls could be affected > > by the nature of the opponents' action. This is > > the import (IMO) of 'prior' in L40A. > > It seems you're saying the regulation is flawed, a point with which I > don't necessarily disagree. :) However, it does exist, so it seems to me > it would be rather awkward, to say the least, for an ACBL TD to rule, or > an ACBL player to expect a TD to rule, that an infraction of law has > occurred when a pair has complied with the alert regulation and delayed > their alert(s). Am I wrong? It seems to me that the meaning of a delayed-Alertable bid (e.g., Kickback) would be disclosed on the CC, making the Alert merely a reminder of what should already be known. I can't offhand think of a high-level Alertable bid whose meaning would not be on the CC. Conventional doubles, redoubles, or passes, perhaps, but those must be Alerted when made. If a player is unacquainted with a convention, he can ask about it when examining the opposing CC ahead of time. I generally don't recognize an opposing Kickback bid, but that's my fault for not inquiring earlier. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jun 9 07:23:35 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:23:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <32C0743C-9A1D-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c32e4f$aa2ee540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Herman De Wael > >> Why would it need defining? It's a perfectly valid English word, if > >> not in quite regular usage. > > > > No "equity" is a subjective term which is taken differently by different > > people, in particular when they are themselves affected. > > That people don't know the definition of a word, and assume it means > something other than what it does mean, does *not* mean that the meaning > is not in fact what the dictionary says it is. OTOH, human language is > dynamic, not static, and it's quite possible that the meaning of a word > may change over time. OTGH, I'm no expert in how "the meaning has > changed" is determined, so I tend to go with the dictionary. An > equitable score is one determined without bias towards one side or the > other. And that is *all* it means. People may wish to argue that a > decision against their interests is prima facie not equitable, but > IMNSHO that's a bunch of sour grapes, unless they can provide *evidence* > of bias. > At least one high-level BLMLer believes that equity in duplicate bridge consists of adjusting a score to the one that would probably have occurred in the absence of an irregularity. Thus, an equitable revoke penalty would do no more than ensure that the revoker did not benefit from the revoke. If the lawmakers want that sort of equity, they should be consistent and change the revoke law and other laws to provide it. The current trend toward "equity" adjustments (e.g., L12C3) is contrary to the traditional principle of justice that adds spice to the game. An opponent makes a mistake (revoke, irregularity, blunder, or whatever), he pays the price, and the NOS gets to enjoy any windfall that may come from it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jun 9 07:29:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:29:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <97BD692E-9A19-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000d01c32e4b$f815a9a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c32e50$7f8a7e70$4f55e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 04:16 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that a key principle of > > > disclosure is that opponents should be put in > > > possession of information before the moment > > > when they might want to use it. In respect of > > > anything unusual that they might need to discuss > > > the time for disclosure is whilst they still have an > > > opportunity for discussion. It is inadequate, in > > > my opinion, to tell them after the event if they > > > might have adopted countermeasures or if the > > > meanings of their own calls could be affected > > > by the nature of the opponents' action. This is > > > the import (IMO) of 'prior' in L40A. > > ====== > > It seems to me that the meaning of a delayed-Alertable > bid (e.g., Kickback) would be disclosed on the CC, > making the Alert merely a reminder of what should > already be known. I can't offhand think of a high-level > Alertable bid whose meaning would not be on the CC. > Conventional doubles, redoubles, or passes, perhaps, > but those must be Alerted when made. > +=+ These two statements do not jar with each other. Anything on the CC has been disclosed. It is not my intention to say that the regulation is flawed but merely to state the tests I would apply in reaching a decision. ~ G ~ +=+ From tomwood1@earthlink.net Mon Jun 9 08:29:30 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 00:29:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-2200361972930828@earthlink.net> Now that "the auction is over" (i.e., this thread seems to have pretty much run its course), let me give my delayed opinion on the ACBL's delayed alerts policy. I maintain that the ACBL delayed-alert policy is: 1) well intentioned and, to that extent, admirable 2) seriously flawed, as per Grattan et al. 3) much more of a minus than a plus 4) not even known to 98% of our LA-area opponents, even at regional+ tournaments [" 'delayed alert'? -- What *are* you talking about?"] 5) a good candidate for an early demise BTW, Marv, as long as we are cursed with this delayed- alert beast, I agree with your earlier suggestion that we ACBLers should at least be allowed to request that ALL alerts be announced *immediately*, despite the ACBL's delayed-alert default rules. > Marvin French opined: > > > > > > [Grattan] It seems to me that a key principle of > > > disclosure is that opponents should be put in > > > possession of information before the moment > > > when they might want to use it. In respect of > > > anything unusual that they might need to discuss > > > the time for disclosure is whilst they still have an > > > opportunity for discussion. It is inadequate, in > > > my opinion, to tell them after the event if they > > > might have adopted countermeasures or if the > > > meanings of their own calls could be affected > > > by the nature of the opponents' action. This is > > > the import (IMO) of 'prior' in L40A. > > > > [Ed R] It seems you're saying the regulation is flawed, a point > > with which I don't necessarily disagree. :) However, it does exist, > > so it seems to me it would be rather awkward, to say the least, for an > > ACBL TD to rule, or an ACBL player to expect a TD to rule, that an > > infraction of law has occurred when a pair has complied with the > > alert regulation and delayed their alert(s). Am I wrong? > > [Marv] It seems to me that the meaning of a delayed-Alertable bid > (e.g., Kickback) would be disclosed on the CC, making the Alert > merely a reminder of what should already be known. I can't offhand > think of a high-level Alertable bid whose meaning would > not be on the CC. Conventional doubles, redoubles, or passes, > perhaps, but those must be Alerted when made. > Marv, Just hypothetically . . . :-) If I am using 4-level *1-under* cuebids (4D shows a H cue/control, etc.): 1) Where/how would you suggest I note this on the skimpy ACBL-CC? 2) Speaking of "onus on wrong party," should we really expect the poor blighters who have to contend with my 1-under cues to spot my mention of such oddball cues *somewhere* on my MidChart-jampacked ACBL CC? If LHO *did* spot my CC mention of 1-under cues (after the auction was underway, say) and then decided that, by analogy, "DBL" of my 4D call should ask for a lead of Hearts (the suit where I actually claim to hold a control), is he not *at great risk* that his "bidding by analogy" will not be decoded properly by his partner -- who may well *not* have spotted my CC mention of "1-under 4-level cues." Why should the opponents be put at such a disadvantage? [BTW, I am sorely tempted to change to this style of 1-under cueing just to help expose the flaws in the ACBL delayed-alert policy . . . Ah, but what about "level playing field" ethics?] > [Marv] > If a player is unacquainted with a convention, he can ask about it when > examining the opposing CC ahead of time. I generally don't recognize an > opposing Kickback bid, but that's my fault for not inquiring earlier. > Good luck spotting the 1-under cues in the midst of our gazillion conventions crammed meticulously into the ACBL-CC mini-real estate. BTW, some delayed-Alert troublemakers would seem to be: 1) Kickback Blackwood asking bids and non-standard responses 2) Serious Slam Try (SST) bids and associated cuebids 3) Homebrew (e.g., Kickback-like) Grand Slam Force asking bids and responses 4) Other homebrew bids, such as a trump-length ask 5) exclusion cuebids 6) various complex, inferential high-level style agreements Tom Wood, LA area, ACBL-land From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 9 10:39:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:39:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c2272a$9daf0d40$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c32e6b$02dc0d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kevin Perkins > What I think the ACBL's policy supports, and what > I personally do, is assume that all bids by the > opponents above the level of 3NT, MAY be > conventional. This has nothing to do with the "delayed alerts"; it has to do with "no alerts above 3NT". > The biggest problem I see is someone assuming it > is natural, when there is no alert, which would > be a mistake, since the regs say that no alert > will be forthcoming. As a player and director in > the ACBL, I think the benefits outway the problems > with delayed alerts.. Could you be so kind as to list the benefits of "delayed alerts" please? To be frank I do not see many problems with the delayed alerts as I understand them (we do not have anything like it in Norway), but I cannot see a single benefit (for opponents that is). Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 9 11:04:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:04:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <000d01c32df2$8c6b8ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE45BA2.4050800@skynet.be> Again, very sensible arguments. I like the discussion so far. Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Assume first of all that the NOS does no such thing. Do you consider >>awarding him 75% of MP equitable? I don't. I prefer awarding him 50% >>of +620 and 50% of -100, arriving at 50% of MP. >> > > Consistently following this logic you will always end up with 50% score for > Law 12C2 adjustments unless you have special reason to "bias" your weighted > averages one way or the other. > If everything were as simple as a board where everyone plays 4Sp and scores either 9 or 10 tricks, then yes, consistency leads to 50% always. > If I understand your opinion on adjusted scores correct I shall next expect > you "in order to do equity" also on artificial scores to argue for a change > in Law 12C1 so that any adjusted artificial score shall be 50%, no more no > less; because when you have no basis for knowing how well or bad a > contestant would have done on a board then the mathematical weighted average > must come out at exactly that value? This opinion could stand up if you add > that a contestant at fault shall always receive a procedure penalty of for > instance 10% of the top score (effectively resulting in 50%-40% scores). Do > we want to abolish the 10% above average score as compensation for a board > not played by a contestant not in any way at fault ("in order to do > equity")? > No, my consistency leads me elsewhere. It leads me to "consistently" estimate the final result of our L12C3 adjustment, nothing else being known, to 60% (in order to be consistent with the principle set out in L12C1). I have once expressed this as saying that when we estimate that a player has a 50% chance of fulfilling his contract, we should award him 70% of it. That way, he ends up with the 60% that L12C1 would give him. But the EBLAC has decided otherwise. If we estimate that it's 50%, we should award 50%. I realize that this is inconsistent but I don't know yet where to lobby for a change. > > > Or simply that our player is aware of a line of play that most other players > have overlooked. But I have the impression that you agree he deserves his > full share of the top result. I am glad you see and accept my point here. > Yes indeed, if the player can convince the AC that the contract does NOT depend on a finesse, then certainly he should get all of it. > > >> >>>(Or heaven forbid: Will you award him for instance +440 considering that >>>being of his "class of player" he would have been among the successful >>>players on this board with a probability of something like 75%?) >>> >>> >> >>Why "heaven forbid"? It could well be that the particular advantage >>this player has over the field turns out to be such that he would make >>the contract 3/4 times, not 1/2. >>Might well happen - >> > > Heaven forbid, because this will bring us back to the hopeless project of > adjudicating results based upon the "class of player" concept which assumes > that a good player never makes any mistake and a poor player always makes > mistakes. (Ref. the long lasting discussion on ruling after incomplete > claims and where we draw the line for "irrational" plays). > Well, you've just given an example of a player receiving 100% of a contract that 50% of players fail. Certainly that depends on "class of player". And no, I don't intend to give Zia 60% of a contract without any other reason than that Zia allways makes 10% more contracts than anyone else. > >>Suppose all other tables need to make two finesses (and thus only 25% >>score +620, for 87.5MP), while he has to make only one. Now his score >>might well be 50% of 87.5MP + 50% of 37.5MP = 62.5MP. >> > > I was more thinking of the player who is the only one to find a line of play > where he has full control. > Same principle. But the main fact is that something needs to be different at the table in question. >> >>Well, nothing prevents us from judging that a particular player would >>find a particular line with a greater certainty than the average of >>the field. >> > > Shall this be according to some "objective" assessment? We don't want our > Directors to be subjective in their rulings do we? > How can we avoid that ? We need to trust our directors. > > Law 12C3 doesn't even tell us whether "equity" shall be focused on NOS alone > (as in Law 64C), on both NOS and OS (as I suspect is the intention) or even > on the competition as a whole. > > As it is now Law 12 doesn't "hang together". > That may be your opinion. I have a clear understanding of what L12C3 means. And no, it's not just from reading that single sentence. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 9 11:11:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:11:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <32C0743C-9A1D-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c32e6f$8f6a1ed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Sven Pran wrote:=20 > >> Herman De Wael > >> Why would it need defining? It's a perfectly valid English word, if > >> not in quite regular usage. > > > > No "equity" is a subjective term which is taken differently by = different > > people, in particular when they are themselves affected. >=20 > That people don't know the definition of a word, and assume it means > something other than what it does mean, does *not* mean that the = meaning > is not in fact what the dictionary says it is. OTOH, human language is > dynamic, not static, and it's quite possible that the meaning of a = word > may change over time. OTGH, I'm no expert in how "the meaning has > changed" is determined, so I tend to go with the dictionary. An > equitable score is one determined without bias towards one side or the > other. And that is *all* it means. People may wish to argue that a > decision against their interests is prima facie not equitable, but > IMNSHO that's a bunch of sour grapes, unless they can provide = *evidence* > of bias. During all my years as a Director I have been instructed that a player = who because of some irregularity in which he has no fault is deprived the possibility of playing a board for a good score shall be compensated not only his average but also "something" for his lost chance of a good = score. This is the justification for an innocent player receiving average plus = and not just average under Law 12C1, it is the justification for receiving = the "most favorable result that was likely" under Law 12C2 and it is the justification for resolving all doubtful points in favor of an innocent player in a variety of other laws in the book. Most players I have met consider this principle "fair" and "to do = equity" for both the innocent and the guilty player.=20 What seems to be developing now is a pressure towards an innocent player = no longer being compensated for his lost chance, and here is where = different understandings of the term "equity" enters the picture: What is "equity" = for an innocent player who lost his chance of a clean top score? If the WBFLC is to be consistent along such lines they shall have to = remove every penalty there is in the book and replace with something "in order = to do equity". And most important they shall have to abandon Law 12B. Most notably comes to my mind a change in Law 64C that if the Director = deems that the offending side has lost a trick (because of the revoke penalty) that could not be lost by any legal play he shall also award an adjusted score. (Remember my example with the Ace of trumps?) What will be the expected result of a general change in the laws along = such lines? Infracting the laws will be risk free as long as intent cannot be proven because the penalty shall never exceed the loss for the = non-offending side. I can imagine some very bad effects both on the Director's work and also = on the game as a whole. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 9 11:24:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:24:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Once again: 60% in L12C3 Message-ID: <3EE46041.2050909@skynet.be> We've all understood by now the three points of view in this discussion. My position is that it is legal to attribute 60% of available MP under L12, even when a score has been arrived at. I maintain that this is under L12C3, but several people have told me that this is not legal. I challenge them to point to the text in L12C3 that tells them so and leave that discussion hanging. Now why would we do this. Let me first ask you to understand a piece of shorthand. Let's get rid of the confusion between weights (expressed in percentages) and Matchpoints (quite often also expressed in percentages of a top). When I mean "60% of available MP", I shall write 60MP. OK? Let me state once again that 60MP is _NOT_ the same as Av+. OK? I know it is confusing, but that should not detract us from stating that 60MP is a valid and legal score, while Av+ is not. Now why would we want to award 60MP. Well, quite simply, laziness. We've all been there. Last session of a long tournament, everyone wants to go to the bar, and there are 5 rulings waiting. Most of them without direct influence on the result. So we award 60MP. What's so bad about that? A pair that feels badly done by can always appeal. Let me give an example. After an infraction, the table plays 1DXX=. We rule that the contract must be turned back to 4Sp and a quick look at the hands (or some other tables) tells us that this contract scores 9 or 10 tricks. So we want to give X% of +620 and (100-X)% of -100. But we have no clue as to the value of X. There are a lot of variables. What would the lead be, what line will declarer and defenders follow, which way will he finesse? But I told you we were lazy. What's wrong with simply check the room and take for X the exact percentage of tables that actually scored 10 tricks around the room? But wait, we don't even need that, because: If X = 20%, then +620 scores 90MP, and -100 scores 40MP, and this table gets 20%x90 + 80%x40 = 50MP. If X = 60%, then +620 scores 70MP, and -100 scores 20MP, and this table gets 60%x70 + 40%x20 = 50MP. So we don't even have to call ourselves lazy when we don't go and check the value of X, but award 50% straight away. Of course we don't want NOs to feel damaged by our lazyness, so we give 60MP instead. Which is why I believe that awarding 60% is not only legal under L12C3, but can be quite equitable as well. It might even be called more equitable than a TD who comes up with weights that have been poorly judged. And of course, if the players feel damaged, they are quite right in appealing the decision, and the AC should investigate more thoroughly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 9 11:32:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:32:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <3EE45BA2.4050800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c32e72$7e99e470$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Again, very sensible arguments. I like the discussion so far. I just thought we had reached some state of agreement (although we do = not fully agree on all the aspects) but then: ....... > >> Why "heaven forbid"? It could well be that the particular=20 > >> advantage this player has over the field turns out to be > >> such that he would make the contract 3/4 times, not 1/2. > >> Might well happen - > >> > > > > Heaven forbid, because this will bring us back to the=20 > > hopeless project of adjudicating results based upon the > > "class of player" concept which assumes that a good player > > never makes any mistake and a poor player always makes > > mistakes. (Ref. the long lasting discussion on ruling after > > incomplete claims and where we draw the line for "irrational"=20 > > plays). >=20 >=20 > Well, you've just given an example of a player receiving 100%=20 > of a contract that 50% of players fail. Certainly that depends=20 > on "class of player". And no, I don't intend to give Zia 60%=20 > of a contract without any other reason than that Zia always > makes 10% more contracts than anyone else. No, it should not depend upon the "class of player"; it must depend upon = his ability to show at the time his ability to see the winning line of play! This is incidentally the same objection I have when adjudicating claim cases: The higher the class of player the more we should expect him to demonstrate in his claim statement that he is aware of important = details. The outcome should therefore always be a result of his statement, not = his name or his assumed ability to see important details which he doesn't mention.=20 (I am not quite sure when you mention Zia whether that means that you = agree or disagree with me in this respect? He is certainly in a particular = "class of players".) > > As it is now Law 12 doesn't "hang together". > > > That may be your opinion. I have a clear understanding of what L12C3 > means. And no, it's not just from reading that single sentence. Well, you mentioned yourself your attempt to bring your use of L12C3 to correspond with the intentions in L12C1 and the disagreement you have = with EBLLC in this respect. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 9 11:43:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:43:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Once again: 60% in L12C3 In-Reply-To: <3EE46041.2050909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c32e74$080d01a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael To cut a long story short: I have been directing for some time = (authorized since 1980, unauthorized long before that). Law 12C3 didn't show up = until 1997. Whenever I had any case like Herman's example below I ruled 60MP to NOS, = not because of laziness but because I felt such ruling justified in Law 12C1 = - there was no longer any way a "normal" result could be obtained (or assessed) on the board.=20 I haven't missed L12C3 a minute. To the question on A+ vs. 60MP; I believe we all agree the major = difference between those two scores: An A+ score is subject to later adjustment depending upon the actual = result obtained by that contestant in the session. A 60MP score is final. Sven > Sent: 9. juni 2003 12:24 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Once again: 60% in L12C3 >=20 > We've all understood by now the three points of view in this = discussion. >=20 > My position is that it is legal to attribute 60% of available MP under > L12, even when a score has been arrived at. >=20 > I maintain that this is under L12C3, but several people have told me > that this is not legal. I challenge them to point to the text in L12C3 > that tells them so and leave that discussion hanging. >=20 > Now why would we do this. >=20 > Let me first ask you to understand a piece of shorthand. Let's get rid > of the confusion between weights (expressed in percentages) and > Matchpoints (quite often also expressed in percentages of a top). When > I mean "60% of available MP", I shall write 60MP. OK? >=20 > Let me state once again that 60MP is _NOT_ the same as Av+. OK? I know > it is confusing, but that should not detract us from stating that 60MP > is a valid and legal score, while Av+ is not. >=20 > Now why would we want to award 60MP. Well, quite simply, laziness. > We've all been there. Last session of a long tournament, everyone > wants to go to the bar, and there are 5 rulings waiting. Most of them > without direct influence on the result. So we award 60MP. What's so > bad about that? A pair that feels badly done by can always appeal. >=20 > Let me give an example. >=20 > After an infraction, the table plays 1DXX=3D. We rule that the = contract > must be turned back to 4Sp and a quick look at the hands (or some > other tables) tells us that this contract scores 9 or 10 tricks. So we > want to give X% of +620 and (100-X)% of -100. But we have no clue as > to the value of X. There are a lot of variables. What would the lead > be, what line will declarer and defenders follow, which way will he > finesse? But I told you we were lazy. What's wrong with simply check > the room and take for X the exact percentage of tables that actually > scored 10 tricks around the room? But wait, we don't even need that, > because: >=20 > If X =3D 20%, then +620 scores 90MP, and -100 scores 40MP, and this > table gets 20%x90 + 80%x40 =3D 50MP. > If X =3D 60%, then +620 scores 70MP, and -100 scores 20MP, and this > table gets 60%x70 + 40%x20 =3D 50MP. >=20 > So we don't even have to call ourselves lazy when we don't go and > check the value of X, but award 50% straight away. > Of course we don't want NOs to feel damaged by our lazyness, so we > give 60MP instead. >=20 > Which is why I believe that awarding 60% is not only legal under > L12C3, but can be quite equitable as well. It might even be called > more equitable than a TD who comes up with weights that have been > poorly judged. >=20 > And of course, if the players feel damaged, they are quite right in > appealing the decision, and the AC should investigate more thoroughly. >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 9 12:50:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:50:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <000201c32e72$7e99e470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE47471.10209@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Again, very sensible arguments. I like the discussion so far. >> > > I just thought we had reached some state of agreement (although we do not > fully agree on all the aspects) but then: > We actually do agree, Sven! >>on "class of player". And no, I don't intend to give Zia 60% >>of a contract without any other reason than that Zia always >>makes 10% more contracts than anyone else. >> > > No, it should not depend upon the "class of player"; it must depend upon his > ability to show at the time his ability to see the winning line of play! > Exactly what I've been saying. If Zia tells me the contract is 100%, he will get it at full weight. But if Zia tells me he makes more contracts than most, he gets it at 50% weight, just like anyone else. > This is incidentally the same objection I have when adjudicating claim > cases: The higher the class of player the more we should expect him to > demonstrate in his claim statement that he is aware of important details. > The outcome should therefore always be a result of his statement, not his > name or his assumed ability to see important details which he doesn't > mention. > Totally irrelevant to this thread. Surely you must see that in some cases the fact that Zia does not mention something indicates that he believes it is obvious, while if I don't the mention the same it indicates that I have forgotten it. The TD should judge whether the player has forgotten it or not and the "class of player" is one element which helps the TD to judge. > (I am not quite sure when you mention Zia whether that means that you agree > or disagree with me in this respect? He is certainly in a particular "class > of players".) > I agree with you (in the L12C case) in that Zia gets the same weights as anyone else. > >>>As it is now Law 12 doesn't "hang together". >>> >>> >>That may be your opinion. I have a clear understanding of what L12C3 >>means. And no, it's not just from reading that single sentence. >> > > Well, you mentioned yourself your attempt to bring your use of L12C3 to > correspond with the intentions in L12C1 and the disagreement you have with > EBLLC in this respect. > Well, that still means I have a clear understanding. I als understand it's not totally consistent, and I would like to see some changes, but I still understand it. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 9 12:52:45 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:52:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Once again: 60% in L12C3 References: <000301c32e74$080d01a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE4750D.4040906@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> > > To cut a long story short: I have been directing for some time (authorized > since 1980, unauthorized long before that). Law 12C3 didn't show up until > 1997. > > Whenever I had any case like Herman's example below I ruled 60MP to NOS, not > because of laziness but because I felt such ruling justified in Law 12C1 - > there was no longer any way a "normal" result could be obtained (or > assessed) on the board. > > I haven't missed L12C3 a minute. > And some - most notoriously the English - have been saying that your practice has been illegal all along. I have been trying to prove that your practice has been legal since 1997 (or actually since the Norwegian Federation has allowed you to use L12C3). > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 9 12:57:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:57:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c32de9$c991a0a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000001c32cc1$08da2450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c32d15$c05a1c80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00ca01c32d18$3bdc6370$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> <007601c32d33$93811c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002b01c32d97$0087d780$7183403e@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030608191024.01f47700@pop.starpower.net> At 02:14 PM 6/8/03, Marvin wrote: >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > I would also note that it is usual to allow > > that the meaning of an unalerted call is to be > > taken in a given way - as 'natural' unless the > > regulations specify a meaning, whereas an > > alert announces that the meaning is other > > than that, often with scope for multiple > > possibilities. > > >Yes indeed. The default meanings of unAlerted calls should be specified by >regulation, with players having the right to assume the default meaning in >the absence of an Alert. Like Bill Clinton tripping over what the meaning of "is" is, the bridge community needs to be careful about what the meaning of "meaning" is. It's too easy for the "default meaning in the absense of an alert" to become defined in terms of some "standard system" (inevitably a hodgepodge like "SAYC"). Then in any given locality or region where even minor variations become common practice, every time some common bids are used they are alerted, and the alerts become meaningless. One sees this effect in the ACBL (where the rules are far less extreme than the true "standard system" believers would have it), which tends to tinker with the alert rules as particular variations wax or wane in popularity, keeping more or less up with national averages at the expense of nobody-knows-what's-alertable-anymore confusion in local venues where the players don't follow the trends. Which is very different from a "default meaning" which doesn't purport to unambiguously define the bid in the sense that equates to "meaning" meaning "that which is subject to full disclosure". Like "natural", "artificial and game forcing", "negative", "transfer",... make your own list. These are perfectly sensible "meanings" to be used as "default meanings(s) in the absense of an alert", but they do not purport to fully disclose the "meanings" of the alerted bids. They work because they really are (or at least should be, if correctly chosen) "what most people play", which some arbitrary "standard system" never is and never will be. >Currently in ACBL-land, players are expected to "protect themselves" if an >opponent fails to Alert a call whose meaning is not unusual, putting the >onus on the wrong side. Oddly, this causes fewer problems at lower levels, where players tend to keep to their localities, and take it to mean something like, "If you know what everybody around here plays, we won't give you a windfall just because it's technically alertable and someone forgot to alert it." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 9 13:09:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:09:37 -0400 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030609080911.0267d690@pop.starpower.net> >At 02:50 AM 6/7/03, Sven wrote: > >>I do not question the "no alert above 3NT" rule. I question the delayed >>alert. I just do not understand its purpose. >> >>1: What options are available for opponents when they get the alert on a >>call say two rounds back? >> >>2: What is the possible penalty for failing to produce a delayed >>alert when >>required? > >A score adjustment if the NOS may have been damaged by not having the >information during the play. >Which also suggests the answer to Sven's first question. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Jun 9 13:18:34 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:18:34 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <002801c32b94$a1d2d950$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000001c32e81$40fe1c80$804726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> In my opinion, and given my main partner, who always seems compelled to lead out of turn, anyone who doesn't lead face down is a fool! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nancy T Dressing Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:00 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Further to this thread, ACBL requires that all opening leads be made face down! Another often abused rule. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > On 6/5/03 at 10:26 AM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > > > (Not everyone in the ACBL realizes this, and in my opinion the alert > > rule should have spelled it out more clearly.) > > There's a lot of things the alert rules should have spelled out more clearly. > :) > > > The ACBL rule seems to be a good one in principle, but it may be > > more complicated than players would prefer. > > Which, of course, doesn't absolve players from following it. :) > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tomwood1@earthlink.net Mon Jun 9 13:53:29 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 05:53:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-22003619125329810@earthlink.net> Kevin, Further to our exchange on ACBL Delayed Alerts -- > > > > [Tom W] > > Now that "the auction is over" (i.e., this thread seems to > > have pretty much run its course), let me give my > > delayed opinion on the ACBL's delayed alerts policy. > > > > I maintain that the ACBL delayed-alert policy is: > > 1) well intentioned and, to that extent, admirable > > 2) seriously flawed, as per Grattan et al. > > 3) much more of a minus than a plus > > 4) not even known to 98% of our LA-area opponents, > > even at regional+ tournaments [" 'delayed alert'? > > -- What *are* you talking about?"] > > 5) a good candidate for an early demise > > > [Kevin Perkins, ACBL director/player] > What I think the ACBL's policy supports, and what I personally do, is assume > that all bids by the opponents above the level of 3NT, MAY be conventional. > The biggest problem I see is someone assuming it is natural, when there is > no alert, which would be a mistake, since the regs say that no alert will be > forthcoming. As a player and director in the ACBL, I think the benefits > outway the problems with delayed alerts.. > WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE DELAYED-ALERT RULE? What exactly do you see as the Delayed-Alert "benefits," which "outweigh the problems" ? Is there any benefit other than avoiding having the Alert System tip off a bidder that: 1) he has just (by system) made a conventional call [e.g., Kickback Blackwood], whose conventionality he may otherwise have been unaware of, or 2) his partner *thinks* that he has just made a conventional call, which may shed light on other issues, such as doubts re prior trump-suit confirmation ? IS THE DELAYED-ALERT RULE BENEFICIAL *IN PRACTICE*? Are you claiming that the Delayed-Alert procedure is *de facto* beneficial, or that, *as conceived*, it offers more upside than downside? In our area, Southern California, player ignorance of the Delayed-Alert regulations is almost total. [What area do *you* play and direct in?] >From my experience, I would estimate that in So-Cal: 1) 90+% of the players do not even recognize the phrase "delayed alert" 2) 99% of the players do not have even an approximately correct understanding of these regs, as posted on . 3) Delayed Alerts have *virtually never* [you can count'em on one hand, with fingers left over] been announced by our opponents, when our self-reliant questioning flushed out the fact that such an Alert was owed 4) Directors, whether club, sectional, or regional do not care about this area of regulation [e.g., huffily addressing us, "Well. you got your information, so what's the problem?" 5) Fewer than half of our directors can make a lucid paraphrase of the Delayed-Alert regulations. It is because of the huge gap between theory and practice, that I do not get very enthusiastic about the Delayed-Alert regs' potential benefits. YOU PASSED OVER, IN CICERONIAN SILENCE, OUR CONCERNS OVER THE CONSEQUENTIAL TRAMPLING ON OPPONENTS' RIGHTS -- You did not address, at all, the issue of the bind in which opponents find themselves *due to the ACBL-mandated suppression of post-alert information until after the auction has ended*. Let me offer an example . Say, for instance, that partner and I have agreed to the following logic for doubling opponents' control bids. My example auction involves a Spade-fit discovery, followed by 4-level control-bids [Some ACBLers might say "cuebid" here.]. Let's say that our policy/strategy is as follows: 1) If opponents skip over 4C and control-bid 4D (because the bidder holds a D control but no C control), our DBL will say "Lead a Club!" 2) If, however, we know that these opponents use a (Klinger-like?) approach and bid 4D to show controls in *both* Clubs and Diamonds [a logic which I would say is so unexpected in our area as to be clearly alertable], then our DBL will say "Lead a Diamond -- the suit just bid." How are we to know which type of suit-control bidding is taking place? I hope I do not hear you chiding "You can always ask!", because raising question(s) at this point in the opponents' auction [even a request like "Pls explain the auction to this point"] is tantamount to broadcasting what our defensive interest/hope is at this point. [BTW, I admit that even the (post-)alertability of unusual suit-control bids is debatable. The ACBL-site screens which define the Alert regulations: 1) define the term "control bid" but give no assurance that such a bid is *ever* (post-)alertable; 2) comment on "control bids" as "usually showing first- or second-round control" and point out that "the control *need not be* in the denomination (suit) named:; 3) would seem to leave the issue of alertability of control bids falling back on the self-proclaimed "fuzzy" terminology phrase "highly unusual and unexpected" (meaning).] Tom Wood, Southern California Delayed-Alert Regs pessimist From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 9 15:46:17 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:46:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030609080911.0267d690@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002701c32e95$e2f94e60$4c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Well done ACBL! (1) Delayed alerts above 3NT is the best advance in Bridge Law for decades. (2) Why not extend it to Passes, doubles and redoubles? (3) And then to all calls, 3NT and below, as well. The same advantages would then accrue during the entire auction. Nobody loses any right. Anybody at their turn to call can ask about the meaning of the auction, so far. They should not ask about individual bids, anyway! For those like me who would be happy to let opponents confuse each other by not knowing which bids they each take as conventional, this would speed up the game. And we would get a few tops per session, as a bonus! From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 16:38:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:38:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <410-2200361972930828@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <79548D64-9A90-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 03:29 AM, Thomas Wood wrote: > Good luck spotting the 1-under cues in the midst of our gazillion > conventions crammed meticulously into the ACBL-CC mini-real estate. I have been convinced for years that the ACBL CC needs a complete redesign. I've also been convinced that it ain't gonna happen. :( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 16:43:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:43:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <000101c32e6f$8f6a1ed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1A510B88-9A91-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 06:11 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > During all my years as a Director I have been instructed that a player > who > because of some irregularity in which he has no fault is deprived the > possibility of playing a board for a good score shall be compensated not > only his average but also "something" for his lost chance of a good > score. The definition I quoted does not, IMO, preclude that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 16:49:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:49:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030608191024.01f47700@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 07:57 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > It's too easy for the "default meaning in the absense of an alert" to > become defined in terms of some "standard system" (inevitably a > hodgepodge like "SAYC"). When describing SAYC, "hodgepodge" is accurate. I'm not so sure about "system". :-) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 9 16:56:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:56:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030609080911.0267d690@pop.starpower.net> <002701c32e95$e2f94e60$4c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <006801c32e9f$b5222f20$4c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [repost with "bids" changed to "calls"] Well done ACBL! (1) Delayed alerts above 3NT is the best advance in Law for decades. (2) Why not extend it to Passes, doubles and redoubles? (3) And then to all calls, 3NT and below, as well. The same advantages would then accrue during the entire auction. Nobody loses any right. Anybody at their turn to call can ask about the meaning of the auction, so far; and/or consult opponent's Convention Card. They should not ask about individual calls, anyway! For those like me who would be happy to let opponents confuse each other by not knowing which calls they each take as conventional, this would speed up the game. And we would get a few welcome tops per session, as a bonus! From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 9 17:03:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:03:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <1A510B88-9A91-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > During all my years as a Director I have been instructed=20 > > that a player who because of some irregularity in which=20 > > he has no fault is deprived the possibility of playing a > > board for a good score shall be compensated not only his > > average but also "something" for his lost chance of a good > > score. >=20 > The definition I quoted does not, IMO, preclude that. Just confirming that the term "equity" is understood differently by different people. What I have seen seems to emphasize that "to do equity" means to award = an adjusted score as close as possible to the "probable" result had no irregularity occurred; and with no extra compensation for the lost = chance of making a particularly good score on the board.=20 For generations players have accepted as "fair" to have for instance 10% = of top MPs as compensation for their lost chance. Most of the discussion = around Law 12 here on blml appears to question this principle as being "unfair" without really saying so. Sven=20 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 9 21:03:55 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:03:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c32ec2$5dcaa2c0$57ea193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins For generations players have accepted as "fair" to have for instance 10% of top MPs as compensation for their lost chance. Most of the discussion around Law 12 here on blml appears to question this principle as being "unfair" without really saying so. < +=+ A weighted 12C3 adjustment gives him a proportion of the best score it is adjudged he can obtain from the instant prior to the irregularity. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jun 9 21:05:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:05:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <32C0743C-9A1D-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c32ec2$8f883f70$0956e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins > > That people don't know the definition of a word, > and assume it means something other than what > it does mean, does *not* mean that the meaning > is not in fact what the dictionary says it is. OTOH, > human language is dynamic, not static, and it's > quite possible that the meaning of a word may > change over time. OTGH, I'm no expert in how > "the meaning has changed" is determined, so I > tend to go with the dictionary. An equitable score > is one determined without bias towards one side > or the other. And that is *all* it means. People > may wish to argue that a decision against their > interests is prima facie not equitable, but IMNSHO > that's a bunch of sour grapes, unless they can > provide *evidence* of bias. > +=+ The judgement of equity is subjective, but the meaning of 'equity' is objective, devoid in the dictionary of the intervention of subjective human distortion. In appeals committees and in Directors' consultations we seek to approach an objective judgement of the equity by balancing the subjective judgements of a plurality of minds. When considering the meaning we should bear in mind that the purpose is to redress damage; the equity to be sought after is the equity as it has progressed through the actions of the players from the equality of the original position when the cards are removed from the board to the point where the actions have been driven off-track by an irregularity. Damage is assessed by considering how the auction and play would have progressed from that point to a result and comparing this with what actually occurred when the irregularity affected the outcome. In some situations the laws determine what the equity is to be, sometimes with rough effect - in the revoke law, for example - in other situations the law calls for a judgement to be made of the equity. 12C3 enables such a judgement to be made when an assured single outcome is difficult to assess. A 12C3 adjustment may be weighted or it may be an adjudged fair outcome unaccompanied by any disclosed weighting process. The WBF CoP states that 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". The expectation is what calls for judgement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 9 21:56:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:56:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <002501c32ec2$5dcaa2c0$57ea193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000501c32ec9$9fbffed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval=20 ......... > For generations players have accepted as "fair" to have > for instance 10% of top MPs as compensation for their > lost chance. Most of the discussion around Law 12 here > on blml appears to question this principle as being "unfair" > without really saying so. > < > +=3D+ A weighted 12C3 adjustment gives him a proportion > of the best score it is adjudged he can obtain from the > instant prior to the irregularity. +=3D+ And have I understood the principles for applying Law 12C3 correct in = the following scenario? At the time of irregularity at one table the auction (and the play if applicable) at that table has so far been identical to what has happened = at all other tables. Thus we have not yet any objective indication that the result at this table will differ from the results at the other tables. However, the results across all the tables on that board exhibit a significant spread from very poor to very favorable scores. The spread = in results is caused by differences in actions after the time of the irregularity. =20 As we can only have the words of the innocent competitor that he would = have selected a successful line we completely disregard that possibility and = just apply a weighted average on all the obtained results to find his = "expected" result on the board just before the irregularity. This is of course the correct statistical method and we need no advanced math to show that the "expected" result will be exactly an average = score. What we have done here is to no longer compensate for the lost chance = that he would have made a good score. And even if he makes a good show in the rest of the applicable session it is not apparent that he shall have his adjusted score varied again to compensate for this. I still do not feel comfortable and I should like to see some examples = on how the old practice resulted in "unfair" rulings. Such examples should = be so severe that they really justified the introduction of the changes in 1997. Are any "minutes" leading up to these changes available for = reading on the net? Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jun 9 22:55:42 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:55:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Once again: 60% in L12C3 References: <000301c32e74$080d01a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004a01c32ed1$f3c54460$0956e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:43 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Once again: 60% in L12C3 << To cut a long story short: I have been directing for some time (authorized since 1980, unauthorized long before that). Law 12C3 didn't show up until 1997. +=+ It appeared first as a footnote in the 1987 Laws, authorized by the WBFLC at its meeting in Ocho Rios on 18th October 1987. The agreed wording read "An appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." It was effective immediately and no opt-out provision was added. The footnote was attached to the word 'Director' in Law 12C2. {The hearsay is that when Edgar went back to the States from Ocho Rios he 'forgot' to mention the footnote to the ACBL and presumably did not remind Ed Theus about it. So it was not printed in the ACBL second porinting of the 1987 Laws. The committee members present at the meeting were Ed Theus (Chairman), Edgar Kaplan (Vice Chairman), Denis Howard (WBF President), Jaime Ortiz-Patino (WBF President Emeritus), Jean Besse, Grattan Endicott, John Wignall. Apologies from Carlos Cabanne, Santanu Ghose, Colin Harding. Present by invitation of the Chairman were Harold Franklin, Mazhar Jafri, Nils Jensen, Ernesto d'Orsi, Bill Schoder, and Alfred Sheinwold. The wording was devised, I recall, by Denis Howard.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 23:16:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:16:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <058FC8C6-9AC8-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > What I have seen seems to emphasize that "to do equity" means to award > an > adjusted score as close as possible to the "probable" result had no > irregularity occurred; and with no extra compensation for the lost > chance of > making a particularly good score on the board. That seems right to me. > For generations players have accepted as "fair" to have for instance > 10% of > top MPs as compensation for their lost chance. Most of the discussion > around > Law 12 here on blml appears to question this principle as being "unfair" > without really saying so. Well, I havent been around that long, so I can't really speak to what past generations of players have done, but it seems to me that to give a pair a bonus on the grounds they *might* have done better than whatever score you're adjusting to is not only unfair, but illegal. From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jun 9 23:51:54 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <000501c32ec9$9fbffed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007201c32ed9$cec8c170$0956e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:56 PM Subject: RE: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins result at this table will differ from the results at the other tables. >However, the results across all the tables on that >board exhibit a significant spread from very poor to >very favourable scores. The spread in results is caused >by differences in actions after the time of the irregularity. >As we can only have the words of the innocent competitor >that he would have selected a successful line we >completely disregard that possibility and just apply a >weighted average on all the obtained results to find his >"expected" result on the board just before the irregularity. < +=+ The judgement is of the probabilities for the particular partnership in question - not of players across the field. The Director listens to the players' arguments, considers the course of the action before the irregularity, consults, and then makes up his mind. What aids he uses is a matter for him and the guidance of his regulating authority.+=+ < I still do not feel comfortable and I should like to see some examples on how the old practice resulted in "unfair" rulings. Such examples should be so severe that they really justified the introduction of the changes in 1997. Are any "minutes" leading up to these changes available for reading on the net? +=+ I fear you have not been attentive. Let me quote an earlier message: ""This takes us back pretty well to the EBL pre-1987 stance. Scores were assigned that were considered to be a fair outcome between the pairs given the circumstances. It was in order not to yield to the concept of extremes embodied in the phrases "most favourable result that was likely" and "most unfavourable result that was at all possible" that the EBL resisted absolutely any move to introduce these excessively punitive ideas, as the EBL LC of the day asserted them to be, without the relief from them that is embodied today in 12C3. So, to answer a question put by Sven Pran, the original purpose in demanding the 12C3 facility was in order to be able to mitigate the effects of giving the NOS and the OS each the most extreme likelihood/probability in their scores. I do believe that true equity in the score lies not in the most extreme positions, favourably and unfavourably, but in the assessment of a value that expresses the balance of the probable outcome had the infraction not occurred; I am also of the firm opinion that if you find reason to punish a contestant it is misconceived if this is done in the adjustment of the score, perhaps affecting the comparisons: it should be done separately."" The change was made in 1987 not 1997. (See my posting sent out an hour or so ago.) I do not know where the words "unfair rulings" have come from. What I have said is different from that. You enquire about the minutes. The relevant minute reads: "" Re letter of Mr. Endicott. The Committee held: 1..................(omissis).................... 2. The next reprinting of the Laws include a footnote appended to Law 12C2 (in reference to 'Director')as follows: "An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." In the meantime organisations are authorised to adopt this procedure. 3. ..... etc. ......"" Most of the negotiation of this was in exchange of correspondence 1984 -1986. By October '87 the first print run of the 1987 Laws had been released, hence the reference to 'next reprinting'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Tue Jun 10 01:46:42 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:46:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1A510B88-9A91-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Ed Reppert >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > During all my years as a Director I have been instructed >> > that a player who because of some irregularity in which >> > he has no fault is deprived the possibility of playing a >> > board for a good score shall be compensated not only his >> > average but also "something" for his lost chance of a good >> > score. >> >> The definition I quoted does not, IMO, preclude that. > >Just confirming that the term "equity" is understood differently by >different people. > >What I have seen seems to emphasize that "to do equity" means to award an >adjusted score as close as possible to the "probable" result had no >irregularity occurred; and with no extra compensation for the lost chance of >making a particularly good score on the board. > >For generations players have accepted as "fair" to have for instance 10% of >top MPs as compensation for their lost chance. Most of the discussion around >Law 12 here on blml appears to question this principle as being "unfair" >without really saying so. > I think when we use 12C3 we understand "to do equity" as equivalent to awarding whatever outcome we decided plus a bit extra in the direction of the NO's, perhaps as much as 10% if expressed in mps. In a competitive auction I may decide that the probable outcomes are 2H= 10% +110 2H+1 10% +140 2H-1 10% -50 2S= 10% -110 2Sx= 10% -670 2S-1 10% +100 2Sx-110% +200 2S+1 10% -140 2Sx+110% -870 a third of the time 2H is left in and it makes 7, 8 or 9 tricks on the lead. 2/3 of the time 2H is pulled by oppo to 2S and and half of the time that gets doubled. This contract also makes 7 8 or 9 tricks on the lead. I've got to 90% so I'll add another 10% to -870 or to +200 depending on who is the OS. This is perhaps a little OTT, but I've no problems in awarding such a score in a UI/MI auction. >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 10 02:03:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:03:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <058FC8C6-9AC8-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003e01c32ef0$30d1f240$4a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] Well, I haven't been around that long, so I can't really speak to what past generations of players have done, but it seems to me that to give a pair a bonus on the grounds they *might* have done better than whatever score you're adjusting to is not only unfair, but illegal. [Nigel Guthrie] Am I missing something, again, Ed? For me, like for most players, Bridge Law is an an enigma. Surely, however, at any game, non-offenders should be compensated, if an opponent's infraction deprives them of the possibility of a good score. e.g. Suppose everyone else is in four hearts that depends on a 2-way finesse for the trump queen, a pure 50-50 shot but guessed wrong at every table (:Perhaps they haven't learnt Barry Crane's rule:). Why shouldn't the innocent party guess this right? Whatever you rule for non-offenders, offenders must be penalized in such circumstances. Otherwise you encourage transgressions: Most of the time, offenders get away with infractions. Even if they are unlucky enough to encounter vigilant opponents, who are in contention, in the absence of tough legislation, they still break more or less even. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jun 10 08:09:07 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:09:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <1A510B88-9A91-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000401c32ea0$b6afb780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EE58413.8050006@skynet.be> May be a good example, John, but... John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In a competitive auction I may decide that the probable outcomes are > > 2H= 10% +110 > 2H+1 10% +140 > 2H-1 10% -50 > 2S= 10% -110 > 2Sx= 10% -670 > 2S-1 10% +100 > 2Sx-110% +200 > 2S+1 10% -140 > 2Sx+110% -870 > > a third of the time 2H is left in and it makes 7, 8 or 9 tricks on the > lead. 2/3 of the time 2H is pulled by oppo to 2S and and half of the > time that gets doubled. This contract also makes 7 8 or 9 tricks on the > lead. I've got to 90% so I'll add another 10% to -870 or to +200 > depending on who is the OS. > ... but, two remarks. 1) don't you believe that this will lead to something quite close to 50MP? 2) Maybe it's not close to 50MP, because you overlooked something. Surely the chances of 7,8 or 9 tricks aren't precisely equal - surely one lead or other is more or less attractive given some piece of the bidding - maybe a defensive line is far easier - maybe the player in 2Sx has far more chance of going for a safety 8 tricks, etc. My point is that the amount of work you put into this is not reflected in the fairness of the result. If the NOs arrive at less than 50MP after this, they will have good reason to start criticising one or more of your presumptions. If the Os arrive at less than 40MP, they will do the same. So you need to do this very thoroughly, and that only exposes you to more of the same criticism, because each and every one of your steps is a possible way in. Rather, as director, you could award 60MP/40MP. Then if one or other pair feels badly done by, they can explain to the AC why they feel the board had moved towards their advantage before the infraction stopped it. > This is perhaps a little OTT, but I've no problems in awarding such a > score in a UI/MI auction. > I have. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 10 08:26:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:26:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c32f21$8ddf6540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kevin Perkins ........ > > Could you be so kind as to list the benefits of "delayed alerts" = please? > > > > To be frank I do not see many problems with the delayed alerts=20 > > as I understand them (we do not have anything like it in Norway), > > but I cannot see a single benefit (for opponents that is). > > > > Regards Sven > > > By delayed alerts, the burden of full disclosure is on the pair > bidding. By delayed alerts, the bidding pair is not helped by > alerts during the bidding, and the opponent don't have to ask > to be told of any alertable bids. >=20 > Kevin The amusing fact is that we have exactly the same burden situation here = in Norway without anything similar to the "delayed alert".=20 The burden of full disclosure is on the bidding pair, they receive no = help at high levels because (except for conventional opening bids) no alert = shall take place above 3NT and their conventional calls that you "protect" by delayed alerts shall be described on the CC in such a way that opponents = are warned in time. If something that looks like a concealed partnership agreement causes = damage to opponents; that will just be too bad for the bidders. And opponents = have the right to know at the time - not long time after the fact. Regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 6 13:34:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:34:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Compromise ? In-Reply-To: <000301c32c21$51f37b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3EE07A88.1080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030606142346.024810c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:46 6/06/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Herman De Wael > > Sorry Sven, totally irrelevant to the discussion. > >Is it? In your post you wrote: "A literal application of L12C2 leads to an >absolute top for the NOs, something we find too unlikely to really happen, >and we don't want to give that". > >In my example I showed another scenario (which in fact has happened on some >occasions) where following the laws leads to an equally unlikely (if not to >say impossible) result. But in my scenario the Director has no choice but to >use Law 64A2 and adjust the result on the board from one down (the actual >result at the table) to grand slam made. > >Where is the logic in letting the Director's opinion on what the NOS >deserves be relevant under Law 12C when it is not relevant in Law 64A? AG : not the right question. L12 suggests that TDs use their judgement to decide the score. L64 doesn't - at least not to *lower* the penalty. I would ask the following question : "since L12 distinguishes between artificial and assigned scores, and sets the conditions for either, who are we to overrule it ?" As Grattan and others have pointed out, L12C3 doesn't allow us to switch from one type to another. > If >the NOS can show the possibility of a good result for their side had the >irregularity not occurred why should they not receive this result when Law >12C2 is applicable? (And it is my firm opinion that L12C2 should take >precedence over Law 12C1 whenever possible.) AG : this is a consequence from the words "no result" in L12C1. It would be a good idea to permute those two paragraphs, so as to avoid misinterpretation of priorities. Best regards, Alain. From tomwood1@earthlink.net Tue Jun 10 13:43:15 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:43:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-22003621012431560@earthlink.net> > From: Kevin Perkins > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > >[ Kevin] > > > What I think the ACBL's policy supports, and what > > > I personally do, is assume that all bids by the > > > opponents above the level of 3NT, MAY be > > > conventional. > > > > This has nothing to do with the "delayed alerts"; it has to do with "no > > alerts above 3NT". > > > > > The biggest problem I see is someone assuming it > > > is natural, when there is no alert, which would > > > be a mistake, since the regs say that no alert > > > will be forthcoming. As a player and director in > > > the ACBL, I think the benefits outway the problems > > > with delayed alerts.. > > > > [Sven] > > Could you be so kind as to list the benefits of "delayed alerts" please? > > To be frank I do not see many problems with the delayed alerts as I > > understand them (we do not have anything like it in Norway), but I cannot > > see a single benefit (for opponents that is). > > > [Kevin] > By delayed alerts, the burden of full disclosure is on the pair bidding. > But the burden of full disclosure is *always* on the pair bidding [in no way a result of the delayed-alert system which you and the ACBL promote] -- and this burden would be there even if 1) *all* alerts were made in real time [i.e., no delayed alerts] or 2) all alerts were delayed. > [Kevin] > By delayed alerts, the bidding pair is not helped by alerts during the > bidding, and the opponent don't have to ask to be told of any alertable bids. > Perhaps you would really like *all* alerts to be delayed. Then, indeed, your 'bidding pair' would *never* be helped by their own alerts! [BTW, in our games, both pairs often tend to be 'bidding pairs', even in the very same auction. :-) ] Have you not failed to address the following issues, which many of us have raised: 1) Does the ACBL Delayed-Alert System, as currently specified, *gain more* by suppressing/delaying bid-alerts above 3NT (starting with opener's 2nd call) [the 'gain' being that the delayed-alerters will not be able to benefit illegally from the alert system] *than it loses* by depriving the opposing bidders of real-time notification of alertable bids [which real-time notice may occasionally be vital to their decisions in the auction]? 2) Does a regulatory system (i.e., Delayed Alerts) which is -- a) unknown to the vast majority of Los Angeles-area ACBLers [my observation from CA tournaments and club play] and b) not implemented satisfactorily by the minority of players who concede that they do know about the Delayed-Alert regulations [that is, they simply do not make the post-alert announcements, whereas questioning ferrets out the fact that they should have] have much merit other than as a sop to ivory-tower idealists? Do not get the impression that I am unappreciative of efforts or am in any way against attempts at regulatory improvement. Not so, at all! My partners and I play ACBL-unusual, light-opener, weak-Forcing-Club systems, laced with many Mid-Chart conventions. Consequently, we: 1) make several Pre-Alerts before every round of every session 2) make Delayed Alerts, on average, several times per session 3) provide printed ACBL Defense Database authorized defenses to our Mid-Chart conventions, where required by regs It is very rare for us to receive *any* Pre-Alert or Delayed Alert, even during a week-long tournament, despite a steady tickover of occasions where opponents are obligated by regulation to do so. [Kickback Blackwood, 1430 responses, complex neg/pos control bids, etc., are thrown our way without the least peep out of opponents, post-auction.] This situation is aggravated by marginal support, at best, from directors who all too frequently demonstrate that they would Fail even a basic multiple-choice test on "Alerts and Conventions 1.01." Tom Wood ACBL, Los Angeles area PS -- Kevin, what state/region do you direct and play in? Do you find the situation any less dismal than what I describe? From moranl@netvision.net.il Tue Jun 10 16:00:32 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:00:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <000001c32f21$8ddf6540$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> To Grattan, Sven and all those who oppose or do not see why there should be delayed alerts: Please give me some advice for the following practical, real-world problem. Fact: There is a regulation of the WBF that prohibits alerts of all doubles (at any level), and all bids at the 4 level or higher (with the exception of conventional opening suit bids) at competition without screens. Whether this is good or bad is not under discussion - the regulation exists. Fact: The competition is pairs, 2 or 3 boards against each pair, brown sticker conventions not allowed. For example: the World Junior Pairs taking place next month, without screens. In practice there is no time for more than a quick glance at the opponents CC, mainly at their basic system. Fact: NS bid to a slam, via a normal sounding bid which has a highly unexpected meaning. Fact: During the bidding, this bid is not alerted, in accordance with regulations. Fact: There is no explanation, and no questions asked, after the bidding (before the lead.) Fact: The contract makes. Assume: If EW had known the meaning of the bid, they would/might have led/played differently and would/might defeated the contract. The TD is called. What do you expect him to do? Option 1. Score stands, EW should have asked about the possible meanings of all NS's bids above 3NT, or should have looked at the CC (Assume the information is somewhere there on the CC). There is no regulation requiring this, but what about L21A? Option 2. Adjust (if necessary), NS should have told EW that there was unusual bidding (in other words, delayed alert.). Again, no regulation, but what about L40B, 40C etc etc. Option 1 places the onus on the defending side Option 2 places the onus on the bidding side So, please give the TD some advice. What should he do? I much prefer the delayed alert (which also avoids the problem of E or W's questions perhaps revealing something about his hand); but could live with the "must ask and protect himself" option; but am I the only one that thinks there should be some regulation? Eitan From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 10 16:19:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:19:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000001c32f21$8ddf6540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 03:26 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The burden of full disclosure is on the bidding pair, they receive no > help > at high levels because (except for conventional opening bids) no alert > shall > take place above 3NT and their conventional calls that you "protect" by > delayed alerts shall be described on the CC in such a way that > opponents are > warned in time. > > If something that looks like a concealed partnership agreement causes > damage > to opponents; that will just be too bad for the bidders. And opponents > have > the right to know at the time - not long time after the fact. Does Norway require that players examine opponents' CCs before the start of a round, as the EBU does? The reason I ask is that the ACBL has no such regulation, and in fact many players never look at them. I have been told by an opponent that "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 10 16:24:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:24:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <410-22003621012431560@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <9C34607E-9B57-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 08:43 AM, Thomas Wood wrote: > But the burden of full disclosure is *always* on the pair bidding [in > no way > a result of the delayed-alert system which you and the ACBL promote] > -- and this burden would be there even if > 1) *all* alerts were made in real time [i.e., no delayed alerts] or > 2) all alerts were delayed. or indeed if there were no alerts at all. From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 10 16:58:00 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:58:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:43:15 PDT." <410-22003621012431560@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <200306101557.IAA05727@mailhub.irvine.com> Tom wrote: > > > [Sven] > > > Could you be so kind as to list the benefits of "delayed alerts" please? > > > To be frank I do not see many problems with the delayed alerts as I > > > understand them (we do not have anything like it in Norway), but I > cannot > > > see a single benefit (for opponents that is). > > > > > [Kevin] > > By delayed alerts, the burden of full disclosure is on the pair bidding. > > > But the burden of full disclosure is *always* on the pair bidding [in no way > a result of the delayed-alert system which you and the ACBL promote] I don't know what you mean. Of course the pair bidding is required to disclose everything about their calls "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization" (Law 40B). But (in the ACBL) those regulations don't always require the pair making the bid to say anything about the bid *without* *being* *asked*. What those who say that delayed alerts put the burden of disclosure on the bidding pair is simply this: the pair that makes an unusual bid is required to *volunteer* the information that the bid has a special meaning, as opposed to the situation with unalertable bids, in which the opponents are required to *ask* first before the bidders are required to disclose the information. In America, it is rare for the defense to ask about the opponents' entire auction before they make the opening lead, when the bids haven't been alerted; the whole point of alerts is let the opponents know what they might particularly need to ask about. If we made our bids above 3NT non-alertable, instead of delayed alerts, then the defense would need to ask about *all* bids above 3NT to make sure none of them have unexpected meanings. (It probably wouldn't help to have a better-designed CC, or regulations requiring everyone to look at the CC first, because there will always be those Meckwell-type pairs who have complex agreements that won't fit on any CC smaller than a Tolstoy novel, and without the alerts the defense would still have to ask about the entire auction.) Maybe the regulations or customary practices are different in Norway, so that what I've said above wouldn't apply there. I don't know. * * * * Side note: It just occurred to me that the ACBL's delayed alert regulation seems silly in one regard: If the declaring side has a delayed alert, they're technically supposed to use the Alert procedure---i.e. say "Alert" and tap the alert strip on the bidding box or whatever---to let the opponents know the bid is alerted. I wasn't aware of this, and it isn't what I do. If our side is declaring and we have a delayed alert, I use one of these two procedures: (1) I simply tell the opponents what the delayed-alertable bid was and what it meant. (2) I simply tell the opponents what the delayed-alertable bid was and what it meant, followed by partner's asking "Really?" in surprise. But maybe that's wrong since technically the opponents could complain about being misinformed on a *different* bid, and the auction could continue and we may end up on defense instead of declaring. In practice, that never happens. I'm bringing this up because I wonder whether the difference between "delayed alert" and "delayed explanation" is leading to confusion. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 10 17:39:57 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:39:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel Guthrie] I agree with Eitan but go further. A few WBF rules modelled on the brilliant ACBL innovation should replace the current dreadful "Alert" bloat, such as: (1) Before the first board, you must draw attention to system aspects that differ from SAYC. (2) Such conventions must also be high-lighted on your convention card. (3) You may read your opponent's convention card at *any* time before or during a set of boards. (4) No alerts of any kind, ever. (Automatic UI penalty if you alert --increased after a 6-month familiarisation period). (5) At your turn to bid, you may ask opponents to explain their auction, so far. (6) If an opponent makes such a request, then you and your partner must explain each other's past calls. (7) Otherwise, at the end of the auction, you must tell opponents all that you can infer about your partner's hand -- just from the information in partner's calls. (8) You may, instead, *explicitly* request that opponents explain *every* call that their partner makes, as soon as it is made. e.g. "15-17 flat", "Non-promissory major enquiry", "four hearts, does not deny four spades", or whatever. (9) Organisers should provide a green "Explain" card so that you can ask for an explanation of the auction without too obviously drawing attention to any particular call. (10) To request a real-time call-by-call explanation of opponent's auction, just leave your "Explain" card face up on the table. From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 10 17:56:02 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:56:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:39:57 BST." <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <200306101656.JAA06591@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > (9) Organisers should provide a green "Explain" card so that you can ask for > an explanation of the auction without too obviously drawing attention to any > particular call. Oh, great---a card that looks like a Pass card!!! Couldn't we make it purple or chartreuse or something? -- Adam From toddz@att.net Tue Jun 10 18:48:18 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:48:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <200306101656.JAA06591@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] > > Nigel wrote: > > (9) Organisers should provide a green "Explain" card > so that you can ask for > > an explanation of the auction without too obviously > drawing attention to any > > particular call. > > Oh, great---a card that looks like a Pass card!!! > Couldn't we make it purple or chartreuse or something? With symbolic impact, it could be effectively printed on transparent plastic. -Todd From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Tue Jun 10 18:57:01 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:57:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030610195701.00f475f8@ip-worldcom.ch> At 17:39 10/06/2003 +0100, Nigel wrote: >[Nigel Guthrie] >I agree with Eitan but go further. A few WBF rules modelled on the brilliant >ACBL innovation should replace the current dreadful "Alert" bloat, such as: > >(1) Before the first board, you must draw attention to system aspects that >differ from SAYC. SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have no idea what SAYC means. Yvan From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 10 19:18:03 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:18:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:57:01 +0200." <3.0.6.32.20030610195701.00f475f8@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <200306101818.LAA08007@mailhub.irvine.com> Yvan Calame wrote: > SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have > no idea what SAYC means. You should tell them it stands for "Standard According to Yvan Calame" . . . :) :) -- Adam From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jun 10 20:32:39 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20030610195701.00f475f8@ip-worldcom.ch> from "Yvan Calame" at Jun 10, 2003 07:57:01 PM Message-ID: <200306101932.h5AJWeD14789@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Yvan Calame writes: > > At 17:39 10/06/2003 +0100, Nigel wrote: > >[Nigel Guthrie] > >I agree with Eitan but go further. A few WBF rules modelled on the brilliant > >ACBL innovation should replace the current dreadful "Alert" bloat, such as: > > > >(1) Before the first board, you must draw attention to system aspects that > >differ from SAYC. > > SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have > no idea what SAYC means. > And I was about to send a message wondering out loud what the most popular system at WBF events would be. Virtually all of the top French players play something fairly similar. I'd bet more players *say* they play ACOL, but on inspection will prove to be playing something fairly different from the ACOLer next door. There's a fair amount of what's called Precision. Again, there's a huge difference between what (say) Patrick Huang plays and Berkowitz/Cohen, never mind Meckwell (which in my opinion is only nominally Precision) I think French expert consensus would be the base that you could most easily build a card that would serve as an acceptable starting point for WBF events. -- Ron Johnson From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 10 22:07:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:07:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <000001c32f94$51306fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Eitan Levy=20 > To Grattan, Sven and all those who oppose or do not see why there = should > be > delayed alerts: >=20 > Please give me some advice for the following practical, real-world > problem. Since I am on the list of suggested responders: 1: If during opponent's auction at high level I have a choice between = calls depending upon the actual meaning of their auction so far; and at random intervals when the meaning of their auction will have no impact on my selection of a call I address opponents with my question "please explain your auction so far". 2: When it is my turn to ask questions before the opening lead and in particular if opponent's auction is not perfectly clear to me I simply = ask the question "what are we entitled to know from your auction?" In Norway all players are supposed to know that conventional calls above = the 3NT level are not to be alerted and that it is their privilege as well = as their duty to ask whenever they feel they might need some explanation = even after consulting opponent's CC. If the CC is found to be incomplete or misleading in such a way that = those players reading it might have a reason to be unaware of their need for questioning then the players with such CCs will usually find themselves = in trouble. Does this answer your questions? Regards Sven >=20 > Fact: There is a regulation of the WBF that prohibits alerts of all > doubles > (at any level), and all bids at the 4 level or higher (with the = exception > of conventional opening suit bids) at competition without screens. = Whether > this is good or bad is not under discussion - the regulation exists. > Fact: The competition is pairs, 2 or 3 boards against each pair, brown > sticker conventions not allowed. For example: the World Junior Pairs > taking > place next month, without screens. In practice there is no time for = more > than a quick glance at the opponents CC, mainly at their basic system. > Fact: NS bid to a slam, via a normal sounding bid which has a highly > unexpected meaning. > Fact: During the bidding, this bid is not alerted, in accordance with > regulations. > Fact: There is no explanation, and no questions asked, after the = bidding > (before the lead.) > Fact: The contract makes. > Assume: If EW had known the meaning of the bid, they would/might have > led/played differently and would/might defeated the contract. >=20 > The TD is called. > What do you expect him to do? > Option 1. Score stands, EW should have asked about the possible = meanings > of > all NS's bids above 3NT, or should have looked at the CC (Assume the > information is somewhere there on the CC). There is no regulation > requiring > this, but what about L21A? > Option 2. Adjust (if necessary), NS should have told EW that there was > unusual bidding (in other words, delayed alert.). Again, no = regulation, > but > what about L40B, 40C etc etc. >=20 > Option 1 places the onus on the defending side > Option 2 places the onus on the bidding side >=20 > So, please give the TD some advice. What should he do? >=20 > I much prefer the delayed alert (which also avoids the problem of E or = W's > questions perhaps revealing something about his hand); but could live = with > the "must ask and protect himself" option; but am I the only one that > thinks there should be some regulation? >=20 > Eitan >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 10 22:23:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:23:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c32f96$8f184c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........ > Does Norway require that players examine opponents' CCs before the start > of a round, as the EBU does? The reason I ask is that the ACBL has no > such regulation, and in fact many players never look at them. I have > been told by an opponent that "I don't look at convention cards. I ask > questions." We demand players at the start of each round to make themselves familiar with everything on the front page of opponent's CC. This page contains information on the basic system and "special deviations" which is a list of all opening bids regardless of level that does not conform to the definitions in that basic system. Furthermore a complete list of demand opening bids and the specific meaning of opening bids 1C, 2D, 1NT and the response system used with the 1NT opening bid. Next it includes a specification of third hand's double after second hand's bid over an opening bid specified separately for suit opening bids, 1NT and for demand opening bids. And finally the front page specifies agreements on leads and on discard signals when they show distribution and when they show strength. Directors in Norway have been instructed not to accept any claim on MI when the relevant information was correctly available on the CC front page. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 11 01:42:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:42:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] "No Play" Message-ID: <8C8E9CC6-9BA5-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Club championship today. There are 9 1/2 tables in the section. Skip Mitchell, with pair 10 EW a phantom. Round 2, board 30 at table 9. North finds he has nine cards in his hand, East has 17. The director is called. She takes the board away to try to reconstruct it. She says the board will be scored as "no play" for both NS and EW at table 9, which is an option in the ACBLScore program which will result in both pairs getting their session average score on the board. North objects, saying that he doesn't believe such a ruling is legal, and that both NS and EW at table 9 are entitled to an artificial adjusted score of average plus. The TD says that the ruling is correct, and the pairs continue. When the session ends, North finds that the board was reconstructed, and was played at other tables, but there wasn't time for the pairs who missed it to play it. North/South sat out the last round; East/West, of course, did not. After the session, North again stated his belief that the ruling was illegal. The TD again says that the ruling is correct, and that, in fact she can award any score she wants. To the best of my knowledge, the difference between average plus and average would not have affected the standing of either pair. Also, no PPs were issued at any table. Questions: is this ruling legal? Is it the correct ruling? Can the TD award any score she wants? Any other comments? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 11 01:49:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:49:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20030610195701.00f475f8@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <90775E42-9BA6-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:57 PM, Yvan Calame wrote: > SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have > no idea what SAYC means. > Heh. I have one player with whom I've been playing for about a year and a half. When we were introduced practically the first words out of her mouth were "I play SAYC". "Good," I said, "so you play Jacoby 2NT" (an integral part of SAYC). "Jacoby 2NT," she says, "what's that?" We're still not playing it. From adam@irvine.com Wed Jun 11 02:14:59 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:14:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:42:16 EDT." <8C8E9CC6-9BA5-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed Reppert wrote: > Club championship today. There are 9 1/2 tables in the section. Skip > Mitchell, with pair 10 EW a phantom. Round 2, board 30 at table 9. > North finds he has nine cards in his hand, East has 17. How on earth did the previous East get their cards back into the board??? > The director is > called. She takes the board away to try to reconstruct it. She says the > board will be scored as "no play" for both NS and EW at table 9, which > is an option in the ACBLScore program which will result in both pairs > getting their session average score on the board. North objects, saying > that he doesn't believe such a ruling is legal, and that both NS and EW > at table 9 are entitled to an artificial adjusted score of average > plus. The TD says that the ruling is correct, and the pairs continue. > When the session ends, North finds that the board was reconstructed, > and was played at other tables, but there wasn't time for the pairs who > missed it to play it. North/South sat out the last round; East/West, of > course, did not. After the session, North again stated his belief that > the ruling was illegal. The TD again says that the ruling is correct, > and that, in fact she can award any score she wants. To the best of my > knowledge, the difference between average plus and average would not > have affected the standing of either pair. Also, no PPs were issued at > any table. > > Questions: is this ruling legal? Is it the correct ruling? Can the TD > award any score she wants? Any other comments? Based on Laws 12A and 88, the TD should award the pair the greater of 60% and their session average for those two boards. Law 12A says "The Director awards", not "The Director may award" or "The Director should award" or "The Director awards, if she feels like it" or anything like that. (Similarly, L88 uses the phrase "shall be awarded".) There is no basis in the Laws for the TD's assertion that she can award any score she wants. Of course, if she wants to go outside the Laws and just assign any damn score she feels like, there's little to stop her. I don't know anything about ACBLScore, but it seems like it ought to have an option to award the greater of 60% and session average (or the lesser of 40% and session average). Does it? I find it somewhat hard to believe that there wouldn't be such an option. -- Adam From mikedod@gte.net Wed Jun 11 03:11:53 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:11:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001a01c32fbe$e3906a50$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> From: "Adam Beneschan" > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Club championship today. There are 9 1/2 tables in the section. Skip > > Mitchell, with pair 10 EW a phantom. Round 2, board 30 at table 9. > > North finds he has nine cards in his hand, East has 17. > > How on earth did the previous East get their cards back into the > board??? > > > The director is > > called. She takes the board away to try to reconstruct it. She says the > > board will be scored as "no play" for both NS and EW at table 9, which > > is an option in the ACBLScore program which will result in both pairs > > getting their session average score on the board. North objects, saying > > that he doesn't believe such a ruling is legal, and that both NS and EW > > at table 9 are entitled to an artificial adjusted score of average > > plus. The TD says that the ruling is correct, and the pairs continue. > > When the session ends, North finds that the board was reconstructed, > > and was played at other tables, but there wasn't time for the pairs who > > missed it to play it. North/South sat out the last round; East/West, of > > course, did not. After the session, North again stated his belief that > > the ruling was illegal. The TD again says that the ruling is correct, > > and that, in fact she can award any score she wants. To the best of my > > knowledge, the difference between average plus and average would not > > have affected the standing of either pair. Also, no PPs were issued at > > any table. > > > > Questions: is this ruling legal? Is it the correct ruling? Can the TD > > award any score she wants? Any other comments? > > Based on Laws 12A and 88, the TD should award the pair the greater of > 60% and their session average for those two boards. Law 12A says "The > Director awards", not "The Director may award" or "The Director should > award" or "The Director awards, if she feels like it" or anything like > that. (Similarly, L88 uses the phrase "shall be awarded".) There is > no basis in the Laws for the TD's assertion that she can award any > score she wants. Of course, if she wants to go outside the Laws and > just assign any damn score she feels like, there's little to stop her. > > I don't know anything about ACBLScore, but it seems like it ought to > have an option to award the greater of 60% and session average (or the > lesser of 40% and session average). Does it? I find it somewhat hard > to believe that there wouldn't be such an option. > > -- Adam ACBL Score allows all combinations of A, A+ and A-, and in this case the director should have awarded A+, A+. The question is whether the director has the option of amending the movement such that this board is not played by these pairs. L13A requires the board be played normally but now there is no time so late play regulations apply. I would still go with A+ (L88) but I'm not sure when an amended movement is legally allowed. When a pair withdraws because of illness, the lights go out, its late and the director wants to go home so we play 24 rather than 27 boards? Mike Dodson From nancy@dressing.org Wed Jun 11 04:41:55 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:41:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> <001a01c32fbe$e3906a50$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <001501c32fcb$678c7270$6501a8c0@hare> In this scenario, I would take the board to the table that had previously played it (this is only round 2) while another board of the set is played and have the players attempt to fix it. If they could not, I would have table 9 reshuffle the board and play it and score it as fouled. I cannot see any reason for awarding any kind of adjusted score for this board at this early stage of the game!!! On second thought, wasn't board 30 on the sitout table during the first round and not played by anyone, just shuffled and dealt incorrectly???? Or perhaps the sitout pair messed up the board???? If so, we just shuffle and play.... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike dodson" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "No Play" > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > Club championship today. There are 9 1/2 tables in the section. Skip > > > Mitchell, with pair 10 EW a phantom. Round 2, board 30 at table 9. > > > North finds he has nine cards in his hand, East has 17. > > > > How on earth did the previous East get their cards back into the > > board??? > > > > > The director is > > > called. She takes the board away to try to reconstruct it. She says the > > > board will be scored as "no play" for both NS and EW at table 9, which > > > is an option in the ACBLScore program which will result in both pairs > > > getting their session average score on the board. North objects, saying > > > that he doesn't believe such a ruling is legal, and that both NS and EW > > > at table 9 are entitled to an artificial adjusted score of average > > > plus. The TD says that the ruling is correct, and the pairs continue. > > > When the session ends, North finds that the board was reconstructed, > > > and was played at other tables, but there wasn't time for the pairs who > > > missed it to play it. North/South sat out the last round; East/West, of > > > course, did not. After the session, North again stated his belief that > > > the ruling was illegal. The TD again says that the ruling is correct, > > > and that, in fact she can award any score she wants. To the best of my > > > knowledge, the difference between average plus and average would not > > > have affected the standing of either pair. Also, no PPs were issued at > > > any table. > > > > > > Questions: is this ruling legal? Is it the correct ruling? Can the TD > > > award any score she wants? Any other comments? > > > > Based on Laws 12A and 88, the TD should award the pair the greater of > > 60% and their session average for those two boards. Law 12A says "The > > Director awards", not "The Director may award" or "The Director should > > award" or "The Director awards, if she feels like it" or anything like > > that. (Similarly, L88 uses the phrase "shall be awarded".) There is > > no basis in the Laws for the TD's assertion that she can award any > > score she wants. Of course, if she wants to go outside the Laws and > > just assign any damn score she feels like, there's little to stop her. > > > > I don't know anything about ACBLScore, but it seems like it ought to > > have an option to award the greater of 60% and session average (or the > > lesser of 40% and session average). Does it? I find it somewhat hard > > to believe that there wouldn't be such an option. > > > > -- Adam > > ACBL Score allows all combinations of A, A+ and A-, and in this case the > director > should have awarded A+, A+. The question is whether the director has the > option of > amending the movement such that this board is not played by these pairs. > L13A requires > the board be played normally but now there is no time so late play > regulations apply. > I would still go with A+ (L88) but I'm not sure when an amended movement is > legally > allowed. When a pair withdraws because of illness, the lights go out, its > late and the director wants > to go home so we play 24 rather than 27 boards? > > Mike Dodson > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 11 05:52:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:52:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <000101c32f96$8f184c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <753F26E9-9BC8-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jun 10, 2003, at 17:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: [snip description of the front page of a Norwegian CC] > Directors in Norway have been instructed not to accept any claim on MI > when > the relevant information was correctly available on the CC front page. This seems an eminently sensible approach. I wish I knew a way to get it adopted here. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 11 06:09:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:09:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] "No Play" In-Reply-To: <001a01c32fbe$e3906a50$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jun 10, 2003, at 22:11 US/Eastern, mike dodson wrote: > ACBL Score allows all combinations of A, A+ and A-, and in this case > the > director should have awarded A+, A+. That's what I thought. ;) > The question is whether the director has the option of amending the > movement such that this board is not played by these pairs. Well, let's see. Given the movement as I described it, in theory there should have been 30 boards in play (there were) and there should have been ten rounds of three boards each, with each NS pair sitting out one round, and thus each EW should have played 30 boards, and each NS 27. In fact, the movement was curtailed at 8 rounds, and EW pairs played 24 boards, and NS pairs 21 - except for NS pair 9, who only played 20 boards, and EW pair 8, who played 23. Given three board rounds, I don't see how you can amend the schedule so that a given NS pair and a given EW pair play only two of three boards in a set, and every other NS and EW pair play all three. But then, I'm certainly no expert on movements. *Is* there a way to do this? > L13A requires the board be played normally but now there is no time so > late play > regulations apply. I can't find any specific late play regulations on the ACBL web site. There may be something in the ACBLScore tech notes, but like 99.99% of players in the ACBL, I'm not privy to those. The club has no written regulations. > I would still go with A+ (L88) but I'm not sure when an amended > movement is > legally allowed. When a pair withdraws because of illness, the lights > go out, its > late and the director wants to go home so we play 24 rather than 27 > boards? That's a little different from the situation here. From mikedod@gte.net Wed Jun 11 09:19:22 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:19:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: Message-ID: <002401c32ff2$329ee0d0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> From: "Ed Reppert" > On Tuesday, Jun 10, 2003, at 22:11 US/Eastern, mike dodson wrote: > > > ACBL Score allows all combinations of A, A+ and A-, and in this case > > the > > director should have awarded A+, A+. > > That's what I thought. ;) > > > The question is whether the director has the option of amending the > > movement such that this board is not played by these pairs. > > Well, let's see. Given the movement as I described it, in theory there > should have been 30 boards in play (there were) and there should have > been ten rounds of three boards each, with each NS pair sitting out one > round, and thus each EW should have played 30 boards, and each NS 27. > In fact, the movement was curtailed at 8 rounds, and EW pairs played 24 > boards, and NS pairs 21 - except for NS pair 9, who only played 20 > boards, and EW pair 8, who played 23. > > Given three board rounds, I don't see how you can amend the schedule so > that a given NS pair and a given EW pair play only two of three boards > in a set, and every other NS and EW pair play all three. But then, I'm > certainly no expert on movements. *Is* there a way to do this? > > > L13A requires the board be played normally but now there is no time so > > late play > > regulations apply. > > I can't find any specific late play regulations on the ACBL web site. > There may be something in the ACBLScore tech notes, but like 99.99% of > players in the ACBL, I'm not privy to those. The club has no written > regulations. > To get the tech files borrow an old copy of ACBL score from a club (current versions require activation) and install. The tech files will be included. After an old copy is installed, a current version can be installed without problems and you will have current tech files. > > I would still go with A+ (L88) but I'm not sure when an amended > > movement is > > legally allowed. When a pair withdraws because of illness, the lights > > go out, its > > late and the director wants to go home so we play 24 rather than 27 > > boards? > > That's a little different from the situation here. All of these situations are different. The question is can the director arbitrarily modify the movement for reason or whim. What the director in this case did was decree the movement to be such that these pairs do not play this board. A truely flawed movement but ACBL Score will score it and it is the movement played. Note that this is different than awarding average, boards and scores are factored, no average is assigned. Clearly this director was way off base if an adjusted score was assigned but in this case there was no AAS. Was it legal? I don't think so but if not, how do I justify other more reasonable movement modifications? Mike Dodson From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 11 10:00:54 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:00:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] loss of virginity Message-ID: <000201c32ff9$2619e7e0$1bd64c51@pc> I had my very first L25b ruling last night. It took about 5 mins., and all four players thought I was mad. Larry From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 11 13:24:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:24:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] loss of virginity In-Reply-To: <000201c32ff9$2619e7e0$1bd64c51@pc> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030611141753.01d5d880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:00 11/06/2003 +0100, LarryBennett wrote: >I had my very first L25b ruling last night. >It took about 5 mins., and >all four players thought I was mad. AG : just shows you're a genuine TD now. Welcome ! From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001101c33014$f72b11e0$822d6651@annescomputer> I did my first at a Lady Milne (5 Nations International Ladies event) in June 1998. It might even have been the first ever. As a result of this I have been one of the few TDs who actually like the law - sort of a nostalgia thing - but there - losing your virginity is a bit like that isn't it? :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "LarryBennett" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:00 AM Subject: [blml] loss of virginity > I had my very first L25b ruling last night. > It took about 5 mins., and all four players thought I was > mad. > > Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jun 11 17:42:51 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:42:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: One of our Club members has returned to this country after spending six months or so in Australia. On his return he persuaded various of his partners to incorporate a 1 diamond opening into their system which was either (a) a natural diamond suit or (b) 4-4 in the majors - which he assured them was common in whatever part of Oz he had been playing in. In EBUland this agreement appears to be illegal at levels 1 to 4 (Orange Book 12.2.3, 13.1.3 & 14.1). This therefore earned our friend a 40/60 on three otherwise good boards. Can any of our antipodean BLMLers tell us whether this is indeed played in that part of the world? If so, it is presumably permitted by Australian regulations? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jun 11 19:03:45 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:03:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046570@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: From: Robin Barker > If you mean precisely 4-4 in the majors then I think it is legal at > levels 2-4. > We obviously read 12.2.3 differently. > Level 2 allows a 1D opener that is natural or balanced or natural 1C > opening with no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not > (Orange book 12.2.3(f)). > A opening 1D that is natural diamond or 4-4 in the majors is > + natural diamond (including 4=4=4=1, 4=4=5=0) => "natural" > + 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 => "balanced" > + 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5 => "natural 1C opening with no suit longer > than clubs" Our understanding of 12.2.3 is certainly different. All that the above proves is that a "dinkum diamond" hand will fit one of the categories covered by 12.2.3(f). At Level 2, a partnership must select *one* of the definitions in 12.2.3 (a) to (f) to define its 1D opening. It is not permitted to modify this understanding by any additional or restrictive understanding. If, however, I have agreed to play a "dinkum diamond" my partner knows when I open 1D that either I have 4+ diamonds or I am 4-4 in the majors. This is not deducible from the (f) definition above, therefore we have an agreement outside of that definition. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 11 19:07:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:07:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c33044$52a28d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown=20 > One of our Club members has returned to this country after spending = six > months or so in Australia. On his return he persuaded various of his > partners to incorporate a 1 diamond opening into their system which = was > either (a) a natural diamond suit or (b) 4-4 in the majors - which he > assured them was common in whatever part of Oz he had been playing in. >=20 > In EBUland this agreement appears to be illegal at levels 1 to 4 = (Orange > Book 12.2.3, 13.1.3 & 14.1). This therefore earned our friend a = 40/60 on > three otherwise good boards. For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in one or more different suits = is one out of five different criteria, either of which makes the entire = system HUM (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway illegal except = in events where their use is specially permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. Regards Sven =20 > Can any of our antipodean BLMLers tell us whether this is indeed = played in > that part of the world? If so, it is presumably permitted by = Australian > regulations? >=20 > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tomwood1@earthlink.net Wed Jun 11 21:45:11 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:45:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-220036311204511842@earthlink.net> Adam Beneschan responded to Tom; > >>>> [Sven] Could you be so kind as to list the benefits >>>> of "delayed alerts" please? To be frank I do not >>>> see many problems with the delayed alerts as I >>>> understand them (we do not have anything like it >>>> in Norway), but I cannot see a single benefit (for >>>> opponents that is). >>>> >>> [Kevin] By delayed alerts, the burden of full disclosure >>> is on the pair bidding. >>> >> [Tom] But the burden of full disclosure is *always* on >> the pair bidding -- in no way a result of the *delayed*-alert >> system which you and the ACBL promote. > [Adam] I don't know what you mean. Of course the pair > bidding is required to disclose everything about their calls > "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > organization" (Law 40B). But (in the ACBL) those regulations > don't always require the pair making the bid to say anything > about the bid *without* *being* *asked*. > Adam, *all* alertable bids, whether mandated as "delayed" or "immediate" by the ACBL, impose essentially the same active-ethics responsibility on you. Re your statement/position on the 'burden of full disclosure', see the "ACBL ALERT PROCEDURE" , which is clearly at odds with With apologies for the length of the direct quotes . . . [ACBL]: "The objective of the Alert system is for both pairs at the table to have *equal access to all information contained in any auction*. In order to meet this goal, it is necessary that all players under- stand and practice the principles of *Full Disclosure* and Active Ethics. Ethical bridge players will recognize the obligation to give complete explanations. They will accept the fact that any such information is entirely for the benefit of the opponents, and may *not* be used to assist their own partnership." . . . . . . . "Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction belongs to everyone at the table. Remember that the opponents are *entitled to know the agreed meaning of all calls*. . . . . . The opponents need not ask exactly the 'right' question. Any request for information should be the trigger . . . all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." And, just in case the ACBL msg did not yet get through, there is the *ultimate principle* with which directors are charged: "In all Alert situations, Tournament Directors should rule with the *spirit of the Alert procedure* in mind and *not simply by the letter of the law*. " [end of ACBL] --------- Is that not clear? Note that the ACBL leaves no doubt that the Active Ethics + Full Disclosure mandate is even *more fundamental in its force and imposed obligation* than is the Alert System, itself. -- Responding to Sven's request for "the benefits of 'delayed alerts', Kevin replied: "By delayed alerts, the 'burden of full disclosure' is on the pair bidding." Kevin was wrong. The *delaying* of alerts simply postpones the bidders' notification of alertability to the end-of-auction period. [In so doing, it 'gains' in ethical effect by not dangling unauthorized information in front of the bidders, above 3NT. OTOH, it 'risks' depriving the opponents of real-time information which might change their bid/Pass/DBL decisions.] In no way, does the *delayed* alert mandated by the ACBL change the active-ethics, full-disclosure obligation laid on you by the ACBL. It simply alters the protocol. As you confessed to having discovered only recently, [see your "Side Note" below], you should alert, with Alert card or strip-tap. Since partner's use of his bid card(s) is now history, you need to cite the alertable bid(s) by name. E.g., "I am post-alerting the 4S and 5D bids." > What those who say that delayed alerts put the burden of > disclosure on the bidding pair is simply this: the pair that > makes an unusual bid is required to *volunteer* the infor- > mation that the bid has a special meaning, as opposed to > the situation with unalertable bids, in which the opponents > are required to *ask* first before the bidders are required > to disclose the information. > The discussion is on *alertable* bids and, more specifically, the ACBL's choice to designate some alerts as "delayed." It is the fact that your partner's bid is *alertable* that obligates you to issue your "Alert!" [you chose the words 'volunteer information']. Whether the ACBL mandates an immediate alert or delayed alert in no way changes your obligation, just the timing/protocol. > In America, it is rare for the defense to ask about the opponents' > entire auction before they make the opening lead, when the bids > haven't been alerted; At my American table, it is not nearly so rare. > > the whole point of alerts is let the opponents > know what they might particularly need to ask about. If we made > our bids above 3NT non-alertable, instead of delayed alerts, then > the defense would need to ask about *all* bids above 3NT to > make sure none of them have unexpected meanings. > It would seem bizarre to 'make bids above 3NT non-alertable'. This would be counter-productive, might entrap the less experienced, and would likely waste time, as you suggest. > >[Adam] > Side note: It just occurred to me that the ACBL's delayed alert > regulation seems silly in one regard: If the declaring side has a > delayed alert, they're technically supposed to use the Alert > procedure---i.e. say "Alert" and tap the alert strip on the bidding > box or whatever---to let the opponents know the bid is alerted. I > wasn't aware of this, and it isn't what I do. If our side is > declaring and we have a delayed alert, I use one of these two > procedures: > > (1) I simply tell the opponents what the delayed-alertable bid was and > what it meant. > > (2) I simply tell the opponents what the delayed-alertable bid was and > what it meant, followed by partner's asking "Really?" in surprise. > > But maybe that's wrong since technically the opponents could complain > about being misinformed on a *different* bid, and the auction could > continue and we may end up on defense instead of declaring. In > practice, that never happens. > Yes, your approach has been technically 'wrong', but it is so much better than the total failure to alert (or post-alert, per regulation) which I encounter daily that I would be loathe to complain. Your active-ethics intent has been obvious -- as I have always found when playing against you. > > I'm bringing this up because I wonder whether the difference between > "delayed alert" and "delayed explanation" is leading to confusion. > Perhaps. But ACBL-mandated 'delayed alerts' do, generally, lead to 'delayed explanations'. Further, the case where they don't is the case where the (knowledgeable?) opponent inquires without real-time alert, but, in so doing, risks 'tipping his hand' (i.e., compromising his own interest) -- where a real-time alert would have served up a low-key occasion for him to ask (without drawing such attention). BTW, I *do* prefer the delayed-alert system (to lack of it), but only narrowly so, for, de facto, it is not much observed in our area and it has a downside as well as an upside. Tom Wood, ACBL, Los Angeles area From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jun 10 12:57:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:57:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins References: <058FC8C6-9AC8-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <003e01c32ef0$30d1f240$4a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000b01c3305d$73b688a0$4f22e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins > Why shouldn't the innocent party guess this right? < +=+ Some of the time. In a two-way position perhaps rather more than 50% of the time. In team play at least enough to match the other table. +=+ < > Whatever you rule for non-offenders, offenders must > be penalized in such circumstances. Otherwise you > encourage transgressions: Most of the time, offenders > get away with infractions. Even if they are unlucky > enough to encounter vigilant opponents, who are in > contention, in the absence of tough legislation, they > still break more or less even. > +=+ TDs have all the powers they need to penalize offenders. If the powers are not being used there must be a cause. Are TDs wimpish, or is there a wide opinion among regulators that harshness is not best for the game? ~ G ~ +=+ From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Wed Jun 11 22:23:14 2003 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 11 Jun 2003 22:23:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: "Brambledown"'s message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:03:45 +0100" References: Message-ID: "Brambledown" writes: > From: Robin Barker > > > If you mean precisely 4-4 in the majors then I think it is legal at > > levels 2-4. > > We obviously read 12.2.3 differently. > > > Level 2 allows a 1D opener that is natural or balanced or natural 1C > > opening with no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not > > (Orange book 12.2.3(f)). > > > A opening 1D that is natural diamond or 4-4 in the majors is > > + natural diamond (including 4=4=4=1, 4=4=5=0) => "natural" > > + 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 => "balanced" > > + 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5 => "natural 1C opening with no suit longer > > than clubs" > > Our understanding of 12.2.3 is certainly different. > > All that the above proves is that a "dinkum diamond" hand will fit one of > the categories covered by 12.2.3(f). > > At Level 2, a partnership must select *one* of the definitions in 12.2.3 (a) > to (f) to define its 1D opening. It is not permitted to modify this > understanding by any additional or restrictive understanding. Of course it is. For example, 12.2.3(b) says you may play a 1D opening as "balanced, forcing or not". This doesn't mean that if you choose this meaning then you must agree to open *all* balanced hands 1D. That's not to say that I'm sure that the "dinkum diamond" is allowed. OB 9.4.2 says: "You are allowed to restrict the range of a conventional or natural call by excluding certain types of hand, but any such treatment must be shown on your convention card and alerted: you should bear in mind that it can transform an otherwise natural call into a conventional one. You may not, however, alter the meaning of a call so that its basic character is changed: for instance, you could not exclude one-suited Spade holdings from an opening bid of 1 Spade, making it then by definition a two or three-suited hand." It's not clear to me whether or not the "basic character" of an OB 12.2.3(f) "natural or balanced or natural 1C opening with no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not" 1D opening is changed by playing it as a "dinkum diamond". I'm not really sure what the "basic character" of such a bid is. But the "dinkum diamond" is not *that* far from the way that many Precision pairs play a 1D opening, presumably believing it to be allowed by 12.2.3(f). Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From adam@irvine.com Wed Jun 11 23:23:27 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:23:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:45:11 PDT." <410-220036311204511842@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <200306112223.PAA05310@mailhub.irvine.com> Tom Wood wrote: > Adam Beneschan responded to Tom; > > > >>>> [Sven] Could you be so kind as to list the benefits > >>>> of "delayed alerts" please? To be frank I do not > >>>> see many problems with the delayed alerts as I > >>>> understand them (we do not have anything like it > >>>> in Norway), but I cannot see a single benefit (for > >>>> opponents that is). > >>>> > >>> [Kevin] By delayed alerts, the burden of full disclosure > >>> is on the pair bidding. > >>> > >> [Tom] But the burden of full disclosure is *always* on > >> the pair bidding -- in no way a result of the *delayed*-alert > >> system which you and the ACBL promote. > > > [Adam] I don't know what you mean. Of course the pair > > bidding is required to disclose everything about their calls > > "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > > organization" (Law 40B). But (in the ACBL) those regulations > > don't always require the pair making the bid to say anything > > about the bid *without* *being* *asked*. > > > Adam, *all* alertable bids, whether mandated as "delayed" > or "immediate" by the ACBL, impose essentially the same > active-ethics responsibility on you. . . . Judging from the rest of your response, it appears we're not all on the same wavelength. As I understood it, the discussion between Sven and Kevin was about the difference between delayed alerts and not alerting certain calls at all---not about the difference between delayed alerts and immediate alerts. It was in that context that I made my remarks and that I assumed you were making yours too. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 12 00:25:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:25:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] TDs at Juan les Pins In-Reply-To: <000b01c3305d$73b688a0$4f22e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002101c33070$cff5aac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ......... > > Whatever you rule for non-offenders, offenders must > > be penalized in such circumstances. Otherwise you > > encourage transgressions: Most of the time, offenders > > get away with infractions. Even if they are unlucky > > enough to encounter vigilant opponents, who are in > > contention, in the absence of tough legislation, they > > still break more or less even. > > > +=3D+ TDs have all the powers they need to penalize > offenders. If the powers are not being used there > must be a cause. Are TDs wimpish, or is there a > wide opinion among regulators that harshness is not > best for the game? ~ G ~ +=3D+ TDs have all the powers they need, that is perfectly true. I believe that TDs very seldom use these powers to penalize players = except by issuing a warning when such penalty is at the discretion of the = Director. I further believe that the way some laws are rewritten they are taken to signal a desire for less penalties and more just restoration of = "equity". Eventually this may (and probably will) lead to more attempts because = there is nothing to lose as long as intention is not proved. And at least here = in Norway we are very careful with accusations of intentional infractions. I am convinced that the long term result of the recent changes in Law = 12C will lead to the normal compensation for non-offending side being = reduced from A+ (or 60%) to just average (50%) and possibly also the score for = the offending side becoming 50% rather than today's normally 40% except when = the director finds reasons to raise severe criticism (i.e. accusation of = intent) against the offending side. But I have no crystal ball; we might just wait and see whether I am = right or wrong. Sven From bramble@ukonline.co.uk Thu Jun 12 00:34:40 2003 From: bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Chas Fellows) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:34:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: Jeremy Rickard > 12.2.3(b) says you may play a 1D opening as "balanced, forcing or not". > This doesn't mean that if you choose this meaning then you must agree > to open *all* balanced hands 1D. Of course not, but it is expected that if you *do* open 1D it will be "balanced, forcing or not", *not* something else. > OB 9.4.2 says: > "You are allowed to restrict the range of a conventional or natural > call by excluding certain types of hand, but any such treatment must > be shown on your convention card and alerted: you should bear in mind > that it can transform an otherwise natural call into a conventional > one. You may not, however, alter the meaning of a call so that its > basic character is changed: for instance, you could not exclude > one-suited Spade holdings from an opening bid of 1 Spade, making it > then by definition a two or three-suited hand." Quite right, but to squeeze a "dinkum diamond" through 12.2.3(f) using 9.4.2 (assuming you intend to open 1D if 4414 or 4405) you have to say: "We are playing 1D as natural or balanced or natural 1C (as per 12.2.3(f)) *except that* it will never be the natural club option and it won't be the balanced option unless we are 4-4 in the majors." If you intend to open 1C if 4414 or 4405, it is simpler to go via 12.2.3(c) and say: "We are playing 1D as natural or balanced (as per 12.2.3(c)) *except that* it won't be the balanced option unless we are 4-4 in the majors." In either case we are guaranteeing a specific holding (4-4 majors) in all "not natural D hands" and I suspect that we have, as a result,changed the basic character of the call beyond that envisaged by 9.4.2. Note also that we have: 12.2.3(a): natural, not forcing 12,2,3(b): balanced, forcing or not 12.2.3(c): natural or balanced, forcing or not If it's OK just to leave out bits we don't want, 12.2.3(c) would cover all three. Similarly, 12.2.3(f) would cover all six options. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From Peter Newman" Message-ID: <105a01c33074$3dfe6e50$d910ac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Chas and others, As an aussie this is really quite an amazing thread to read! I can confirm that it is a common enough agreement to play: 5 card majors, 4 card diamond (unless 4432), 3 card club [Of course also popular is 5 card major and better minor or 5 card major, 4 card diamond, clubs can be 2] The 1D bid is always treated as a natural bid but occasionally it isn't.... I always knew that Australia has a reputation for being advanced system-wise but that this would be a HUM in some parts of Europe and illegal at some levels in England is really strange. I don't think any Australian visitor who plays this system in the ROW would *ever* even think to ask if it was legal because it is *so* obviously natural. Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chas Fellows" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > From: Jeremy Rickard > > 12.2.3(b) says you may play a 1D opening as "balanced, forcing or not". > > This doesn't mean that if you choose this meaning then you must agree > > to open *all* balanced hands 1D. > > Of course not, but it is expected that if you *do* open 1D it will be > "balanced, forcing or not", *not* something else. > > > OB 9.4.2 says: > > "You are allowed to restrict the range of a conventional or natural > > call by excluding certain types of hand, but any such treatment must > > be shown on your convention card and alerted: you should bear in mind > > that it can transform an otherwise natural call into a conventional > > one. You may not, however, alter the meaning of a call so that its > > basic character is changed: for instance, you could not exclude > > one-suited Spade holdings from an opening bid of 1 Spade, making it > > then by definition a two or three-suited hand." > > Quite right, but to squeeze a "dinkum diamond" through 12.2.3(f) using 9.4.2 > (assuming you intend to open 1D if 4414 or 4405) you have to say: > > "We are playing 1D as natural or balanced or natural 1C (as per 12.2.3(f)) > *except that* it will never be the natural club option and it won't be the > balanced option unless we are 4-4 in the majors." > > If you intend to open 1C if 4414 or 4405, it is simpler to go via 12.2.3(c) > and say: > > "We are playing 1D as natural or balanced (as per 12.2.3(c)) *except that* > it won't be the balanced option unless we are 4-4 in the majors." > > In either case we are guaranteeing a specific holding (4-4 majors) in all > "not natural D hands" and I suspect that we have, as a result,changed the > basic character of the call beyond that envisaged by 9.4.2. > > Note also that we have: > > 12.2.3(a): natural, not forcing > 12,2,3(b): balanced, forcing or not > 12.2.3(c): natural or balanced, forcing or not > > If it's OK just to leave out bits we don't want, 12.2.3(c) would cover all > three. Similarly, 12.2.3(f) would cover all six options. > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tomwood1@earthlink.net Thu Jun 12 00:55:54 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:55:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-22003631123555495@earthlink.net> Adam, Adam Beneschan replied: > > Tom Wood wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan responded to Tom; > > > > > >>>> [Sven] Could you be so kind as to list the benefits > > >>>> of "delayed alerts" please? To be frank I do not > > >>>> see many problems with the delayed alerts as I > > >>>> understand them (we do not have anything like it > > >>>> in Norway), but I cannot see a single benefit (for > > >>>> opponents that is). > > >>>> > > >>> [Kevin] By delayed alerts, the burden of full disclosure > > >>> is on the pair bidding. > > >>> > > >> [Tom] But the burden of full disclosure is *always* on > > >> the pair bidding -- in no way a result of the *delayed*-alert > > >> system which you and the ACBL promote. > > > > > [Adam] I don't know what you mean. Of course the pair > > > bidding is required to disclose everything about their calls > > > "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > > > organization" (Law 40B). But (in the ACBL) those regulations > > > don't always require the pair making the bid to say anything > > > about the bid *without* *being* *asked*. > > > > > Adam, *all* alertable bids, whether mandated as "delayed" > > or "immediate" by the ACBL, impose essentially the same > > active-ethics responsibility on you. . . . > > Judging from the rest of your response, it appears we're not all on > the same wavelength. As I understood it, the discussion between Sven > and Kevin was about the difference between delayed alerts and not > alerting certain calls at all---not about the difference between > delayed alerts and immediate alerts. It was in that context that I > made my remarks and that I assumed you were making yours too. > > -- Adam > I had to wonder as much. Apologies for my entertaining the possibility that you meant your msg as I read it. Nevertheless, I think that even a response, like mine, based on such a faulty what-you-meant premise can be helpful in trying to extract the essence of what the ACBL alert system is all about. In every session, I run into many players who bungle just-plain alerts badly -- some out of ignorance; others, unfortunately, out of a disdain for giving a damn about opponents and fair play. My partners and I are very focused on these alert issues, because we know that keeping a squeaky-clean record is vital to those of us whose bidding style shows that we 'like to live on the ACBL edge', bidding-wise. That's us! It's no wonder that the occasional reads-a-lot opponent, despite our obvious American accents, screws up his face and asks: "Are you from Poland, or something?" :) BTW, at one point, I tried to suggest to Kevin that his line of thinking leads toward 'no alerts at all', since he seemed fixated on 'keeping those darned opponents from robbing us blind via UI from the alert system.' [My paraphrase of the msg I kept getting from Kevin's postings.] Hoping to see/play you at Long Bch NABC. Best regards, Tom Los Angeles + 5100' From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Jun 12 01:12:35 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:12:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <001d01c33044$52a28d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c33077$5413c890$05e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 6:07 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > > > > Brambledown > > One of our Club members has returned to this country after > spending six > > months or so in Australia. On his return he persuaded > various of his > > partners to incorporate a 1 diamond opening into their > system which was > > either (a) a natural diamond suit or (b) 4-4 in the majors > - which he > > assured them was common in whatever part of Oz he had been > playing in. > > > > In EBUland this agreement appears to be illegal at levels 1 > to 4 (Orange > > Book 12.2.3, 13.1.3 & 14.1). This therefore earned our > friend a 40/60 on > > three otherwise good boards. > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one level which > alternatively shows length in one suit or in one or more > different suits is > one out of five different criteria, either of which makes the > entire system > HUM (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > illegal except in > events where their use is specially permitted and then only on special > conditions for their use. So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. Wayne > > Regards Sven > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 12 01:14:23 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:14:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 05:42 PM, Brambledown wrote: > > One of our Club members has returned to this country after spending six > months or so in Australia. On his return he persuaded various of his > partners to incorporate a 1 diamond opening into their system which was > either (a) a natural diamond suit or (b) 4-4 in the majors - which he > assured them was common in whatever part of Oz he had been playing in. > > In EBUland this agreement appears to be illegal at levels 1 to 4 > (Orange > Book 12.2.3, 13.1.3 & 14.1). This therefore earned our friend a > 40/60 on > three otherwise good boards. > > Can any of our antipodean BLMLers tell us whether this is indeed > played in > that part of the world? If so, it is presumably permitted by > Australian > regulations? > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England I suspect that you have misunderstood your member, or he has misunderstood the Australians, and that the diamond opening is natural or 4432 (outside of their opening NT range) and is therefore allowable at Level 2 and above. If not, and it really is the case that it includes 4414 & 4405 hands, it still seems to be allowable under Level 2. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jun 12 01:20:59 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:20:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: <105a01c33074$3dfe6e50$d910ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <005001c33078$80387be0$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Peter wrote: > As an aussie this is really quite an amazing thread to read! And, indeed, as an Englishman. Five-card majors, longer minor, is common enough throughout the world. 1D is 4+ diamonds or 4-4-3-2 from the Four Mile Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan. It is in no wise illegal in England, though you would have to read the impenetrable verbiage of the much-lamented Stevenson quite carefully to be convinced of this. Of course, to open 1D on 4-4-0-5 is a different matter, and if that were the method actually in use, questions would rightly be asked. I write this not so much out of a desire to contribute to a thread that seems to me nonsensical as to ask: are you the Peter Newman that played in the World Junior Championships in Nottingham, England about fifteen years ago? I was in charge of the daily bulletin during that event, and I recall the names of Newman, Wallis, Fruewirth, Thompson and Mullamphy as though it were yesterday, but for the life of me I cannot remember the sixth... David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jun 12 01:30:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:30:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Incidentally... Message-ID: <006401c33079$d2d42380$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> ...we should congratulate Adam Wildavsky, an occasional poster to BLML, who by dint of winning the latest round of the US Trials has qualified for the 2003 Bermuda Bowl in Monte Carlo. Well done Adam, the best of luck, and may you never need the Director. David Burn London, England From bramble@ukonline.co.uk Thu Jun 12 01:46:00 2003 From: bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Chas Fellows) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:46:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <105a01c33074$3dfe6e50$d910ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: From: Peter Newman > I can confirm that it is a common enough agreement to play: > 5 card majors, 4 card diamond (unless 4432), 3 card club > [Of course also popular is 5 card major and better minor or 5 card major, 4 > card diamond, clubs can be 2] > The 1D bid is always treated as a natural bid but occasionally it isn't.... > I always knew that Australia has a reputation for being advanced system-wise > but that this would be a HUM in some parts of Europe and illegal at some > levels in England is really strange. All of the above is also common in the UK and playing "5 card majors, better minor" then 1D (assuming wrong HCP for 1N) would be opened on 4432 but it might also be opened on 4333 or 3433 so that it wouldn't guarantee 4-4 majors. I have not previously encountered "1D guarantees either 4+ Ds or 4-4 in majors" and, despite the protests of some notable EBU members, our regulations, as written, do not appear to permit it. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 12 02:04:13 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:04:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 01:46 AM, Chas Fellows wrote: > I have not previously encountered "1D guarantees either 4+ Ds or > 4-4 in majors" and, despite the protests of some notable EBU members, > our > regulations, as written, do not appear to permit it. Since the regulations say: "12.2.3 1D opening may be played as any one of the following. (a) natural, not forcing (b) balanced, forcing or not (c) natural or balanced, forcing or not (d) natural 1 opening with no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not (e) natural or a natural 1C opening with no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not (f) natural or balanced or natural 1C opening with no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not Note - additional distributional constraints (e.g. no four card major) are permitted as treatments - see 9.4.2 [August, 2001]" I find it hard to see how this might be interpreted other than to allow it. If no four card major is allowed as a constraint, so presumably is two four card majors. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jun 12 03:30:50 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:30:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: Message-ID: <00cb01c3308a$a4064400$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Gordon wrote: > I find it hard to see how this might be interpreted other than to allow it. Ah, but you - no doubt through iron-clad necessity - are fluent in Stevensonian, the language in which the Orange Book is written. That others may find it hard to see what you perceive as obvious is not, necessarily, to be wondered at. As with the Laws themselves, so with the regulations. We think we know what they mean, but we cannot find a form of words to express our meaning. Hence, everyone has to guess what the rules of the game they sit down to play actually are. Is this remotely sensible? It is not. But it keeps Directors busy, and it keeps BLML alive. Let us be grateful for these inestimable benefits conferred thereby upon mankind. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jun 12 05:42:32 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:42:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005601c3309d$139c1260$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > I don't know anything about ACBLScore, but it seems like it ought to > have an option to award the greater of 60% and session average (or the > lesser of 40% and session average). Does it? I find it somewhat hard > to believe that there wouldn't be such an option. > > As Mike Dodson wrote, ACBLScore allows for A, A+, and A-. But are the A+/A- scores complementary, governed by the A+, as was required by a ruling of the ACBLLC, or are they independent? Right now I don't have a game file to check this. Mike? There is another option that looks illegal to me. You can "protect" an assigned N-S score to have it automatically change to avg+ if that gives a better result than the assigned score. E-W gets the complement, avg- or assigned score, whichever is worse. Or, you can do vice-versa, "protecting" (that's what they call it) an assigned N-S score to have it change to avg- if that gives a worse result, with E-W then getting avg+. That is, a TD can say, "I'm giving you a score of 620 or average plus, whichever is better." The other side then gets -620 or average minus, whichever is worse. Apparently the motivation for it is a belief that the NOS should get a good score and the OS a bad one. It also saves the TD from having to argue about the assigned score. This sort of adjustment used to be common, occurring even at NABCs, but I haven't seen an example of it for years. I can find no justification for it in the Laws (L12C4?). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jun 12 07:02:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:02:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: <00cb01c3308a$a4064400$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003701c330a8$59cf4260$8eb74351@noos.fr> David, I am happy I have never had to read Stevensonian. Probably as bad as Kaplanian, bridge laws, and other such texts. > but we cannot find a form of words to express our meaning. It is very easy to write those texts very clearly using very easy language. I do think we cannot find the right people to do the job. Actually the real problem is not the writing. Anybody with a minimal talent for communication can do that. The real problem is deciding what the rules should be. As long as this is done by incompetent semi-politicians who keep hiding behind wooly texts, avoiding taking any serious decision, and giving any SO the option to vary almost anything there is no hope. And now don't take me for a law-and-order adept. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > Gordon wrote: > > > I find it hard to see how this might be interpreted other than to > allow it. > > Ah, but you - no doubt through iron-clad necessity - are fluent in > Stevensonian, the language in which the Orange Book is written. That > others may find it hard to see what you perceive as obvious is not, > necessarily, to be wondered at. > > As with the Laws themselves, so with the regulations. We think we know > what they mean, but we cannot find a form of words to express our > meaning. Hence, everyone has to guess what the rules of the game they > sit down to play actually are. Is this remotely sensible? It is not. But > it keeps Directors busy, and it keeps BLML alive. Let us be grateful for > these inestimable benefits conferred thereby upon mankind. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 12 07:23:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:23:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] "No Play" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030611140403.01d4fb40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <53AE9C8A-9C9E-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 08:14 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner=20 wrote: > AG : WTP ? The board wasn't played before, as it comes from table 10.=20= > You mentioned 9=BD tables, didn't you ? Shouldn't table 9 shuffle = those=20 > boards ? And in this case, who cares how the cards were fitted into=20 > the board ? > Hm. You know, I hadn't actually thought about this before, but thinking=20= back on it, I know that table 9 would have been scheduled to play pair=20= 2 in round 8, but they had a sit out that round. So the phantom EW pair=20= was pair 2, not pair 10, and in fact the board must have been played at=20= table 10 in round one. I'll try to confirm that with the TD when I see=20= her next. It would be nice to have a definitive answer to my questions to show=20 this TD. If I show her what's been in this thread so far, I suspect=20 she'll discount it. From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Jun 12 07:00:19 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:00:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612154626.00b36ab0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> The lengths that some players will go to win never cease to amaze me. The other night declarer is in some number of spades and the last 4 cards are: S 5 H Q 4 2 D --- C --- S --- H --- D 10 7 C A K Declarer is in hand and plays the 10 or diamonds. Both defenders are out of diamonds, so declarer's hand is actually high. She says "play anything", dummy may have started to discard a heart. "Play anything" declarer repeats, "I've got the rest" . RHO now insists that declarer play a spade on the diamond thus allowing R and L opponents to make several heart tricks. As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. Can you believe that there are people who play the game this way? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From bramble@ukonline.co.uk Thu Jun 12 08:19:59 2003 From: bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Chas Fellows) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:19:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, time for a rethink. If I agree to play (i) five card majors/longer minor and I agree further that (ii) with 3-3 in the minors I will always treat the clubs as longer, then I will only open a short 1D when I am precisely 4432. In the EBU this meaning of a 1D opener is covered by OB 12.2.3(c) "natural or balanced, forcing or not" and the fact that I will always have either 4+ diamonds or be 4-4 in the majors is a by-product of my methods rather than a direct agreement. Some care in description is advisable - "could be 4432" is good, "better minor" is not - but otherwise this seems OK. My thanks to all who contributed. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 12 08:24:54 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:24:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612154626.00b36ab0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <3EE82AC6.5040900@skynet.be> Hello Tony, Tony Musgrove wrote: > The lengths that some players will go to win never cease > to amaze me. > That is not a good p-o-v for a director. If they are right, you must give them what they are entitled to. > The other night declarer is in some number of spades and the > last 4 cards are: > > S 5 > H Q 4 2 > D --- > C --- > > > > S --- > H --- > D 10 7 > C A K > > Declarer is in hand and plays the 10 or diamonds. Both > defenders are out of diamonds, so declarer's hand is actually > high. She says "play anything", dummy may have started to > discard a heart. "Play anything" declarer repeats, "I've got > the rest" . RHO now insists that declarer play a spade on the > diamond thus allowing R and L opponents to make several > heart tricks. > As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement > as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to > declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has > the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. > Before deciding on this, I would like to know from this declarer what was going on in his mind. If he knew the diamonds were high, then why did he not claim? If he knew spades were trumps, why did he not simply say "a heart"? He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. And he did not say "a heart", so if there is the slightest chance that he had forgotten that spades were trumps, we cannot use the heading of L46B, as his intention is not incontrovertible. Yes, I can imagine circumstances under which I award some tricks to defenders. > Can you believe that there are people who play the game this > way? > I would not award any prize of sportsmanship to defenders. But three tricks, yes. > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Jun 12 08:28:40 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:28:40 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799003AE5E6@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Peter Newman wrote: Hi Chas and others, As an aussie this is really quite an amazing thread to read! I can confirm that it is a common enough agreement to play: 5 card majors, 4 card diamond (unless 4432), 3 card club [Of course also popular is 5 card major and better minor or 5 card major, 4 card diamond, clubs can be 2] The 1D bid is always treated as a natural bid but occasionally it isn't.... I always knew that Australia has a reputation for being advanced system-wise but that this would be a HUM in some parts of Europe and illegal at some levels in England is really strange. I don't think any Australian visitor who plays this system in the ROW would *ever* even think to ask if it was legal because it is *so* obviously natural. ----- It's evident that the "aussie" 1D has changed meaning on it's way to Britai= n. As Peter describes it, it's standard 5-card majors. I play that myself here= in Norway. And of course it is not HUM. But the original description of the 1D opening in this thread, if accurate, makes the system HUM in Norway, and in WBF tournaments too, I believe. Of course a 1D opening which shows 4 cards in the suit unless 4S4H3D2C, is= concidered natural. Cheers, Harald, Oslo ----- Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Chas Fellows" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > From: Jeremy Rickard > > 12.2.3(b) says you may play a 1D opening as "balanced, forcing or not". > > This doesn't mean that if you choose this meaning then you must agree > > to open *all* balanced hands 1D. > > Of course not, but it is expected that if you *do* open 1D it will be > "balanced, forcing or not", *not* something else. > > > OB 9.4.2 says: > > "You are allowed to restrict the range of a conventional or natural > > call by excluding certain types of hand, but any such treatment must > > be shown on your convention card and alerted: you should bear in mind > > that it can transform an otherwise natural call into a conventional > > one. You may not, however, alter the meaning of a call so that its > > basic character is changed: for instance, you could not exclude > > one-suited Spade holdings from an opening bid of 1 Spade, making it > > then by definition a two or three-suited hand." > > Quite right, but to squeeze a "dinkum diamond" through 12.2.3(f) using 9.4.2 > (assuming you intend to open 1D if 4414 or 4405) you have to say: > > "We are playing 1D as natural or balanced or natural 1C (as per 12.2.3(f)) > *except that* it will never be the natural club option and it won't be the > balanced option unless we are 4-4 in the majors." > > If you intend to open 1C if 4414 or 4405, it is simpler to go via 12.2.3(c) > and say: > > "We are playing 1D as natural or balanced (as per 12.2.3(c)) *except that* > it won't be the balanced option unless we are 4-4 in the majors." > > In either case we are guaranteeing a specific holding (4-4 majors) in all > "not natural D hands" and I suspect that we have, as a result,changed the > basic character of the call beyond that envisaged by 9.4.2. > > Note also that we have: > > 12.2.3(a): natural, not forcing > 12,2,3(b): balanced, forcing or not > 12.2.3(c): natural or balanced, forcing or not > > If it's OK just to leave out bits we don't want, 12.2.3(c) would cover all > three. Similarly, 12.2.3(f) would cover all six options. > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** 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 Jun 12 08:47:24 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:47:24 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799003AE5EE@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman wrote: Hello Tony, Tony Musgrove wrote: > The lengths that some players will go to win never cease > to amaze me. >=20 That is not a good p-o-v for a director. If they are right, you must=20 give them what they are entitled to. > The other night declarer is in some number of spades and the > last 4 cards are: >=20 > S 5 > H Q 4 2 > D --- > C --- >=20 >=20 >=20 > S --- > H --- > D 10 7 > C A K >=20 > Declarer is in hand and plays the 10 or diamonds. Both > defenders are out of diamonds, so declarer's hand is actually > high. She says "play anything", dummy may have started to > discard a heart. "Play anything" declarer repeats, "I've got > the rest" . RHO now insists that declarer play a spade on the > diamond thus allowing R and L opponents to make several > heart tricks. > As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement > as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to > declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has > the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. >=20 Before deciding on this, I would like to know from this declarer what=20 was going on in his mind. If he knew the diamonds were high, then why=20 did he not claim? If he knew spades were trumps, why did he not simply=20 say "a heart"? He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. And=20 he did not say "a heart", so if there is the slightest chance that he=20 had forgotten that spades were trumps, we cannot use the heading of=20 L46B, as his intention is not incontrovertible. Yes, I can imagine circumstances under which I award some tricks to=20 defenders. > Can you believe that there are people who play the game this > way? >=20 I would not award any prize of sportsmanship to defenders. But three=20 tricks, yes. ----- When declarer said "play anything", she obviously knew that the diamonds were high. Why she didn't claim is another matter. But of course she could have forgotten that spades are trump. Most probably she was just careless. But that's not the point. The law is clear on this. If trumping the ten of diamonds gives the opponents three tricks, that's what they are entitled to. Regards, Harald, Oslo ----- > Cheers >=20 > Tony (Sydney) > =20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 12 09:00:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:00:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: [snip] >>As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement >>as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to >>declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has >>the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. Herman De Wael: >Before deciding on this, I would like to know from this declarer what >was going on in his mind. If he knew the diamonds were high, then why >did he not claim? If he knew spades were trumps, why did he not simply >say "a heart"? He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. And >he did not say "a heart", so if there is the slightest chance that he >had forgotten that spades were trumps, we cannot use the heading of >L46B, as his intention is not incontrovertible. [snip] Richard Hills: As Herman has noted, the bracketed statement in Law 46B "(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" gives Tony some leeway in his ruling. However, I disagree that Herman rules that declarer has forgotten that spades are trumps under Law 46B, but Herman rules that declarer would not have forgotten that spades were trumps if Law 70A were applicable. On the information provided by Tony, I would rule all the remaining tricks to declarer *whichever* of 46B or 70A were invoked by declarer. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jun 12 09:01:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:01:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612154626.00b36ab0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <002801c330b8$d3e323e0$8eb74351@noos.fr> > Can you believe that there are people who play the game this > way? For the defenders: yes. If opponents revoke or so I also claim and take the trick. Probably not at a social event but in anything serious yes. For declarer: no. Declarer caused this problem. She either should have claimed the rest in an acceptable way or she should have discarded a heart. Ordering dummy explicitly 'to play anything' when it actually matters is a stupid mistake for which you have to pay. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:00 AM Subject: [blml] "Play anything" > The lengths that some players will go to win never cease > to amaze me. > > The other night declarer is in some number of spades and the > last 4 cards are: > > S 5 > H Q 4 2 > D --- > C --- > > > > S --- > H --- > D 10 7 > C A K > > Declarer is in hand and plays the 10 or diamonds. Both > defenders are out of diamonds, so declarer's hand is actually > high. She says "play anything", dummy may have started to > discard a heart. "Play anything" declarer repeats, "I've got > the rest" . RHO now insists that declarer play a spade on the > diamond thus allowing R and L opponents to make several > heart tricks. > As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement > as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to > declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has > the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. > > Can you believe that there are people who play the game this > way? > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 12 09:33:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:33:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <001501c33077$5413c890$05e436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000201c330bd$5ead8c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Wayne=20 ........... > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one > > level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in > > one or more different suits is one out of five different > > criteria, either of which makes the entire system HUM=20 > > (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > > illegal except in events where their use is specially=20 > > permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. >=20 > So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening > would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. "Length" is defined as at least three [sic!] cards in the suit so = opening with one in your three card minor suit playing five-card majors falls = within the criteria for natural systems. Opening with one in your doubleton = minor suit for lack of five cards in any suit will usually classify your = system as a "minor" system like Vienna. Although your question is plausible I am afraid I don't see the problem. Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 12 09:39:47 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:39:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: Message-ID: <3EE83C53.7010200@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > > > As Herman has noted, the bracketed statement in Law 46B "(except when > declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" gives Tony some > leeway in his ruling. > > However, I disagree that Herman rules that declarer has forgotten that > spades are trumps under Law 46B, but Herman rules that declarer would > not have forgotten that spades were trumps if Law 70A were applicable. > I said no such thing. I never gave a claim ruling. However, if I were to give a claim ruling, I might also award tricks to defenders, on the same basis, that declarer might have forgotten he was playing a spade contract. One big proviso, however: The only reason why I rule that he might have forgotten he was playing trumps is precisely the fact that he DID not claim. I suspect he was unsure of the number of diamonds still out, and while he was certain the 10 was high - he was not certain of the low one, nor did he realize he could ruff that as his fourth trick. THAT is why I might rule against him. If OTOH he claims, I have no such indications and I will award the claim. > On the information provided by Tony, I would rule all the remaining > tricks to declarer *whichever* of 46B or 70A were invoked by declarer. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Jun 12 09:52:20 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:52:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <3EE83C53.7010200@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612184940.02555510@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> On the actual hand, there was no possible doubt whatever that declarer's hand was high. All the diamonds had gone on the previous round. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) At 10:39 AM 12/06/2003 +0200, you wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Tony Musgrove: >> >>As Herman has noted, the bracketed statement in Law 46B "(except when >>declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" gives Tony some >>leeway in his ruling. >>However, I disagree that Herman rules that declarer has forgotten that >>spades are trumps under Law 46B, but Herman rules that declarer would >>not have forgotten that spades were trumps if Law 70A were applicable. > > >I said no such thing. I never gave a claim ruling. However, if I were to >give a claim ruling, I might also award tricks to defenders, on the same >basis, that declarer might have forgotten he was playing a spade contract. >One big proviso, however: The only reason why I rule that he might have >forgotten he was playing trumps is precisely the fact that he DID not >claim. I suspect he was unsure of the number of diamonds still out, and >while he was certain the 10 was high - he was not certain of the low one, >nor did he realize he could ruff that as his fourth trick. THAT is why I >might rule against him. If OTOH he claims, I have no such indications and >I will award the claim. > > >>On the information provided by Tony, I would rule all the remaining >>tricks to declarer *whichever* of 46B or 70A were invoked by declarer. >>Best wishes >>Richard >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jun 12 10:45:07 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:45:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612154626.00b36ab0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <3EE82AC6.5040900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001d01c330c7$4f11d620$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. Law 68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Herman, since when is the statement "I've got the rest" not a claim? David Burn London, England From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 12 10:45:33 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:45:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: <105a01c33074$3dfe6e50$d910ac89@au.fjanz.com> <005001c33078$80387be0$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004f01c330c8$244b1a40$dbcc883e@pc> 1989 Fruewirth, Mullamphy, Newman, Spooner, Tmopson, Wallis, Richman (npc). Larry > I write this not so much out of a desire to contribute to a thread that > seems to me nonsensical as to ask: are you the Peter Newman that played > in the World Junior Championships in Nottingham, England about fifteen > years ago? I was in charge of the daily bulletin during that event, and > I recall the names of Newman, Wallis, Fruewirth, Thompson and Mullamphy > as though it were yesterday, but for the life of me I cannot remember > the sixth... > > David Burn > London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 9 02:18:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:18:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <001001c32d18$7c8594a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <560A4750-9A18-11D7-8860-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> --Apple-Mail-1--495076865 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Saturday, June 7, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Also an adjustment is possible, as this is an MI case. I'm not so sure about that. If a pair make a delayed alert, then they are complying with the SO's regulations regarding disclosure. Law 40B says "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." The last clause of that sentence says that if a pair *does* disclose the use of such a call iaw SO regs, there can't be an MI violation. --Apple-Mail-1--495076865 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Saturday, June 7, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Marvin French wrote: Also an adjustment is possible, as this is an MI case. I'm not so sure about that. If a pair make a delayed alert, then they are complying with the SO's regulations regarding disclosure. Law 40B says "TimesA player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." The last clause of that sentence says that if a pair *does* disclose the use of such a call iaw SO regs, there can't be an MI violation. --Apple-Mail-1--495076865-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 11 06:12:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:12:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <001001c2287b$940c07a0$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <3EEF715D-9BCB-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> --Apple-Mail-2--308284565 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wednesday, Jul 10, 2002, at 21:37 US/Eastern, Kevin Perkins wrote: > As a player and director in Austin Texas, the only problems I have > seen have > been from the failure to follow the current regulation, most recently > last night. > In my experience, the regulation IS followed most a majority of > players. Properly followed, I feel the regulation is a good one. Well, as I player here in Rochester, NY, it's been my experience that most players never heard of a delayed alert. --Apple-Mail-2--308284565 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Wednesday, Jul 10, 2002, at 21:37 US/Eastern, Kevin Perkins wrote: As a player and director in Austin Texas, the only problems I have seen have been from the failure to follow the current regulation, most recently last night. In my experience, the regulation IS followed most a majority of players. Properly followed, I feel the regulation is a good one. Well, as I player here in Rochester, NY, it's been my experience that most players never heard of a delayed alert. --Apple-Mail-2--308284565-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 12 10:51:56 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:51:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612184940.02555510@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <8114E2D8-9CBB-11D7-AA4B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > On the actual hand, there was no possible doubt whatever > that declarer's hand was high. All the diamonds had gone on > the previous round. > Cheers, > Tony (Sydney) > There can clearly still be doubt that declarer was aware of the communication issues attached to there still being a trump in dummy. Declarer has a choice of discards, and it matters which is chosen, yet declarer twice indicates the belief that it makes no difference - and then tries to get the benefit of having made the correct choice! Can you believe that there are people who play the game this way? :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Jun 12 11:05:17 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:05:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" Message-ID: <001501c330ca$20854dc0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> As a newcomer here, I greatly appreciate the high level of the contributions. I would have ruled the "play anything" case as indicated by Herman De Wael, Harald Skjaran or Jaap van der Neut. My point is about "sportmanship". As for many other games, our game takes place in a "world of the game", where players are entities acting inside that world according to the Laws, and only to them (chapter VII of the book). In my opinion, most of the irregularities we have to treat are irruptions of the outside world practices inside the world of the game (in our case, the incomplete call of a card from dummy, due to laziness, selfishness or whatever, but anyway violating 74A3), and most of our work is to fix the leak, and to restore the game inside its world as close as possible to the state where no leak and no such irruption have occurred. That's why "sportmanship" seems to me a concept which has nothing to do with bridge, at least with duplicate bridge. Proprieties and etiquette are defined by chapter VII, and that's all ! As an example, which emphasizes my point, the english "it is appropriate", in 72A5 has been translated in the french edition by "il est juste et approprié", which eliminates clearly any idea of waving the penalty because of "sportmanship". Besides, if the NOS wave the penalty, what about the consequences for the competitors belonging to the same line as the OS in pairs? or for the partners in a team of four? From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 11:03:51 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:03:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: >From: "David Burn" >To: "blml" >Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" >Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:45:07 +0100 > >Herman wrote: > > > He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. > >Law 68A >Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number >of tricks is a claim of those tricks. > >Herman, since when is the statement "I've got the rest" not a claim? > >David Burn >London, England The full claim statement should be "I've got the rest, and if you don't think I have, that director over there with Deep Finesse on his laptop will explain it to you." Who said satire was dead? _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 12 11:14:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:14:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612154626.00b36ab0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <3EE82AC6.5040900@skynet.be> <001d01c330c7$4f11d620$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3EE8529A.5070804@skynet.be> True David, but then: David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. >> > > Law 68A > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number > of tricks is a claim of those tricks. > > Herman, since when is the statement "I've got the rest" not a claim? > That claim statement only applies to tricks after the current one. In the current trick, we still have two cards left to play. One of them is dummy's and it's either a Spade or a Heart, and we have to rule on which before we rule on the claim. > 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 adam@tameware.com Thu Jun 12 11:24:05 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:24:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Incidentally... In-Reply-To: <006401c33079$d2d42380$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> References: <006401c33079$d2d42380$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: At 1:30 AM +0100 6/12/03, David Burn wrote: >...we should congratulate Adam Wildavsky, an occasional poster to BLML, I remember times when it was more than occasional. It may be again, but surely not until after Monte Carlo! >who by dint of winning the latest round of the US Trials has qualified >for the 2003 Bermuda Bowl in Monte Carlo. Well done Adam, the best of >luck, and may you never need the Director. Thanks! Those on BLML who have been unhappy with some decisions of AC's chaired by Bobby Wolff should note that he is one of my teammates. As a result of our victory he will not be able to serve as WBF appeals chair in Monte Carlo. For those who are pleased about this I am delighted to have been able to help. For Wolff fans I hope you'll be even happier to follow his exploits at the table. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jun 12 11:34:07 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:34:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" References: <001501c330ca$20854dc0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Message-ID: <004601c330ce$28403a80$8eb74351@noos.fr> Roger, Thanks for your 'support'. But now sportmanship. For serious players it means not to complain about a penalty after you do something silly. For social players it means not to enforce all kind of 'silly' rules. Not that easy a problem. Most players are social. Still we need those rules for tournament bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:05 PM Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" > As a newcomer here, I greatly appreciate the high level of the > contributions. > I would have ruled the "play anything" case as indicated by Herman De Wael, > Harald Skjaran or Jaap van der Neut. > My point is about "sportmanship". > As for many other games, our game takes place in a "world of the game", > where players are entities acting inside that world according to the Laws, > and only to them (chapter VII of the book). > In my opinion, most of the irregularities we have to treat are irruptions of > the outside world practices inside the world of the game (in our case, the > incomplete call of a card from dummy, due to laziness, selfishness or > whatever, but anyway violating 74A3), and most of our work is to fix the > leak, and to restore the game inside its world as close as possible to the > state where no leak and no such irruption have occurred. > That's why "sportmanship" seems to me a concept which has nothing to do with > bridge, at least with duplicate bridge. Proprieties and etiquette are > defined by chapter VII, and that's all ! > As an example, which emphasizes my point, the english "it is appropriate", > in 72A5 has been translated in the french edition by "il est juste et > approprié", which eliminates clearly any idea of waving the penalty because > of "sportmanship". > Besides, if the NOS wave the penalty, what about the consequences for the > competitors belonging to the same line as the OS in pairs? or for the > partners in a team of four? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Jun 12 11:48:22 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" References: <001501c330ca$20854dc0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> <004601c330ce$28403a80$8eb74351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <004701c330d0$2527ec10$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Sorry for the imprecision : Roger Eymard Orsay, France ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Roger" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "sportmanship" > Roger, > > Thanks for your 'support'. But now sportmanship. > > For serious players it means not to complain about a penalty after you do > something silly. > > For social players it means not to enforce all kind of 'silly' rules. > > Not that easy a problem. Most players are social. Still we need those rules > for tournament bridge. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:05 PM > Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" > > > > As a newcomer here, I greatly appreciate the high level of the > > contributions. > > I would have ruled the "play anything" case as indicated by Herman De > Wael, > > Harald Skjaran or Jaap van der Neut. > > My point is about "sportmanship". > > As for many other games, our game takes place in a "world of the game", > > where players are entities acting inside that world according to the Laws, > > and only to them (chapter VII of the book). > > In my opinion, most of the irregularities we have to treat are irruptions > of > > the outside world practices inside the world of the game (in our case, the > > incomplete call of a card from dummy, due to laziness, selfishness or > > whatever, but anyway violating 74A3), and most of our work is to fix the > > leak, and to restore the game inside its world as close as possible to the > > state where no leak and no such irruption have occurred. > > That's why "sportmanship" seems to me a concept which has nothing to do > with > > bridge, at least with duplicate bridge. Proprieties and etiquette are > > defined by chapter VII, and that's all ! > > As an example, which emphasizes my point, the english "it is appropriate", > > in 72A5 has been translated in the french edition by "il est juste et > > approprié", which eliminates clearly any idea of waving the penalty > because > > of "sportmanship". > > Besides, if the NOS wave the penalty, what about the consequences for the > > competitors belonging to the same line as the OS in pairs? or for the > > partners in a team of four? > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 12:12:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:12:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: References: <"Brambledown"'s message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:03:45 +0100"> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612130217.01d52910@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:23 11/06/2003 +0100, Jeremy Rickard wrote: >It's not clear to me whether or not the "basic character" of an OB >12.2.3(f) "natural or balanced or natural 1C opening with no suit >longer than clubs, forcing or not" 1D opening is changed by playing it >as a "dinkum diamond". I'm not really sure what the "basic character" >of such a bid is. But the "dinkum diamond" is not *that* far from the >way that many Precision pairs play a 1D opening, presumably believing >it to be allowed by 12.2.3(f). AG : I'd be more precise : a "dinkum" 1D is only a subset of a "residual" diamond (11-19, no 5-card major, no 1NT opening), which is to be allowed, by 12.2.3(f), and in nearly all countries (in Belgium, it would be allowed at level B, the second lowest on a 7-level scale). If you disallow taking a subset of the possible meanings of an allowed bid as meanings of one of your bids, you will come to absurdities like : - the pair which agrees never to use a weak NT opening with a strong 4-card spade suit may not do it ; - same holds for the pair which agrees that 1D-1H-3D denies a 3-card heart raise ; - same holds for the pair who uses 2C as GF, but *not* on balanced hands etc. Come to think of it : nearly all precisioneers have excluded some patterns from their 12.2.3(f) opening, but these are not the same for every pair. For example, Meckwell open 1D on (14)35 but not on (24)25. If Sven and others are to be followed, this would be illegal. Also note that 12.2.3 (f) allows a 1D opener on 1.5.1.6 pattern, which looks strange. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 12:28:13 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:28:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612154626.00b36ab0@pop-server.bigpond.net.a u> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612131913.01d51cc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:00 12/06/2003 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: >The lengths that some players will go to win never cease >to amaze me. > >The other night declarer is in some number of spades and the >last 4 cards are: > > S 5 > H Q 4 2 > D --- > C --- > > > > S --- > H --- > D 10 7 > C A K > >Declarer is in hand and plays the 10 or diamonds. Both >defenders are out of diamonds, so declarer's hand is actually >high. She says "play anything", dummy may have started to >discard a heart. "Play anything" declarer repeats AG : why would declarer mean "play a heart" when she says and repeats "play anything" ? If dummy is not allowed to "play anything", she shouldn't say it (twice !). Did I miss something ? Doesn't "anything" mean "n'importe quoi" ? Did the TD ask declarer why she said something while meaning something else ? I can see one reason for her statement : she thinks the contract is NT. If that's the case ... too bad for her. That's the kind of errors you have to pay for. Like you, I'd like to treat such a statement as a claim. After a claim, everything unclear is solved against claimer. Here too. OK, it's sharp to demand for a spade. But why did declarer allow for it ? >, "I've got >the rest" . RHO now insists that declarer play a spade on the >diamond thus allowing R and L opponents to make several >heart tricks. >As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement >as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to >declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has >the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. > >Can you believe that there are people who play the game this >way? AG : L46 has been created to solve problem that may arise when cards from the dummy are not equivalent (which is the case here) and declarer infracts the laws by not specifying completely the card to be played (which is the case here). I can't see why the law shouldn't be applied here. It would be similar to not applying revoke penalties when the revoke didn't alter the result. I'm against it, the Laws are against it, and I guess a majority of blmlists are against it. Best regards, Alain. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jun 12 12:11:01 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:11:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046575@hotel.npl.co.uk> Herman writes: "That claim statement only applies to tricks after the current one." I disagree. A statement that only applies to the current trick is not a claim and is covered by footnote 19 (Law 68). But any statement that refers to subsequent tricks is a claim and play ceases. Law 68D is very clear: all play subsequent to a claim is cancelled. No where does it refer to playing out the current trick. If declarer leads towards dummy and, while LHO is thinking, says "dummy is high" surely this is a claim and play ceases. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@skynet.be] Sent: 12 June 2003 11:15 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" True David, but then: David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. >> > > Law 68A > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number > of tricks is a claim of those tricks. > > Herman, since when is the statement "I've got the rest" not a claim? > That claim statement only applies to tricks after the current one. In the current trick, we still have two cards left to play. One of them is dummy's and it's either a Spade or a Heart, and we have to rule on which before we rule on the claim. > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 12 12:19:13 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:19:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: <"Brambledown"'s message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:03:45 +0100"> <5.1.0.14.0.20030612130217.01d52910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3EE861B1.9020109@skynet.be> We must be a little more careful! Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : I'd be more precise : a "dinkum" 1D is only a subset of a > "residual" diamond (11-19, no 5-card major, no 1NT opening), which is to > be allowed, by 12.2.3(f), and in nearly all countries (in Belgium, it > would be allowed at level B, the second lowest on a 7-level scale). > I don't think so. If the opening can be done on a 4414 or a 4405, then this is certainly not a subset of a residual diamond, since those hands would not be opened 1Di in the "residual diamond". If it is a subset of a "residual diamond, strong club", that is something else, but I don't believe it is that. > If you disallow taking a subset of the possible meanings of an allowed > bid as meanings of one of your bids, you will come to absurdities like : > - the pair which agrees never to use a weak NT opening with a strong > 4-card spade suit may not do it ; > - same holds for the pair which agrees that 1D-1H-3D denies a 3-card > heart raise ; > - same holds for the pair who uses 2C as GF, but *not* on balanced hands > etc. > > Come to think of it : nearly all precisioneers have excluded some > patterns from their 12.2.3(f) opening, but these are not the same for > every pair. > yes, but the Dinkum is not a strong club IIRC. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Jun 12 12:20:33 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:20:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000201c330bd$5ead8c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c330d4$a627ebe0$6b2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 8:34 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > > > > From: Wayne > ........... > > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one > > > level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in > > > one or more different suits is one out of five different > > > criteria, either of which makes the entire system HUM > > > (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > > > illegal except in events where their use is specially > > > permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. > > > > So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening > > would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. > > "Length" is defined as at least three [sic!] cards in the > suit so opening > with one in your three card minor suit playing five-card > majors falls within > the criteria for natural systems. Opening with one in your > doubleton minor > suit for lack of five cards in any suit will usually classify > your system as > a "minor" system like Vienna. Although your question is plausible I am > afraid I don't see the problem. So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a common System among club players where I live) is a HUM by definition in Norway. It seems to me to be perverse that the definition of a HUM so closely matches the definition of one of the most common systems in the world - five-card majors. Wayne > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Jun 12 12:22:10 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:22:10 +1200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000201c330bd$5ead8c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c330d4$e32aaa50$6b2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 8:34 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > > > > From: Wayne > ........... > > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one > > > level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in > > > one or more different suits is one out of five different > > > criteria, either of which makes the entire system HUM > > > (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > > > illegal except in events where their use is specially > > > permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. > > > > So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening > > would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. > > "Length" is defined as at least three [sic!] cards in the > suit so opening > with one in your three card minor suit playing five-card > majors falls within > the criteria for natural systems. Opening with one in your > doubleton minor > suit for lack of five cards in any suit will usually classify > your system as > a "minor" system like Vienna. Although your question is plausible I am > afraid I don't see the problem. So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a common System among club players where I live) is a HUM by definition in Norway. It seems to me to be perverse that the definition of a HUM so closely matches the definition of one of the most common systems in the world - five-card majors. Wayne > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 12 12:27:51 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:27:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <3EE861B1.9020109@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > I don't think so. If the opening can be done on a 4414 or a 4405, then > this is certainly not a subset of a residual diamond, since those > hands would not be opened 1Di in the "residual diamond". If it is a > subset of a "residual diamond, strong club", that is something else, > but I don't believe it is that. I agree with this, but it *is* a subset of "natural or balanced or natural 1C opening with no suit longer than clubs", which is allowed by the EBU at Level 2. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 13:00:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:00:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" In-Reply-To: <004601c330ce$28403a80$8eb74351@noos.fr> References: <001501c330ca$20854dc0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612133554.01d4b040@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:34 12/06/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Roger, > >Thanks for your 'support'. But now sportmanship. > >For serious players it means not to complain about a penalty after you do >something silly. > >For social players it means not to enforce all kind of 'silly' rules. AG : for bridge players (aka serious social players) it is something in between. SMOn : there exists a possibility to waive a penalty ; L81C8 allows this, and IMOBO it should be extended a little, ie the TD should be allowed to suggest to the NOS to agree with the waiving of the penalty. A friend of mine did this recently : a player, burdened by extreme heat in the room, let fall several cards onto the table. They should all be MPCs, we all know this. Declarer, not a specialist of the Laws, asked TD what he should do, and TD told him that "there are severe penalties : you may pick the cards to be played among those ; but allowing for circumstances I'd suggest that you don't make use of this possibility". He then explained (without mentioning the exact words of the law) that he would check whether UI could possibly be used. Declarer agreed. However, it is obvious that he wouldn't have suggested the waiving himself ; he didn't know about such a thing. Since the defender didn't do anything silly (except perhaps agreeing to play bridge in this attic), Jaap's first sentence isn't applicable. Since nobody said the law was silly, and this wasn't social bridge, Jaap's second sentence isn't applicable. I deeply feel that TD did the right thing. And that L81C8 should allow for this. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 13:04:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:04:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <3EE861B1.9020109@skynet.be> References: <"Brambledown"'s message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:03:45 +0100"> <5.1.0.14.0.20030612130217.01d52910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612140307.01d522b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:19 12/06/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >We must be a little more careful! > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> >>AG : I'd be more precise : a "dinkum" 1D is only a subset of a "residual" >>diamond (11-19, no 5-card major, no 1NT opening), which is to be allowed, >>by 12.2.3(f), and in nearly all countries (in Belgium, it would be >>allowed at level B, the second lowest on a 7-level scale). > > >I don't think so. If the opening can be done on a 4414 or a 4405, then >this is certainly not a subset of a residual diamond, since those hands >would not be opened 1Di in the "residual diamond". If it is a subset of a >"residual diamond, strong club", that is something else, but I don't >believe it is that. AG : that's what I meant. Blue system, allowed at level B. >>If you disallow taking a subset of the possible meanings of an allowed >>bid as meanings of one of your bids, you will come to absurdities like : >>- the pair which agrees never to use a weak NT opening with a strong >>4-card spade suit may not do it ; >>- same holds for the pair which agrees that 1D-1H-3D denies a 3-card >>heart raise ; >>- same holds for the pair who uses 2C as GF, but *not* on balanced hands >>etc. >>Come to think of it : nearly all precisioneers have excluded some >>patterns from their 12.2.3(f) opening, but these are not the same for >>every pair. > > >yes, but the Dinkum is not a strong club IIRC. AG : which means that you may play 1D as "natural or several balanced types" when you play a strong club, but not in other cases. Looks strange ... From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 12 12:50:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:50:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000b01c330d4$a627ebe0$6b2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000c01c330d8$dce85a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Wayne Burrows=20 > > ........... > > > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one > > > > level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in > > > > one or more different suits is one out of five different > > > > criteria, either of which makes the entire system HUM > > > > (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > > > > illegal except in events where their use is specially > > > > permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. > > > > > > So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening > > > would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. > > > > "Length" is defined as at least three [sic!] cards in the > > suit so opening > > with one in your three card minor suit playing five-card > > majors falls within > > the criteria for natural systems. Opening with one in your > > doubleton minor > > suit for lack of five cards in any suit will usually classify > > your system as > > a "minor" system like Vienna. Although your question is plausible I = am > > afraid I don't see the problem. >=20 > So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a = common >=20 > System among club players where I live) is a HUM by definition in > Norway. >=20 > It seems to me to be perverse that the definition of a HUM so closely > matches the definition of one of the most common systems in the world = - > five-card majors. And it is not. Why would you open in 1D rather than in 1C with a 4423 or 4414 = distribution? Obviously because your 1C opening bid is reserved for something special, = for instance a generally strong hand. Whatever it is your system now = qualifies for our definition of a "minor" system out of which Vienna is mentioned = as an example in the regulations. (And strong club systems are other = examples) I still do not see the problem Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 12 12:56:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:56:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000b01c330d4$a627ebe0$6b2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000d01c330d9$aa1364a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Wayne=20 ......... > So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a = common Sorry I slipped in my first answer commenting on doubleton diamonds, = this was about doubleton Clubs. That falls immediately within our definition = of minor systems like Vienna. And the 1C opening bid doesn't "either show = clubs or one or more other suits", it simply denies a certain length in other suits. Same case: What is the problem? Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jun 12 12:52:24 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:52:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" References: <001501c330ca$20854dc0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030612133554.01d4b040@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004101c330d9$968c00e0$8eb74351@noos.fr> Alain, Of course I go along with you. We deal with humans so we need some tolerance along the line. Still the 'play anything' case is clearcut to me. This is for me the same department as a revoke, LOOT or so. Now if you tell me this lady plays bridge since just four months I might .......... But then that kind of girls have no business playing tournaments. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "sportmanship" > At 12:34 12/06/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Roger, > > > >Thanks for your 'support'. But now sportmanship. > > > >For serious players it means not to complain about a penalty after you do > >something silly. > > > >For social players it means not to enforce all kind of 'silly' rules. > > AG : for bridge players (aka serious social players) it is something in > between. > > SMOn : there exists a possibility to waive a penalty ; L81C8 allows this, > and IMOBO it should be extended a little, ie the TD should be allowed to > suggest to the NOS to agree with the waiving of the penalty. > A friend of mine did this recently : a player, burdened by extreme heat in > the room, let fall several cards onto the table. They should all be MPCs, > we all know this. > Declarer, not a specialist of the Laws, asked TD what he should do, and TD > told him that "there are severe penalties : you may pick the cards to be > played among those ; but allowing for circumstances I'd suggest that you > don't make use of this possibility". He then explained (without mentioning > the exact words of the law) that he would check whether UI could possibly > be used. Declarer agreed. > However, it is obvious that he wouldn't have suggested the waiving himself > ; he didn't know about such a thing. > > Since the defender didn't do anything silly (except perhaps agreeing to > play bridge in this attic), Jaap's first sentence isn't applicable. > Since nobody said the law was silly, and this wasn't social bridge, Jaap's > second sentence isn't applicable. > I deeply feel that TD did the right thing. And that L81C8 should allow for > this. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Jun 12 13:13:06 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:13:06 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799003AE621@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Wayne Burrows wrote =20 > > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one > > > level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in > > > one or more different suits is one out of five different > > > criteria, either of which makes the entire system HUM=20 > > > (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > > > illegal except in events where their use is specially=20 > > > permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. > >=20 > > So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening > > would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. >=20 > "Length" is defined as at least three [sic!] cards in the=20 > suit so opening > with one in your three card minor suit playing five-card=20 > majors falls within > the criteria for natural systems. Opening with one in your=20 > doubleton minor > suit for lack of five cards in any suit will usually classify=20 > your system as > a "minor" system like Vienna. Although your question is plausible I am > afraid I don't see the problem. So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a common System among club players where I live) is a HUM by definition in Norway. ------ No it is not a HUM system (yellow) in Norway. It's defined as a red system, which is a class for systems that are not natural/green (suit openings at t= he 1-level should be 3-card+ minors/4-card+ majors), strong minor/blue (systems with a strong forcing 1C/1D opening or both) or HUM/yellow. The HUM criteria are: 1. An opening pass shows or can contain en strong hand (13+HCP). 2. An opening at the 1-level can be weaker than pass in the same poition. 3. An opening at the 1-level can show or contain a weak hand (<8 HCP). 4. An opening at the 1-level can show length or shortness in a suit. 5. An opening at the 1-level either shows length in one suit or in on or se= veral other suits. If one of the above is fulfilled, the system is defined as HUM. I see that one could argue that opening one club with 4432 in a 5-card majo= r system can be put in category 5 above, as you'll always have 44M when opening with= a doubleton. But I'm positive that's not the LC's intention, and not how they would rule= in this case. Regards, Harald, Oslo ----- It seems to me to be perverse that the definition of a HUM so closely matches the definition of one of the most common systems in the world - five-card majors. Wayne >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** 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 Jun 12 13:20:23 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:20:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799003AE623@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > From: Wayne=20 ......... > So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a common Sorry I slipped in my first answer commenting on doubleton diamonds, this was about doubleton Clubs. That falls immediately within our definition of minor systems like Vienna. And the 1C opening bid doesn't "either show clubs or one or more other suits", it simply denies a certain length in other suits. Same case: What is the problem? Sven ----- Sorry Sven, you're mixing it here. Vienna (the old Wiener system of the 30's and 40's, still played by some in Norway, is defined as red (artificial) sy= stem. The minor systems/blue must have a strong 1C/1D opening (or both). 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 tomwood1@earthlink.net Thu Jun 12 13:42:52 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 05:42:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-220036412124252579@earthlink.net> Ed, Ed Reppert replied to Kevin Perkins: > > > [Kevin] > > As a player and director in Austin Texas, the only problems > > I have seen have been from the failure to follow the current > > regulation, most recently last night. In my experience, the > > regulation IS followed most a majority of players. Properly > > followed, I feel the regulation is a good one. > > [Ed] > Well, as a player here in Rochester, NY, it's been my > experience that most players never heard of a delayed alert. I was wondering whether any other ACBL players, other than I, would report an apparently very low level of player awareness and/or observance of the ACBL delayed-alert regs. Then again, Ed, since you and I are in tiny secondary play areas (Rochester NY and Los Angeles CA), that may explain why we have such a skewed view and are not seeing the big picture of delayed-alert success. Perhaps the word will eventually reach *our* fellow players and directors. Tom Wood Los Angeles area From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 14:26:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:26:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000d01c330d9$aa1364a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c330d4$a627ebe0$6b2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612152447.01d51a90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:56 12/06/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > From: Wayne >......... > > So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a common > >Sorry I slipped in my first answer commenting on doubleton diamonds, this >was about doubleton Clubs. That falls immediately within our definition of >minor systems like Vienna. And the 1C opening bid doesn't "either show clubs >or one or more other suits", it simply denies a certain length in other >suits. AG : what about a 1D opening which denies either 5C, 5H, 5S or a balanced hand ? You will note that it means "either natural or 4414", which you disallow. Kind of inverted "Dutch doubleton" ... From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 14:47:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:47:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612152447.01d51a90@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000d01c330d9$aa1364a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c330d4$a627ebe0$6b2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612154108.01d5d360@pop.ulb.ac.be> Just one more notice about artificial diamonds. Say a pair plays : 1C 16+ 1H 11-15 4+ cards 1S 11-15 5+ cards 1NT 12-15 natural (no biddable 4-card major) 2C 11-15 6+ cards Their 1D opening will therefore always contain either 4+ diamonds or 4 spades. According to Sven, it would be disallowed in Norway because of HUM restrictions. Yet, Belgium, who uses about the same definition for HUM (only replaces "fewer than 8HCP" by "lower than rule of 18"), explicitly allowed it. And ... France too (the French are notoriously more rstrictive). The system got some successes in Belgian and Flandre (Northern France) championships. From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 12 15:11:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:11:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799003AE623@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000001c330ec$7cf6ccb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Thanks Harald, I slipped on that one! Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Skjaran, Harald > Sent: 12. juni 2003 14:20 > To: blml > Subject: SV: [blml] A dinkum diamond? >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 >=20 > > From: Wayne > ......... > > So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system (incidentally a = common >=20 > Sorry I slipped in my first answer commenting on doubleton diamonds, = this > was about doubleton Clubs. That falls immediately within our = definition of > minor systems like Vienna. And the 1C opening bid doesn't "either show > clubs > or one or more other suits", it simply denies a certain length in = other > suits. >=20 > Same case: What is the problem? >=20 > Sven >=20 > ----- > Sorry Sven, you're mixing it here. Vienna (the old Wiener system of = the > 30's > and 40's, still played by some in Norway, is defined as red = (artificial) > system. > The minor systems/blue must have a strong 1C/1D opening (or both). >=20 > Regards, > Harald >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > ********************************************************************** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. >=20 > Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports > ********************************************************************** >=20 >=20 >=20 > = *************************************************************************= * > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. If you have received this email in error > please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. >=20 > Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no >=20 > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been > swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. >=20 > Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports > = *************************************************************************= * >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jun 12 15:28:45 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:28:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046576@hotel.npl.co.uk> In "WBF SYSTEMS POLICY 2002 (Adopted December 1994; amended October 1996 January 2000 and August 2002)" the last HUM criteria is given as: "e) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system" So the 1D opening below is not a HUM because 1C is strong. But if 1C = 4+ clubs or balanced with 4 hearts, 10-20 HCP 1D = 4+ diamonds or balanced with 4 spades, 10-20 HCP 1M = 5+ M then this a HUM because it is not a strong club or strong diamond system, although the 1D is the same as the 1D below. Go figure!? Robin -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] Sent: 12 June 2003 14:48 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Just one more notice about artificial diamonds. Say a pair plays : 1C 16+ 1H 11-15 4+ cards 1S 11-15 5+ cards 1NT 12-15 natural (no biddable 4-card major) 2C 11-15 6+ cards Their 1D opening will therefore always contain either 4+ diamonds or 4 spades. According to Sven, it would be disallowed in Norway because of HUM restrictions. Yet, Belgium, who uses about the same definition for HUM (only replaces "fewer than 8HCP" by "lower than rule of 18"), explicitly allowed it. And ... France too (the French are notoriously more rstrictive). The system got some successes in Belgian and Flandre (Northern France) championships. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Jun 12 15:45:11 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:45:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: <01e701c330f1$3d4094c0$3f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> OFF-TOPIC David Burn wrote: >Peter Newman wrote: >> As an aussie this is really quite an amazing thread to read! >And, indeed, as an Englishman. Five-card majors, longer >minor, is common enough throughout the world. 1D is 4+ >diamonds or 4-4-3-2 from the Four Mile Radius roughly to >the plains of Hindustan. It is in no wise illegal in England, >though you would have to read the impenetrable verbiage >of the much-lamented Stevenson quite carefully to be >convinced of this. Of course, to open 1D on 4-4-0-5 is a >different matter, and ... > >I write this not so much out of a desire to contribute to a >thread that seems to me nonsensical as to ask: are you >the Peter Newman that played in the World Junior >Championships in Nottingham, England about fifteen >years ago? I was in charge of the daily bulletin during that >event, and I recall the names of Newman, Wallis, Fruewirth, >Thompson and Mullamphy as though it were yesterday, but >for the life of me I cannot remember the sixth... John Spooner, now retired from bridge (mostly). Of the others, Peter Newman emerges from retirement (wife, two young children, busy job, new house and BLML leaving inadequate time for bridge) once or twice a year, usually to win an Aussie National Championship, and when Peter does play for the Australian Open Team, as in Maastricht for example, it is no coincidence that is when we (Australia) make our rare appearances in the final stages of the World Championships. Rob Fruewirth was in the top twenty pairs at last year's World Pairs, and the others from that team are amongst the best players here nowadays. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 12 16:27:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:27:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046575@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EE89BC7.1040305@skynet.be> Robin Barker wrote: > Herman writes: > "That claim statement only applies to tricks after the current > one." > > I disagree. A statement that only applies to the current trick > is not a claim and is covered by footnote 19 (Law 68). But any > statement that refers to subsequent tricks is a claim and play > ceases. Law 68D is very clear: all play subsequent to a claim > is cancelled. No where does it refer to playing out the current > trick. > > If declarer leads towards dummy and, while LHO is thinking, says > "dummy is high" surely this is a claim and play ceases. > OK Robin, you are right. But in any case, declarer first said "play anything" and then "my hand is high". That means that the third card of this trick is to be considered played, and we first have to determine which card is played before we can go on to ruling on the claim. Indeed the fourth card to this trick is one on which the claim counts (ie defender can look at all cards before stating which card he might play in that trick). > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@skynet.be] > Sent: 12 June 2003 11:15 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > > > True David, but then: > > David Burn wrote: > > >>Herman wrote: >> >> >> >>>He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. >>> >>> >>Law 68A >>Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific >> > number > >>of tricks is a claim of those tricks. >> >>Herman, since when is the statement "I've got the rest" not a claim? >> >> > > > That claim statement only applies to tricks after the current one. > In the current trick, we still have two cards left to play. One of > them is dummy's and it's either a Spade or a Heart, and we have to > rule on which before we rule on the claim. > > > >>David Burn >>London, England >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 12 16:47:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:47:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046576@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030612174331.01d58870@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:28 12/06/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >In "WBF SYSTEMS POLICY 2002 (Adopted December 1994; >amended October 1996 January 2000 and August 2002)" >the last HUM criteria is given as: >"e) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level >shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. >EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond >system" > >So the 1D opening below is not a HUM because 1C is strong. > >But if > 1C = 4+ clubs or balanced with 4 hearts, 10-20 HCP > 1D = 4+ diamonds or balanced with 4 spades, 10-20 HCP > 1M = 5+ M >then this a HUM because it is not a strong club or strong >diamond system, although the 1D is the same as the 1D below. > >Go figure!? AG : I always thought that convention restrictions were made for avoiding problems to the opponents. Now we see that the *same* bid (of course causing the same amount of difficulties to the opponents) is allowed in one case and disallowed in another. I strongly feel that this needs to be fixed. Also, you will have problems, because what a "strong club" system is wasn't defined. Is "klaver squeeze" (Belgian system where 1C = 17+, or 12-14 with 5+ clubs) a strong club system ? What's the lower boundary ? Is 14+ a strong club ? Is 13+ ? Is 15-18 ? etc. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 12 16:36:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:36:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <3EE83C53.7010200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <99F1220A-9CEB-11D7-AEB3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 04:39 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > One big proviso, however: The only reason why I rule that he might > have forgotten he was playing trumps is precisely the fact that he DID > not claim. I suspect he was unsure of the number of diamonds still > out, and while he was certain the 10 was high - he was not certain of > the low one, nor did he realize he could ruff that as his fourth > trick. THAT is why I might rule against him. If OTOH he claims, I have > no such indications and I will award the claim. What declarer said was "Play anything. I have the rest." That second sentence sure sounds like a claim to me. See the first sentence of law 68A. Whether you rule this as two consecutive events and apply first law 46B and then law 70A, or rule it as a claim only under law 70A, the result is the same: declarer gets the trump trick, and then defenders get however many heart tricks they get. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 12 19:02:31 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:02:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <90775E42-9BA6-11D7-9AFB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005201c3310c$d4703d80$529468d5@tinyhrieuyik> I appreciate the feedback on my suggested "No-Alert" rules... (1) I like Todd Zimnoch's suggestion to use a semi-transparent *Explain* card. (2) Several BLMLers object to SAYC as a standard. If you are going to explain (with or without alerts), you must explain departures from some *common standard* -- otherwise you end up with endless explanations of almost every bid. That system could be "Strong pass", "Nottingham club" or "Nairobi Diamond" but I still think SAYC is the most sensible default system from which to alert -- especially at International level. Anybody who has played on-line, cannot avoid picking up a smattering of SAYC. Hence, for up-and-coming Bridge Players it will be the most familiar system, world-wide. It is similar to popular systems played in many other countries like France and Italy. Of course SAYC will have to be properly defined and standardised. But but if you don't know it you will just have to learn it, in order to alert/explain properly. Instead of SAYC, any system will do if similarly agreed and defined. However persuading all the factions to agree on anything will be a political marathon, given all the xenophobic chauvinists in every organisation. Agreeing on SAYC would at least have the merit of silencing many of them. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jun 12 10:56:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:56:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612184940.02555510@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <3EE84E33.1050500@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > On the actual hand, there was no possible doubt whatever > that declarer's hand was high. All the diamonds had gone on > the previous round. > Cheers, > Tony (Sydney) > So why did he not claim? - if this is a player who never claims, I have to investigate further to see if he realises his diamonds are high (OK, you've answered that) and why he says "play anything" when there is only one suit. - if this is a player who normally claims, then I want to know why he didn't here, considering that he knows his hand is high. If he tells me that he is uncertain about lurking trumps, and he plays his diamonds hoping the hypothetical ruffer has clubs to return, then I rule that it is incontrovertible that he does not want to discard a spade, and he gets all tricks. Could you answer me this, Tony? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jun 12 07:29:24 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:29:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Incidentally... References: <006401c33079$d2d42380$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000801c33114$aa00c530$be12e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:30 AM Subject: [blml] Incidentally... > ...we should congratulate Adam Wildavsky, an > occasional poster to BLML, who by dint of winning > the latest round of the US Trials has qualified > for the 2003 Bermuda Bowl in Monte Carlo. Well > done Adam, the best of luck, and may you never > need the Director. > +=+ Or if, may you get the Director you need! :-) +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jun 12 08:53:07 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:53:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: Message-ID: <000901c33114$aac6ad40$be12e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > Since the regulations say: > > "12.2.3 > > 1D opening may be played as any one of the following. > (a) natural, not forcing > > (b) balanced, forcing or not > > (c) natural or balanced, forcing or not > > (d) natural 1 opening with no suit longer than clubs, > forcing or not > > (e) natural or a natural 1C opening with no suit > longer than clubs, forcing or not > > (f) natural or balanced or natural 1C opening with > no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not > > Note - additional distributional constraints (e.g. no > four card major) are permitted as treatments - see > 9.4.2 [August, 2001]" > > I find it hard to see how this might be interpreted > other than to allow it. If no four card major is > allowed as a constraint, so presumably is two four > card majors. > +=+ Please clarify which 'one' (sic) of (a) to (f) 'with additional constraints' covers this two-way opener. As to 'Stevensonian', the poor lad has to get his words, ingenious or ingenuous, passed by the L&E Committee (currently chaired by another David). ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jun 12 08:57:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:57:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? References: <00cb01c3308a$a4064400$ad1c27d9@pbncomputer> <003701c330a8$59cf4260$8eb74351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000a01c33114$abccf9b0$be12e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David Burn" ; "BLML" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A dinkum diamond? >. The real problem is deciding what the rules should be. > As long as this is done by incompetent semi-politicians > who keep hiding behind woolly texts, avoiding taking > any serious decision, and giving any SO the option to > vary almost anything there is no hope. And now don't > take me for a law-and-order adept. > +=+ Actually if it could be done by one Incompetent Semi-Politician there would be little problem. But we have a drafting subcommittee of seven, a full committee of nineteen, an Executive Council of twenty, and three corporate claimants to copyright. That's politics, and the political necessity is to devise laws that each and every one of these finds brookable. ~ G. Endicott ~ I.S-P. +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 12 21:57:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:57:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <005201c3310c$d4703d80$529468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <6B6BC547-9D18-11D7-AEB3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 14:02 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > If you are going to explain (with or without alerts), you must explain > departures from some *common standard* -- otherwise you end up with > endless explanations of > almost every bid. I think you are confusing explaining and answering questions. When you explain, you state the meaning of the call, which has nothing to do with whether it departs from some "standard" meaning. From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 12 23:21:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:21:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <004101c229ee$0926fae0$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c33130$f3993080$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kevin Perkins ........ > Evidently, Adam and I are on the same wavelength and you and I > are not. I do not think I am fixated on "keeping those darned = opponents > from robbing us blind via UI from the alert system." As I said in a > previous > post, my preference would be immediate alerts, but would rather delay = them > than doing away with them altogether, as I thought the discussion was > about, > as Adam also seems to think. I only brought up the issue about the UI = as a > point that I can believe to support the delaying of the alert. >=20 > Kevin Well, to round up my opinion on this discussion the experience we have = here in Norway is that alerts are aiding the bidders more than their = opponents once the auction has reached beyond 3NT except that conventional opening bids should in the interest of opponents be alerted regardless of level. Furthermore in order to protect opponents properly an alert should come immediately so that it can be taken into consideration already before an opponent selects his next call. This is reflected in our regulations; and every player in Norway is instructed that if he feels he might be in doubt on opponent's call = above 3NT in such a way that it might influence his choice of call he should = ask before selecting his call. I believe this establishes a suitable balance between information to opponents and avoidance of UI between partners; with simple and easy to understand rules that do not make life too difficult for the players. Sven From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Fri Jun 13 00:07:24 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:07:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <3EE84E33.1050500@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612184940.02555510@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030613085847.00b36d08@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Herman asked: >So why did he not claim? >- if this is a player who never claims, I have to investigate further to >see if he realises his diamonds are high (OK, you've answered that) and >why he says "play anything" when there is only one suit. >- if this is a player who normally claims, then I want to know why he >didn't here, considering that he knows his hand is high. If he tells me >that he is uncertain about lurking trumps, and he plays his diamonds >hoping the hypothetical ruffer has clubs to return, then I rule that it is >incontrovertible that he does not want to discard a spade, and he gets all >tricks. > >Could you answer me this, Tony? We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to claim in this situation. She certainly knew that all the tricks were indubitably hers and yes, she would have had no misapprehension about whether she was in no trump or a suit contract. I think when she said "play anything" she had it in her mind "anything but a trump of course". However that is not what she said...so in future I think I may persuade her that claiming is a very good idea. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From adam@irvine.com Fri Jun 13 00:28:35 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:28:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:07:24 +1000." <5.2.0.9.0.20030613085847.00b36d08@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <200306122328.QAA24643@mailhub.irvine.com> > We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to claim in > this situation. Umm, perhaps that's because it's not unlawful not to claim in this situation. What Law makes it unlawful? (And don't say L74B4 because that only makes it unlawful if you have a specific evil purpose in mind.) -- Adam From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Jun 13 00:46:49 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:46:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Asking - delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <000101c33130$f3993080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: SNIP SNIP SNIP Sven wrote, as a closing to the thread: and every player in Norway is instructed that if he feels he might be in doubt on opponent's call above 3NT in such a way that it might influence his choice of call he should ask before selecting his call. K: Now, if I may note on Sven's above comment on the delayed alerts thread, this will take us back to the thread about Asking: "when to ask" "without giving UI" . If a player thinks he needs to ask to to find out whether the meaning of an opponent's unalerted high level call will influence his own call, is that not UI to his partner? Unless he always asks, a question points to the fact that he had a reason to ask and that there is something of interest in his hand. Just curious if this indeed would be the case. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 00:54:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:54:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: >>We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to >>claim in this situation. >Umm, perhaps that's because it's not unlawful not to claim in this >situation. What Law makes it unlawful? (And don't say L74B4 because >that only makes it unlawful if you have a specific evil purpose in >mind.) > > -- Adam Law 90B2. Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Fri Jun 13 01:07:48 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:07:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] Asking - delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:46:49 PDT." Message-ID: <200306130007.RAA25167@mailhub.irvine.com> Kaima, or Raija, wrote: > SNIP SNIP SNIP > Sven wrote, as a closing to the thread: > > and every player in Norway is > instructed that if he feels he might be in doubt on opponent's call above > 3NT in such a way that it might influence his choice of call he should ask > before selecting his call. > > K: Now, if I may note on Sven's above comment on the delayed alerts > thread, this will take us back to the thread about Asking: "when to ask" > "without giving UI" . If a player thinks he needs to ask to to find out > whether the meaning of an opponent's unalerted high level call will > influence his own call, is that not UI to his partner? Unless he always > asks, a question points to the fact that he had a reason to ask and that > there is something of interest in his hand. Just curious if this indeed > would be the case. Yes, that is the case, and I believe that's the main flaw in the delayed alert mechanism (other than the fact that no one seems to know that they're supposed to use it). When this was first proposed in the ACBL, the example they gave was, I believe, that 1S-3S-4H, where 4H asks for aces (not that anyone actually plays that way), would become a delayed alert. This got me worried about this scenario: suppose, in a simliar auction, opener's partner was the 4H bidder, and I was behind him with the king of hearts, and wanted to double 4H if it was a cue-bid so that I could get partner to lead through dummy's ace, but would want to pass 4H if it was artificial. The only thing I could do would be to ask a question at that point. This would indeed provide UI to partner if 4H turned out to be artificial and I passed. I was worried enough about this that I asked a top director---I think it was Chris Patrias---at one of the NABC's (Reno?). He said that if I were in that situation, the best I could do would be to go ahead and ask, but yes, it would transmit UI to partner. They were aware that this was a flaw in the proposed mechanism, but they believed the benefits of not having partners in high-level constructive auctions wake each other up by their alerts would outweigh the disadvantages. -- Adam From tomwood1@earthlink.net Fri Jun 13 01:12:35 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:12:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Asking - delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-2200365130123533@earthlink.net> kaima, aka D R Davis, commented: > > SNIP SNIP SNIP > Sven wrote, as a closing to the thread: > >> and every player in Norway is >> instructed that if he feels he might be in doubt on opponent's call above >> 3NT in such a way that it might influence his choice of call he should ask >> before selecting his call. > > K: Now, if I may note on Sven's above comment on the delayed alerts > thread, this will take us back to the thread about Asking: "when to ask" > "without giving UI" . If a player thinks he needs to ask to find out > whether the meaning of an opponent's unalerted high level call will > influence his own call, is that not UI to his partner? Unless he always > asks, a question points to the fact that he had a reason to ask and that > there is something of interest in his hand. Just curious if this indeed > would be the case. > I agree completely. This is one of the 'downside' issues which I noted for the ACBL delayed-alert approach, which, along with other negatives, leaves me, at best, only mildly in favor of our current delayed-alert regs. Of course, in Norway the asker could 'randomize' his above-3NT sometimes-asks and leave both partner and opponents muttering "What was he thinking about on Board 7, that he had to ask what 5D meant??" :) ---- In our area, though, the sometimes askers are usually very focused. Like the LHO who held AQJ9xx of Hearts, behind my natural, unalerted 1H overcall of RHO's 1C, and asked, with considerable emphasis: "What *was* the 1H overcall?" He got his reopening DBL but bought himself a bottom on the board. (Would that all offenders reaped a natural-justice result like that!) Tom Wood, ACBL-SW hinterland From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jun 13 01:22:46 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:22:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000901c33114$aac6ad40$be12e150@endicott> Message-ID: <28202970-9D35-11D7-BE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 08:53 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Life would be tolerable except for its > amusements." > - George Cornewall Lewis > ============================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:04 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > > >> Since the regulations say: >> >> "12.2.3 >> >> 1D opening may be played as any one of the following. >> (a) natural, not forcing >> >> (b) balanced, forcing or not >> >> (c) natural or balanced, forcing or not >> >> (d) natural 1 opening with no suit longer than clubs, >> forcing or not >> >> (e) natural or a natural 1C opening with no suit >> longer than clubs, forcing or not >> >> (f) natural or balanced or natural 1C opening with >> no suit longer than clubs, forcing or not >> >> Note - additional distributional constraints (e.g. no >> four card major) are permitted as treatments - see >> 9.4.2 [August, 2001]" >> >> I find it hard to see how this might be interpreted >> other than to allow it. If no four card major is >> allowed as a constraint, so presumably is two four >> card majors. >> > +=+ Please clarify which 'one' (sic) of (a) to (f) 'with > additional constraints' covers this two-way opener. > As to 'Stevensonian', the poor lad has to get his > words, ingenious or ingenuous, passed by the L&E > Committee (currently chaired by another David). > ~ G ~ +=+ (c) covers it if we're talking about the bid showing four+ diamonds or 4432 shape. If we're also talking about it including 4414 & 4405 shapes, then (f) covers it. I don't think it's been clarified by the original poster which of these two situations is the one we're considering. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From tomwood1@earthlink.net Fri Jun 13 01:52:23 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:52:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" -- unlawful sometimes not to claim? Message-ID: <410-22003651305223157@earthlink.net> Richard defended his "unlawful not to claim, as follows: > >>[Richard H] > >>We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to > >>claim in this situation. > > >[Adam] > >Umm, perhaps that's because it's not unlawful not to claim in this > >situation. What Law makes it unlawful? (And don't say L74B4 because > >that only makes it unlawful if you have a specific evil purpose in > >mind.) > > Law 90B2. > > Best wishes > Richard > Isn't that more than a bit of a stretch, when you have cited LAW 90 -- Procedural Penalties B. Offenses Subject to Penalty 2. unduly slow play by a contestant ? How do you deal with the junior or B-level players, who often may not even see that a straightforward claim is available? Are you ready to penalize them for not seeing what you and I see? Further, in our area, there are many lotsagenarians, several of whom have demonstrated repeatedly that they are constitutionally unable to deal with a claim. When I eschew making a Trick 8 claim against one of these, and I notice that my partner's body language says "Why don't you just claim?", I wait till we are discretely away from this pair and argue my approach: "Believe me, it's much faster not to claim against *him*." Would you penalize me for this? Also, some players seem to be especially accident prone when crafting their statement of claim. Years ago, in a Las Vegas regional, partner and I were the only ones to bid to a 6C slam. Play was quite straightforward, right down through Trick 11. Partner, declaring, led toward the DAQ in the Dummy. All four hands held two Diamonds. My RHO then entered a 'dither' mode unlike any other that I have ever seen in sanctioned play. Over 30 seconds, RHO gyrated back and forth, as if to play one card, then as if to play the other. Perhaps he knew my partner's specialty was not claims -- for my partner, exasperated, blurted out "Whatever you do, I'm playing the Queen!" At this, RHO, transmogrified in an instant into Mr. Complete Control, swiftly and purposefully plunked down the DK! [I offer this last tale for your amusement, and not to support my reaction to your use of Law 90B2 to demand that players claim.] Tom Wood From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Jun 13 02:36:25 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:36:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB2799003AE621@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <002f01c3314c$386f9c60$372037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Skjaran, Harald > Sent: Friday, 13 June 2003 12:13 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: SV: [blml] A dinkum diamond? > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > > > > For your information: In Norway an opening bid at the one > > > > level which alternatively shows length in one suit or in > > > > one or more different suits is one out of five different > > > > criteria, either of which makes the entire system HUM > > > > (Highly Unusual Methods). Such systems are in Norway > > > > illegal except in events where their use is specially > > > > permitted and then only on special conditions for their use. > > > > > > So five-card majors is a HUM in Norway since a 1C opening > > > would show either length in clubs or a 4-card major. > > > > "Length" is defined as at least three [sic!] cards in the > > suit so opening > > with one in your three card minor suit playing five-card > > majors falls within > > the criteria for natural systems. Opening with one in your > > doubleton minor > > suit for lack of five cards in any suit will usually classify > > your system as > > a "minor" system like Vienna. Although your question is > plausible I am > > afraid I don't see the problem. > > So 1C can be a doubleton in a 5-card major system > (incidentally a common > System among club players where I live) is a HUM by definition in > Norway. > ------ > No it is not a HUM system (yellow) in Norway. It's defined as > a red system, > which is a class for systems that are not natural/green (suit > openings at the > 1-level should be 3-card+ minors/4-card+ majors), strong > minor/blue (systems > with a strong forcing 1C/1D opening or both) or HUM/yellow. > > The HUM criteria are: > 1. An opening pass shows or can contain en strong hand (13+HCP). > 2. An opening at the 1-level can be weaker than pass in the > same poition. > 3. An opening at the 1-level can show or contain a weak hand (<8 HCP). > 4. An opening at the 1-level can show length or shortness in a suit. > 5. An opening at the 1-level either shows length in one suit > or in on or several other suits. > If one of the above is fulfilled, the system is defined as HUM. > > I see that one could argue that opening one club with 4432 in > a 5-card major system > can be put in category 5 above, as you'll always have 44M > when opening with a doubleton. > But I'm positive that's not the LC's intention, and not how > they would rule in this case. You don't need to argue that is exactly what the regulation says. My main point is that the definition of HUM either excludes or is close to excluding normal 5-card major systems. Therefore are HUM's really highly unusual? Wayne > > Regards, > Harald, Oslo > ----- > It seems to me to be perverse that the definition of a HUM so closely > matches the definition of one of the most common systems in > the world - > five-card majors. > > Wayne > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ********************************************************************** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports > ********************************************************************** > > > > ************************************************************** > ************ > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. If you have received this email in error > please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. > > Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been > swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports > ************************************************************** > ************ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jun 13 03:23:22 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:23:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <410-220036412124252579@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030612222115.00b5af98@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:42 AM 6/12/2003, Thomas Wood wrote: >I was wondering whether any other ACBL players, other than I, >would report an apparently very low level of player awareness >and/or observance of the ACBL delayed-alert regs. Then again, >Ed, since you and I are in tiny secondary play areas (Rochester >NY and Los Angeles CA), that may explain why we have such a >skewed view and are not seeing the big picture of delayed-alert >success. Perhaps the word will eventually reach *our* fellow >players and directors. This is always the case with the complex ACBL regulations. Does anyone remember Special Alerts? I played in Boston for several years under these regulations, and I don't ever remember hearing one other than from myself or my partner. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jun 13 04:24:13 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:24:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030612222115.00b5af98@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000801c3315b$44a2a2c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> The ACBL is developing a "Pre-Alert/Disclosure" form for use in lieu of the current oral pre-Alert system. Perhaps a section could be added for Delayed-Alertable bids, giving opponents a chance to ask about them before they occur. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 13 07:37:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:37:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Asking - delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c33176$409b3000$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Raija=20 > To: Sven Pran; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Asking - delayed alerts [ACBL] >=20 > SNIP SNIP SNIP > Sven wrote, as a closing to the thread: >=20 > and every player in Norway is > instructed that if he feels he might be in doubt on opponent's call = above > 3NT in such a way that it might influence his choice of call he should = ask > before selecting his call. >=20 > K: Now, if I may note on Sven's above comment on the delayed alerts > thread, this will take us back to the thread about Asking: "when to = ask" > "without giving UI" . If a player thinks he needs to ask to to find = out > whether the meaning of an opponent's unalerted high level call will > influence his own call, is that not UI to his partner? Unless he = always > asks, a question points to the fact that he had a reason to ask and = that > there is something of interest in his hand. Just curious if this = indeed > would be the case. Sure, there is always the "danger" of UI whether you ask, don't ask, how = you ask etc. etc. So there is no objection to a player asking also at random when the = answer is not important to him just to reduce the possible UI he creates. He doesn't need _always_ to ask to achieve this. Still I have the feeling that we have found a very sound balance as I = wrote. Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 13 08:02:00 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:02:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612184940.02555510@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20030613085847.00b36d08@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <3EE976E8.7030106@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > Herman asked: > > > >> So why did he not claim? > > > We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to claim > in this situation. She > certainly knew that all the tricks were indubitably hers and yes, she > would have had no > misapprehension about whether she was in no trump or a suit contract. I > think when she > said "play anything" she had it in her mind "anything but a trump of > course". However that > is not what she said...so in future I think I may persuade her that > claiming is a > very good idea. > So, in light of this I decide that it is incontrovertible that her "play anything" did not include a spade, and per L46B I rule that a heart has been played. Ergo, four tricks to declarer. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jun 13 12:20:28 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:20:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <6B6BC547-9D18-11D7-AEB3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002b01c3319d$ceca5960$559c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] I think you are confusing explaining and answering questions. When you explain, you state the meaning of the call, which has nothing to do with whether it departs from some "standard" meaning. [Nigel] This is a matter of opinion. For example, suppose that *SAYC is the standard system*, you open the bidding with 1D, and later an opponent requests an explanation. You say "1D is standard". For most that will be explanation enough. Only if an opponent queries "Standard?" must you supply the detailed explanation of this highly artificial bid (cf Dinkum diamond) Although nobody on BLML shares my views on "No-alerts", I feel it may get some support among rank-and-file bridge-players like myself -- especially if they are told that the alternative is a mountain of alert legislation, peculiar to each country, that will be incomprehensible to most players and almost universally ignored. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jun 13 12:39:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:39:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] Message-ID: <003c01c331a0$78770420$559c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] I think you are confusing explaining and answering questions. When you explain, you state the meaning of the call, which has nothing to do with whether it departs from some "standard" meaning. [Nigel correcting typo] This is a matter of opinion. For example, suppose that *SAYC is the standard system*, you open the bidding with 1D, and later an opponent requests a call-by-call explanation of the auction. You say "1D is standard". For most that will be explanation enough. Only if an opponent queries "Standard?" must you supply the detailed explanation of this highly artificial bid (cf Dinkum diamond). Although nobody on BLML shares my views on "No-alerts", I feel it may get some support among rank-and-file bridge-players like myself -- especially if they are told that the alternative is a mountain of alert legislation, peculiar to each country, that will be incomprehensible to most players and almost universally ignored. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 13 12:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <000c01c330d8$dce85a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven asked: > Why would you open in 1D rather than in 1C with a 4423 or 4414 > distribution? Because I play: 1N balancedish 11/12, 1C nat or balancedish 13/14 or 17/18, 1D nat or balancedish 15/16 or 19/20. I might wish to describe a 15 count like AQxx,KQxx,A,xxxx as balancedish rather than open a "natural" club. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 13 15:48:12 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:48:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <002b01c3319d$ceca5960$559c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <0EB51AA3-9DAE-11D7-AEB3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 07:20 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > This is a matter of opinion. For example, suppose that *SAYC is the > standard > system*, you open the bidding with 1D, and later an opponent requests > an > explanation. You say "1D is standard". For most that will be > explanation > enough. Only if an opponent queries "Standard?" must you supply the > detailed > explanation of this highly artificial bid (cf Dinkum diamond) *Maybe* it's a matter of opinion. I'm not so sure. In the ACBL, at least, regulations specifically state that explaining the meaning of a call by naming it, or presumably by saying "standard", is inadequate disclosure; you *must* explain the meaning of the call. Aside: Yesterday, in a competitive auction, I jump raised my partner's 1D overcall to 3D. LHO asked what it meant. My partner said "it's preemptive". LHO said "Preemptive? But he didn't open." > Although nobody on BLML shares my views on "No-alerts", I feel it may > get > some support among rank-and-file bridge-players like myself -- > especially if > they are told that the alternative is a mountain of alert legislation, > peculiar to each country, that will be incomprehensible to most > players and > almost universally ignored. I can't prove it with data at hand, but my expectation is that the majority of bridge players never play outside their own country, or indeed their own local area, and couldn't care less what the alert regulations are anywhere else. The answer to people ignoring the rules of the game, local or otherwise, is education, not abandoning the rules. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Jun 13 16:43:25 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:43:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> >From a posting to IBLF W N E 2D 2C P 2D is some strong artificial bid (alertable) 2C is insufficient (not a typo) After East passes, he summons the TD and explains that he should alert 2D. North will say that he would not bid 2C if 2D had been alerted. This might be true because North would then notice that West was the dealer, that West bid, that West did not bid 1D! Do you ask North anything? away from the table? look at his hand? Is so make up answers to these questions. What do you rule? Can North change 2C under L21B1? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 13 18:17:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:17:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000b01c331cf$9bfac4c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker=20 > From a posting to IBLF >=20 > W N E > 2D 2C P >=20 > 2D is some strong artificial bid (alertable) > 2C is insufficient (not a typo) > After East passes, he summons the TD > and explains that he should alert 2D. >=20 > North will say that he would not bid 2C if 2D had been alerted. > This might be true because North would then notice that West > was the dealer, that West bid, that West did not bid 1D! >=20 > Do you ask North anything? away from the table? look at his hand? > Is so make up answers to these questions. >=20 > What do you rule? Can North change 2C under L21B1? Curious case but let us be patient and take one question at the time: 1: North makes an insufficient bid which is accepted and treated as = legal by East (the moment he passes). End of story "insufficient bid". 2: East announces that he should have alerted the 2D opening bid by his partner. Enter story "misinformation" and enter Law 21B. In order to be allowed to change his call North must show as probable = that his 2C bid was made because of the misinformation and not for instance because of his own inattention (overlooking the 2D opening bid by West). I might tend to accept this if he holds a hand to bid 2C over a natural = 1D opening bid or a hand to bid 3C over a natural 2D opening bid = (inadvertently bidding 2C instead of 3C). North's hand must also be such that he has = some good reason to make a different call because of 2D being conventional = rather than natural. Answers:=20 No I shall not ask North anything at this time not at the table nor away from the table. No I shall definitely not look at his hand at this time. I shall explain to North that if he selects to change his 2C bid to something else then East will subsequently be permitted to change his = pass. Then I shall explain to North that I will let him change his call under Law21B1 but at his own risk.=20 If he does change his call and I afterwards should find (judge) that his hand did not satisfy the conditions in this law (which I have referred = to above) but that the reason North had for bidding 2C seems probably to = have been something else than the missing alert then I shall adjust the = result on the board if I find that East/West were damaged.=20 So let us see if others agree with me? Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jun 13 17:51:03 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:51:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <0EB51AA3-9DAE-11D7-AEB3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00eb01c331cb$fa9b26e0$559c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] *Maybe* it's a matter of opinion. I'm not so sure. In the ACBL, at least, regulations specifically state that explaining the meaning of a call by naming it, or presumably by saying "standard", is inadequate disclosure; you *must* explain the meaning of the call. [Nigel] In the context of present rules, you are right; my original post, however, suggested *new* rules and explicitly assumed an *internationally agreed system* from which you explain departures. [Ed] Aside: Yesterday, in a competitive auction, I jump raised my partner's 1D overcall to 3D. LHO asked what it meant. My partner said "it's preemptive". LHO said "Preemptive? But he didn't open." [Nigel] Now here I have some sympathy with your opponent. A bid is pre-emptive if it uses up bidding space. A 3NT opening bid is pre-emptive. Any one can work that out from nature of the bid and the meaning of the word, without asking. Perhaps your opponent wanted to know whether the 3D raise had any shape or high card requirements. [Ed] I can't prove it with data at hand, but my expectation is that the majority of bridge players never play outside their own country, or indeed their own local area, and couldn't care less what the alert regulations are anywhere else.The answer to people ignoring the rules of the game, local or otherwise, is education, not abandoning the rules. [Nigel] I suspect you are wrong now. And in the future, I reckon your position will be untenable as more people play bridge on the net. e.g. On Bridge-Base, most players are non-local. I reckon that, on the net, automatic disclosure from posted CCs (to opponents only) will be the norm, for most bids, with the rest requiring ad-hoc explanation. Again I see no need or advantage in alerts. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From adam@irvine.com Fri Jun 13 19:13:32 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:13:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:43:25 BST." <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <200306131813.LAA06249@mailhub.irvine.com> Robin wrote: > >From a posting to IBLF > > W N E > 2D 2C P > > 2D is some strong artificial bid (alertable) > 2C is insufficient (not a typo) > After East passes, he summons the TD > and explains that he should alert 2D. > > North will say that he would not bid 2C if 2D had been alerted. Are you sure? I don't see how he could say this with a straight face. "Director, if the 2D bid had been alerted I wouldn't have bid 2C". Under the circumstances, it might be more prudent for North to keep his mouth shut. > This might be true because North would then notice that West > was the dealer, that West bid, that West did not bid 1D! > > Do you ask North anything? Perhaps "Could you please pay more attention to the game?" East too. > away from the table? look at his hand? > Is so make up answers to these questions. > > What do you rule? Can North change 2C under L21B1? My feeling is that since the difference between a natural 2D and an artificial 2D is so huge that we should presume that the condition "it is probably that he made the call as a result of misinformation" is automatically satisifed. I'd rule this way without asking North anything, and irrespective of the facts that the 2C bid was insufficient and that it's likely that North didn't see West's call correctly---to me those facts are made irrelevant by the greatness of the difference in meanings between an unalerted 2D and the actual agreement. If North does not change his 2C call, I'd interpret L21B2 to mean that East may not change his pass, which also means that East may not change his decision to condone the insufficient bid. -- Adam From mikedod@gte.net Fri Jun 13 19:17:45 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:17:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> <005601c3309d$139c1260$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002801c331d8$1865fd60$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > I don't know anything about ACBLScore, but it seems like it ought to > > have an option to award the greater of 60% and session average (or the > > lesser of 40% and session average). Does it? I find it somewhat hard > > to believe that there wouldn't be such an option. > > > > > As Mike Dodson wrote, ACBLScore allows for A, A+, and A-. But are the > A+/A- scores complementary, governed by the A+, as was required by a > ruling of the ACBLLC, or are they independent? Right now I don't have a > game file to check this. Mike? > > There is another option that looks illegal to me. You can "protect" an > assigned N-S score to have it automatically change to avg+ if that gives a > better result than the assigned score. E-W gets the complement, avg- or > assigned score, whichever is worse. Or, you can do vice-versa, > "protecting" (that's what they call it) an assigned N-S score to have it > change to avg- if that gives a worse result, with E-W then getting avg+. > > That is, a TD can say, "I'm giving you a score of 620 or average plus, > whichever is better." The other side then gets -620 or average minus, > whichever is worse. Apparently the motivation for it is a belief that the > NOS should get a good score and the OS a bad one. It also saves the TD > from having to argue about the assigned score. This sort of adjustment > used to be common, occurring even at NABCs, but I haven't seen an example > of it for years. I can find no justification for it in the Laws (L12C4?). > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > Any combination of A, A+, A-, assigned score (+140), or assigned matchpoints are allowed independently for EW and NS. A+/A- will be complementary based on the A+ pair's results. A- will be less than 40% only if the A+ pair scores better than 60% for the session. The "protected AS" Marv derides is not an option. Mike Dodson From adam@irvine.com Fri Jun 13 19:19:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:19:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:43:25 BST." <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <200306131819.LAA06312@mailhub.irvine.com> I've already responded to the situation Robin posted, but it just occurred to me that it's a bit more interesting question if East doesn't pass so that the insufficient bid is not condoned. Suppose the auction goes like this: West opens 2D, not alerted. North bids 2C. East now calls the Director and says that there has been both a failure to alert and an insufficient bid. What happens? Does the misinformation take precedence over the insufficient bid? Do insufficient bid penalties still apply at all? If North does change his call, could his partner be barred? Does the TD have to judge whether the change of call is covered by L21B1 or L27B2? Can North change his call to a double? -- Adam From tomwood1@earthlink.net Fri Jun 13 19:23:30 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:23:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-220036513182330546@earthlink.net> David J. Grabiner wrote: > > >I was wondering whether any other ACBL players, other than I, > >would report an apparently very low level of player awareness > >and/or observance of the ACBL delayed-alert regs. Then again, > >Ed, since you and I are in tiny secondary play areas (Rochester > >NY and Los Angeles CA), that may explain why we have such a > >skewed view and are not seeing the big picture of delayed-alert > >success. Perhaps the word will eventually reach *our* fellow > >players and directors. > > This is always the case with the complex ACBL regulations. Does anyone > remember Special Alerts? I played in Boston for several years under these > regulations, and I don't ever remember hearing one other than from myself > or my partner. > 'ACBL Special Alerts': During the lifetime of this regulation, I also never rcvd a single Special Alert from opponents. On average, my partner and I issued several per session, for it was appropriate per ACBL specifications. Occasionally, opponents would bellow "Director!", and complain that we were trying to send some special hidden msg to partner by saying "Special Alert." As often as not, the Director would ask us why we did not just say "Alert!" or simply directed us to "say 'Alert!', like everyone else." So much for promulgation of new regs to the masses (i.e., masses of players and masses of directors). BTW, Kevin seems to be hoarding, in his home state of TX, the 0.2% of ACBL players who both know about Delayed Alerts, and use them properly. The ACBL should take note and mount a special task force to discover the secret of this TX success. Tom, LA From tomwood1@earthlink.net Fri Jun 13 19:45:13 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:45:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-220036513184513169@earthlink.net> Marv, > [Marv French] > The ACBL is developing a "Pre-Alert/Disclosure" form for > use in lieu of the current oral pre-Alert system. Perhaps a > section could be added for Delayed-Alertable bids, > giving opponents a chance to ask about them before > they occur. > Sounds like a good idea, as long as some practical, insightful people, such as you, have a hand in developing it. Who in the ACBL is developing the "Pre-Alert Disclosure" form or looking for feedback from the players? For years, we have felt that *oral* pre-alerts were unfair. How can you expect the average opponent to absorb half a dozen disparate aspects of upside-down, strange-sounding bidding just by hearing a 30-second oral blurb? On the other hand, the carefully crafted, laminated notices which we created for opponents were, variously: 1) thrown on the floor or messed with by more than a handful of opponents, or 2) derided by club or tournament directors as "Not what you are supposed to be doing!" Of course, when we pre- alerted, we spoke and pointed to the 'bullet points' on our notices and then left this summary list available to the opponents. Let me share with you that an old-time LA-area director, Bob Dischner, fondly remembered for his Head Director work at LA Bridge Week and other regional events, once confided to me: "In my many years in the ACBL, I've learned that it's a fact of life that many opponents simply will not accept your best attempts at trying to help them." Tom Wood, 120 mi. north of SoCal's French Quarter From tomwood1@earthlink.net Fri Jun 13 20:16:29 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Thomas Wood) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:16:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts -- SAYC Message-ID: <410-220036513191629370@earthlink.net> >> [Ed Reppert] >> I think you are confusing explaining and answering questions. When you >> explain, you state the meaning of the call, which has nothing to do >> with whether it departs from some "standard" meaning. > [Nigel] > This is a matter of opinion. For example, suppose that > *SAYC is the standard system* . . . [SNIP] > Re how universally realistic SAYC is as a recognized standard, we got a real education in this when we played in the SoCal Bridge Pro Tour $$$ events last year. When a friend and I decided to play in the event, we emailed repeated requests to nail down exactly what definition of SAYC had been adopted as the BPT standard. Over the next month and a half, none really surfaced. We wrote this off as startup 'growing pains', not an attitude problem with the event-host organization. Then the day of the event arrived. Before the event, the Director in charge held a question-and- answer session on this very point: "Just what is SAYC?" Questions and comments flew back and forth among the most experienced of the long-time Standard American players, and numerous areas of deadlocked disagreement were discovered. Q&A session ended, the players walked to the tables asking: "What *was* the 'final' decision on item ABC? [Much flip-flopping had occurred.] Which way are we playing it??" And then, to prove my point that the masses don't listen and don't buy into new regulations, my partner in the first round [individual movement] responded 4C to my 1H opener. After I did my best to ignore the UI, and we took our cold bottom, my partner was livid. "What do you mean 'splinters' are *not* allowed?" This, ironically, was the one clearest pronouncement in the half-hour session, a rule that was repeated several times. The offender had sat through the entire half-hour briefing. Oh, well. BTW, I share Ed's view that trying, as a matter of policy, to give explanations as variations from a 'standard' system does not seem very promising in the ACBL and also seems to contravene ACBL-published directives. Tom Wood From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Jun 13 20:24:20 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Jun 13, 2003 09:02:00 AM Message-ID: <200306131924.h5DJOKlN017959@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:02:00 +0200 > > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > Herman asked: > > > >> So why did he not claim? > > > > We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to claim > > in this situation. She > > certainly knew that all the tricks were indubitably hers and yes, she > > would have had no > > misapprehension about whether she was in no trump or a suit contract. I > > think when she > > said "play anything" she had it in her mind "anything but a trump of > > course". However that > > is not what she said...so in future I think I may persuade her that > > claiming is a > > very good idea. > > So, in light of this I decide that it is incontrovertible that her > "play anything" did not include a spade, and per L46B I rule that a > heart has been played. Ergo, four tricks to declarer. > TY: I agree with this ruling, however, I usually use this type of situation as an educational one and inform the declarer of her obligation in those situations to claim or be more specific and let her know that in the future, I would rule that she loses the tricks if she were not more careful. Ignorance of a law should only be used once as a successful defense. :-) -Ted. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 13 20:41:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:41:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 11:43 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: > From a posting to IBLF > > W N E > 2D 2C P > > 2D is some strong artificial bid (alertable) > 2C is insufficient (not a typo) > After East passes, he summons the TD > and explains that he should alert 2D. > > North will say that he would not bid 2C if 2D had been alerted. > This might be true because North would then notice that West > was the dealer, that West bid, that West did not bid 1D! > > Do you ask North anything? away from the table? look at his hand? > Is so make up answers to these questions. > > What do you rule? Can North change 2C under L21B1? Hm. I should have already answered this on IBLF, but having not done so, I'll put my answer here, and wait to see if this list shoots holes i it. :) As you posted on IBLF, L21B1 allows a player to change his call *if the call was made as a result of misinformation*. A failure to alert is certainly misinformation; the question is whether North's call is a *result* of that failure. I don't buy it. North bid 2C not because 2D wasn't alerted, but because he wasn't paying sufficient attention to the game to realize that RHO had bid 2D. The bid itself should have clued North that he can't bid 2C. Put it another way: the purpose of the alert is to make the opponents aware that they may wish to ask questions about the meaning of the call, not to give them one more chance not to commit an infraction. This is an insufficient bid situation, and L27 applies. Now East, also not paying attention according to the original post, passed. *Then* he calls the director, and corrects his own misexplanation (L75D). Now, that law tells us to apply L21 or L40C. L21A says a player has no recourse if he made the insufficient bid as a result of his own misunderstanding. I would include not paying attention in "misunderstanding", so again he can't change his call. Back to L27. The IB is accepted. East, who passed, might not have passed if he had realized North made an IB, but he wasn't paying attention either. Too bad. There's also the question of exactly when he realized he had failed to alert 2D. One assume he realized it after he passed, but if he realized it, *then* passed (for whatever reason) and *then* called the TD, he's violated L75D1. Ruling: pass accepted 2C (L27A), an IB *not* made as the result of MI (L27B). The failure to alert did not cause damage - if there's any damage, the cause was inattention (L75C, L21, L40C). Play on; result will stand. From freshdomains@yahoo.com Fri Jun 13 22:46:24 2003 From: freshdomains@yahoo.com (Personal domains released) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:46:24 -0300 Subject: [blml] New domains released Message-ID: LAWSERCAHNOUJIARBN
Any Domain, Any E-mail Address Now Available

Including FREE domains and e-mails!
YOU CAN HAVE AN ADDRESS LIKE:

www.yourname.usa /myname@yourname.usa
or
www.weather.report / latest@weather.report
or
www.myteam.baseball / news@myteam.baseball
or
www.sexy.girl / mary@sexy.girl
(or any domain/extension/email you want)


GET THERE FIRST - FOR FREE
(from $15 for paid domains)

Search for your domain names at dot WORLDS

Domains subject to availability.

Click here to unsubscribe
From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jun 14 13:11:54 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:11:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] Message-ID: <006301c3326e$288063c0$129868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] Something strange happened. One of my recent emails appears three times on BLML but this one has not yet appeared. If it is my fault, I am sorry. [Ed Reppert] *Maybe* it's a matter of opinion. I'm not so sure. In the ACBL, at least, regulations specifically state that explaining the meaning of a call by naming it, or presumably by saying "standard", is inadequate disclosure; you *must* explain the meaning of the call. [Nigel] In the context of present rules, you are right; my original post, however, suggested *new* rules and explicitly assumed an *internationally agreed system* from which you explain departures. [Ed] Aside: Yesterday, in a competitive auction, I jump raised my partner's 1D overcall to 3D. LHO asked what it meant. My partner said "it's preemptive". LHO said "Preemptive? But he didn't open." [Nigel] I have some sympathy with your opponent. A bid is pre-emptive if it uses up bidding space. A 3NT opening bid is pre-emptive. Any one can work that out from nature of the bid. Perhaps your opponent wanted to know the shape and high card requirements of the bid. [Ed] I can't prove it with data at hand, but my expectation is that the majority of bridge players never play outside their own country, or indeed their own local area, and couldn't care less what the alert regulations are anywhere else. The answer to people ignoring the rules of the game, local or otherwise, is education, not abandoning the rules. [Nigel] In the future, your position may less tenable as more people play bridge on the net. On Bridge-Base, for example, most players are non-local. On the net, automatic disclosure from posted CCs (to opponents only) will probably become the norm, for most calls, with the rest requiring ad-hoc explanation (to opponents only). SAYC is the default system on the net. There seems no need or advantage for alerts on the net -- or in face-face Bridge. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From john@asimere.com Sat Jun 14 15:54:54 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:54:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >>From a posting to IBLF > >W N E >2D 2C P > >2D is some strong artificial bid (alertable) >2C is insufficient (not a typo) >After East passes, he summons the TD > and explains that he should alert 2D. > >North will say that he would not bid 2C if 2D had been alerted. >This might be true because North would then notice that West >was the dealer, that West bid, that West did not bid 1D! > >Do you ask North anything? away from the table? look at his hand? >Is so make up answers to these questions. > >What do you rule? Can North change 2C under L21B1? > >Robin > I would take North away and check whether he intended to bid 2C. If he did I'd leave the call, as IMO he has a duty more not to undercall, than be awoken to the fact that 2D is alertable. After E pass, there's nothing more I can do. I'm prepared to lose this one however :) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From bramble@ukonline.co.uk Sat Jun 14 23:18:34 2003 From: bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Chas Fellows) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:18:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: <28202970-9D35-11D7-BE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > From: Gordon Rainsford > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Please clarify which 'one' (sic) of (a) to (f) 'with > > additional constraints' covers this two-way opener. > > As to 'Stevensonian', the poor lad has to get his > > words, ingenious or ingenuous, passed by the L&E > > Committee (currently chaired by another David). > > ~ G ~ +=+ > (c) covers it if we're talking about the bid showing four+ diamonds or > 4432 shape. If we're also talking about it including 4414 & 4405 > shapes, then (f) covers it. I don't think it's been clarified by the > original poster which of these two situations is the one we're > considering. Peter Newman confirmed "that it is a common enough agreement to play: 5 card majors, 4 card diamond (unless 4432), 3 card club". This implies that with 4333 or 3433 and wrong count for 1N then 1C (not 1D) will be opened. As previously noted, this agreement is covered in the EBU by 12.2.3(c) and the effect is that partner will always have either 4+ Ds or 4-4 majors for a 1D opening *not as a specific agreement but as a by-product of the system*. Having encountered this in Australia our Club member grafted "1D = 4+ Ds or 4-4 majors" (probably without a lot of thought) onto an Acol 4 card major system. He might have thought to use it on a 4414 but not I suspect on a 4405 when 1C would have been preferred. This definition of a 1D opener falls under 12.2.3(f) and becomes: "Natural (4+ Ds) or balanced (only if specifically 4432 or 4423) or natural 1C opening (only if specifically 4414)". Are we all happy that these constraints can be applied under 9.4.2, i.e. that they haven't altered "the meaning of a call so that its basic character is changed"? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 15 19:11:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:11:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] "No Play" In-Reply-To: <002801c331d8$1865fd60$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <000e01c33369$8449af30$6900a8c0@WINXP> mike Dodson > Any combination of A, A+, A-, assigned score (+140), or assigned > matchpoints > are allowed independently for EW and NS. A+/A- will be complementary > based > on the A+ pair's results. A- will be less than 40% only if the A+ pair > scores better than > 60% for the session. Ho ho ho - careful in the bends now! A- is not to be reduced below 40% on the ground that opposing pair is given more than 60% for their A+. Nowhere in the laws do you find any such reduction of A-, and in the EBL commentaries to the laws of 1987 this is said explicitly. Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jun 15 20:14:58 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:14:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> <005601c3309d$139c1260$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002801c331d8$1865fd60$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <003801c33372$736b3540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "mike dodson" > From: "Marvin French" > > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > > I don't know anything about ACBLScore, but it seems like it ought to > > > have an option to award the greater of 60% and session average (or the > > > lesser of 40% and session average). Does it? I find it somewhat hard > > > to believe that there wouldn't be such an option. > > > > > > > > As Mike Dodson wrote, ACBLScore allows for A, A+, and A-. But are the > > A+/A- scores complementary, governed by the A+, as was required by a > > ruling of the ACBLLC, or are they independent? Right now I don't have a > > game file to check this. Mike? > > > > There is another option that looks illegal to me. You can "protect" an > > assigned N-S score to have it automatically change to avg+ if that gives a > > better result than the assigned score. E-W gets the complement, avg- or > > assigned score, whichever is worse. Or, you can do vice-versa, > > "protecting" (that's what they call it) an assigned N-S score to have it > > change to avg- if that gives a worse result, with E-W then getting avg+. > > > > That is, a TD can say, "I'm giving you a score of 620 or average plus, > > whichever is better." The other side then gets -620 or average minus, > > whichever is worse. Apparently the motivation for it is a belief that the > > NOS should get a good score and the OS a bad one. It also saves the TD > > from having to argue about the assigned score. This sort of adjustment > > used to be common, occurring even at NABCs, but I haven't seen an example > > of it for years. I can find no justification for it in the Laws (L12C4?). > > > > > Any combination of A, A+, A-, assigned score (+140), or assigned matchpoints > are allowed independently for EW and NS. A+/A- will be complementary based > on the A+ pair's results. A- will be less than 40% only if the A+ pair > scores better than 60% for the session. This is an ACBLLC decision, not shared by most other ZAs. I'm not sure that the ACBLLC should be making this sort of decision, which ought to be up to the SO or perhaps to the WBFLC. The rationale for it is that a pair is likely to do worse against a 65% pair than against a 60% pair, so give them 35% instead of 40% for avg-. > > The "protected AS" Marv derides is not an option. Perhaps not in your 1954(?) version of ACBLScore. In the latest version (7.11) the option is plainly shown on page 11-12 of the GAME section in the Manual. To enter an adjustment of avg+ or +450 for N/S, whichever is better, you enter P45. If that doesn't work then the Manual is wrong (unlikely). Marvelous to say, ACBLScore is now free to anyone, as I found out when downloading 7.11. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 15 23:17:42 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:17:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <200306131813.LAA06249@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2E9D0B7B-9F7F-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 14:13 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > My feeling is that since the difference between a natural 2D and an > artificial 2D is so huge that we should presume that the condition "it > is probably that he made the call as a result of misinformation" is > automatically satisifed. I'd rule this way without asking North > anything, and irrespective of the facts that the 2C bid was > insufficient and that it's likely that North didn't see West's call > correctly---to me those facts are made irrelevant by the greatness of > the difference in meanings between an unalerted 2D and the actual > agreement. > This makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying that the fact that 2D wasn't alerted *caused* North to make an insufficient bid. I don't buy it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 15 23:34:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:34:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <006301c3326e$288063c0$129868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <890B3EE3-9F81-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 08:11 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Ed] > Aside: Yesterday, in a competitive auction, I jump raised my partner's > 1D overcall to 3D. LHO asked what it meant. My partner said "it's > preemptive". LHO said "Preemptive? But he didn't open." > [Nigel] > I have some sympathy with your opponent. A bid is pre-emptive if it > uses up > bidding space. A 3NT opening bid is pre-emptive. Any one can work that > out > from nature of the bid. Perhaps your opponent wanted to know the shape > and > high card requirements of the bid. > I grant that my partner's explanation of the meaning of 3D with the simple word "preemptive" was inadequate disclosure, and that further information should be forthcoming (it was provided, btw). But you miss the point entirely. You say "any one can work that out". Maybe so, but *this* player apparently thought that the term "preemptive" applies only to opening bids. Maybe he could have worked out that it applies in other situations, and maybe not. In any case, it's apparent that he didn't try at the time, and that he'd at a minimum never thought to do so before that time. > [Ed] > I can't prove it with data at hand, but my expectation is that the > majority of bridge players never play outside their own country, or > indeed their own local area, and couldn't care less what the alert > regulations are anywhere else. The answer to people ignoring the rules > of > the game, local or otherwise, is education, not abandoning the rules. > [Nigel] > In the future, your position may less tenable as more people play > bridge on > the net. On Bridge-Base, for example, most players are non-local. On > the > net, automatic disclosure from posted CCs (to opponents only) will > probably > become the norm, for most calls, with the rest requiring ad-hoc > explanation > (to opponents only). SAYC is the default system on the net. There > seems no > need or advantage for alerts on the net -- or in face-face Bridge. > First, that last statement is comparing apples and oranges. Second, I really don't care what may (or may not) happen in the future. I was addressing the situation *now*. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jun 15 23:40:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:40:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? Message-ID: Robin Barker: >From a posting to IBLF > >W N E >2D 2C P > >2D is some strong artificial bid (alertable) >2C is insufficient (not a typo) >After East passes, he summons the TD >and explains that he should alert 2D. > >North will say that he would not bid 2C if 2D had been alerted. >This might be true because North would then notice that West >was the dealer, that West bid, that West did not bid 1D! > >Do you ask North anything? away from the table? look at his hand? >Is so make up answers to these questions. > >What do you rule? Can North change 2C under L21B1? Richard Hills: Funnily enough, this identical auction has just occurred when I sat North at the Lindpaddock Bridge Club last night. I showed the TD my CC. The CC stated that over a natural 2D, my insufficient 2C showed clubs, but over an alerted 2D, to show clubs I had to bid an insufficient 1S. The TD therefore used Law 21B1 to change my insufficient bid to 1S. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 16 00:00:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:00:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] No excuse Message-ID: In the thread, "Play anything", Ted Ying wrote: [snip] >be more specific and let her know that in the >future, I would rule that she loses the tricks >if she were not more careful. > >Ignorance of a law should only be used once as a >successful defense. :-) Richard Hills rebuts: I disagree, preferring the old dictum, "ignorance of the Law is no excuse". Suppose a player is ignorant of Law 68C when making their first claim. Would Ted Ying, as TD, then resolve doubtful points in favour of a first-time claimer if the opponents contest the claim? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 16 00:59:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:59:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" Message-ID: Alain wrote: [snip] >SMOn : there exists a possibility to waive a penalty ; L81C8 >allows this, and IMOBO it should be extended a little, ie the >TD should be allowed to suggest to the NOS to agree with the >waiving of the penalty. > >A friend of mine did this recently : a player, burdened by >extreme heat in the room, let fall several cards onto the >table. They should all be MPCs, we all know this. > >Declarer, not a specialist of the Laws, asked TD what he >should do, and TD told him that "there are severe penalties : >you may pick the cards to be played among those ; but allowing >for circumstances I'd suggest that you don't make use of this >possibility". [snip] Richard rebuts: I have two objections to Alain's thesis. Firstly, the incident Alain relates is more appropriately ruled as an infraction of Law 80B - the sponsoring organisation has failed to provide reasonable playing quarters, so both sides are NOS, and should be awarded Ave+ in accordance with Law 12A2 and Law 88. Secondly, Law 81C5 states that the TD can "advise the players of their rights and responsibilities". But, the TD advising players *which* right to exercise is extraneous to Law 81C5. Furthermore, if a TD advises the NOS to select an option which is a disadvantageous option for the NOS compared to another option, then the TD is not merely giving extraneous advice, but the TD is giving advice infracting Law 72A4. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 16 01:19:11 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:19:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <890B3EE3-9F81-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003601c3339c$f2618d20$359868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Thank you for your feedback on my last set of suggestions for future law reform. I seem to have expressed myself unclearly and to be of tune with the BLML consensus e.g... [Ed Reppert wrote] "I think you are confusing explaining and answering questions". "*Maybe* it's a matter of opinion. I'm not so sure". "But you miss the point entirely." "The answer to people ignoring the rules of the game, local or otherwise, is education, not abandoning the rules." "First, that last statement is comparing apples and oranges. Second, I really don't care what may (or may not) happen in the future. I was addressing the situation *now*". [Tom Wood wrote] "BTW, I share Ed's view that trying, as a matter of policy, to give explanations as variations from a 'standard' system does not seem very promising in the ACBL and also seems to contravene ACBL-published directives". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From mikedod@gte.net Sun Jun 15 22:22:38 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:22:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> <005601c3309d$139c1260$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002801c331d8$1865fd60$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> <003801c33372$736b3540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c333b3$3a5f42f0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > From: "mike dodson" > > > The "protected AS" Marv derides is not an option. > > Perhaps not in your 1954(?) version of ACBLScore. In the latest version > (7.11) the option is plainly shown on page 11-12 of the GAME section in > the Manual. To enter an adjustment of avg+ or +450 for N/S, whichever is > better, you enter P45. If that doesn't work then the Manual is wrong > (unlikely). > > Marvelous to say, ACBLScore is now free to anyone, as I found out when > downloading 7.11. > > Marv You're right about the "P" option, I missed it on the help screen. I really should read the manual. Did you discover what the ACBL requires to release the authorization code for a new installation? I sidestepped the issue but I wondered. Mike Dodson From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jun 16 07:33:00 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:33:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <200306110114.SAA01526@mailhub.irvine.com> <005601c3309d$139c1260$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002801c331d8$1865fd60$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> <003801c33372$736b3540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000201c333b3$3a5f42f0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <000601c333d1$265fcd60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "mike dodson" > From: "Marvin French" > > Marvelous to say, ACBLScore is now free to anyone, as I found out when > > downloading 7.11. > > > > Did you discover what the ACBL requires to release the authorization code > for > a new installation? I sidestepped the issue but I wondered. I was wrong in saying that ACBL Score is free to anyone. There is no charge for the program for ACBL sanctioned bridge games, but the program for an individual without club, unit or teaching affiliation with the ACBL costs $150.00. To obtain an authorization code, contact ACBL and have your club number available. Alicia VanGunda. Phone 901-332-5586 x258 I know a lot of people who have bootleg copies, as there seems to be no control over the sharing of this fine DOS program. I hope none of them uses it in a for-profit business. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jun 16 08:06:56 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:06:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] "No Play" References: <000e01c33369$8449af30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c333d5$e1197b20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > A- is not to be reduced below 40% on the ground that opposing pair is given > more than 60% for their A+. > > Nowhere in the laws do you find any such reduction of A-, and in the EBL > commentaries to the laws of 1987 this is said explicitly. > The reduction of A- was dictated by the ACBLLC for all of ACBL-land. This was in the form of an interpretation of the Laws. One would think that all such interpretations by lower-level LCs would be subject to approval by the WBFLC, but that mechanism doesn't seem to be in place. The WBFLC issued a different interpretation, which is that A- means the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is lower. Thus, A-/A+ need not be balanced, as they could be, e.g., 35%-60% or 40%-65%. The ACBL says they have to add to 100%. Such issuance of contradictory interpretions really ought to stop. It might help if LCs would not mess around with interpretations that could be left to ZA or SO discretion. There is a line separating "interpretation" from "implementation," which LCs would do well not to cross. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From sodonnell@msn.com Fri Jun 13 21:57:38 2003 From: sodonnell@msn.com (Sue O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:57:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0767_01C331B3.C02D3100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As many times as I have read discussions about these laws, I'm still = confused. The following situation came up at an ACBL club game = yesterday. NS are excellent players who have played together at least once a week = for years. South, not vul vs. vul, was the dealer and held=20 Axx AQxxx xxx Ax The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed long = hesitation) P - P; Dbl- All Pass. 2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for NS. EW protested, the director = ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to a = committee. The committee said that Pass was not a logical alternative = for S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had at = least 6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew his = partner had no more than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a ruff. The = Committee said further that since the hesitation didn't suggest doubling = over bidding, the call should be allowed. =20 Two aspects of this confuse me. First, the hesitation certainly = suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so how much = worse would S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical alternative. = Second, given that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that = S's Double caters to any action N was considering, so maybe should be = deemed to be suggested by the hesitation. I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide. Sue O'Donnell ------=_NextPart_000_0767_01C331B3.C02D3100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As many times as I have read discussions about these laws, I'm = still=20 confused.  The following situation came up at an ACBL club game=20 yesterday.
 
NS are excellent players who have played together at least once a = week for=20 years.  South, not vul vs. vul, was the dealer and held
 
Axx
AQxxx
xxx
Ax
 
The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed long = hesitation) P=20 - P; Dbl- All Pass.
 
2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for  NS.  EW protested, = the=20 director ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to a=20 committee.  The committee said that Pass was not a logical = alternative for=20 S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had = at least 6=20 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew his partner had no = more=20 than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a ruff.  The Committee said = further=20 that since the hesitation didn't suggest doubling over bidding, the call = should=20 be allowed. 
 
Two aspects of this confuse me.  First, the hesitation = certainly=20 suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so how much = worse=20 would S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical alternative.  = Second,=20 given that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that S's = Double caters=20 to any action N was considering, so maybe should be deemed to be = suggested by=20 the hesitation.
 
I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide.
 
Sue O'Donnell
------=_NextPart_000_0767_01C331B3.C02D3100-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 16 10:01:46 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:01:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <285499D8-9FD9-11D7-8BEC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Saturday, June 14, 2003, at 11:18 PM, Chas Fellows wrote: >> > > Peter Newman confirmed "that it is a common enough agreement to play: > 5 card > majors, 4 card diamond (unless 4432), 3 card club". This implies > that with > 4333 or 3433 and wrong count for 1N then 1C (not 1D) will be opened. > As > previously noted, this agreement is covered in the EBU by 12.2.3(c) > and the > effect is that partner will always have either 4+ Ds or 4-4 majors for > a 1D > opening *not as a specific agreement but as a by-product of the > system*. > > Having encountered this in Australia our Club member grafted "1D = 4+ > Ds or > 4-4 majors" (probably without a lot of thought) onto an Acol 4 card > major > system. He might have thought to use it on a 4414 but not I suspect > on a > 4405 when 1C would have been preferred. > > This definition of a 1D opener falls under 12.2.3(f) and becomes: > "Natural (4+ Ds) or balanced (only if specifically 4432 or 4423) or > natural > 1C opening (only if specifically 4414)". > > Are we all happy that these constraints can be applied under 9.4.2, > i.e. > that they haven't altered "the meaning of a call so that its basic > character > is changed"? Happy enough to have used it myself for several years when playing Precision with one particular partner. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 16 13:17:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:17:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030616141526.01d62390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:54 13/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>We have many players who do not realise that it is unlawful not to > >>claim in this situation. > > >Umm, perhaps that's because it's not unlawful not to claim in this > >situation. What Law makes it unlawful? (And don't say L74B4 because > >that only makes it unlawful if you have a specific evil purpose in > >mind.) > > > > -- Adam Richard : Law 90B2. AG : IBTD. L90B2 says that you will be penalized if you play very slowly. If you play quickly on some deal, and your opponents do not (which is the main reason for a claim), *you* are not liable to penalties. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 16 13:29:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:29:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] "sportmanship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030616142058.01d60310@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:59 16/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Alain wrote: > >[snip] > > >SMOn : there exists a possibility to waive a penalty ; L81C8 > >allows this, and IMOBO it should be extended a little, ie the > >TD should be allowed to suggest to the NOS to agree with the > >waiving of the penalty. > > > >A friend of mine did this recently : a player, burdened by > >extreme heat in the room, let fall several cards onto the > >table. They should all be MPCs, we all know this. > > > >Declarer, not a specialist of the Laws, asked TD what he > >should do, and TD told him that "there are severe penalties : > >you may pick the cards to be played among those ; but allowing > >for circumstances I'd suggest that you don't make use of this > >possibility". > >[snip] > >Richard rebuts: > >I have two objections to Alain's thesis. Firstly, the incident >Alain relates is more appropriately ruled as an infraction of >Law 80B - the sponsoring organisation has failed to provide >reasonable playing quarters, so both sides are NOS, and should >be awarded Ave+ in accordance with Law 12A2 and Law 88. AG : no quarrels with this. However, the only infraction is to be retained= =20 against all who reject CO2 (ie, you, me and the others), and made possible= =20 what was not 10 years ago, that is, 90+ =B0F (it looks hotter when counted= in=20 F, as Mollo has put it) in early May at 19:30, in Belgium. >Secondly, Law 81C5 states that the TD can "advise the players >of their rights and responsibilities". But, the TD advising >players *which* right to exercise is extraneous to Law 81C5. AG : I know this. I'm only suggesting that the Law could be changed. >Furthermore, if a TD advises the NOS to select an option which >is a disadvantageous option for the NOS compared to another >option, then the TD is not merely giving extraneous advice, but >the TD is giving advice infracting Law 72A4. AG : I thought this applied to choices given when the Law lets you do it=20 (eg after an insufficient bid). Here, the decision is not choosing between two options, it is between=20 applying an option and declining to do it, not from sportmanship, but=20 rather with fairness in view. The player who made an insufficient bid has=20 to pay for his error, and the NOS should make him pay for it. In this case,= =20 the player didn't commit any error, except perhaps paying his entry fee in= =20 advance without looking at Ceefax page 410. Best regards, Alain. >Best wishes > >Richard > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 16 13:47:44 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:47:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20030610195701.00f475f8@ip-worldcom.ch> References: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> At 01:57 PM 6/10/03, Yvan wrote: >At 17:39 10/06/2003 +0100, Nigel wrote: > > >I agree with Eitan but go further. A few WBF rules modelled on the > brilliant > >ACBL innovation should replace the current dreadful "Alert" bloat, > such as: > > > >(1) Before the first board, you must draw attention to system > aspects that > >differ from SAYC. > >SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have >no idea what SAYC means. Here in North American, the number may be less than 90%, but is still quite large, probably a majority (including yours truly). In fact, SAYC is such an incoherent system that I'm not sure *anyone* (except perhaps its authors) could actually set it forth completely. Just because we know the abbreviation doesn't mean we know the system. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From john@asimere.com Mon Jun 16 14:32:46 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:32:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L21B1 apply when there has been an insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <200306131819.LAA06312@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046578@hotel.npl.co.uk> <200306131819.LAA06312@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: In article <200306131819.LAA06312@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >I've already responded to the situation Robin posted, but it just >occurred to me that it's a bit more interesting question if East >doesn't pass so that the insufficient bid is not condoned. Suppose >the auction goes like this: West opens 2D, not alerted. North bids >2C. East now calls the Director and says that there has been both a >failure to alert and an insufficient bid. > >What happens? Does the misinformation take precedence over the >insufficient bid? Do insufficient bid penalties still apply at all? >If North does change his call, could his partner be barred? Does the >TD have to judge whether the change of call is covered by L21B1 or >L27B2? Can North change his call to a double? 25B2 could now be used, but that's the only difference. > > -- Adam > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 16 15:25:17 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:25:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a701c33413$1cc06660$329c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Several BLMLers have said that SAYC is ill-defined, practically unknown, and rarely played. In my experience it is widely known by the new generation of Bridge-players on the internet; and it is played by Americans and non-Americans alike; although hazy in parts, it is better defined and understood than the "Acol", "2/1", and "Precision" that I have tried to play with strange web-partners. BLMLers seem unswayed by arguments for a common international default system. Were the WBFLC to find the arguments sufficiently persuasive, then SAYC would be prime candidate. Deficiencies in its definition could be remedied, quickly and easily. [Yvanne Calam] SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have no idea what SAYC means. [Eric Landau] Here in North American, the number may be less than 90%, but is still quite large, probably a majority (including yours truly). In fact, SAYC is such an incoherent system that I'm not sure *anyone* (except perhaps its authors) could actually set it forth completely. Just because we know the abbreviation doesn't mean we know the system. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From bbickford@charter.net Mon Jun 16 15:28:08 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:28:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <049f01c33413$8219fcb0$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] > Here in North American, the number may be less than 90%, but is still > quite large, probably a majority (including yours truly). In fact, > SAYC is such an incoherent system that I'm not sure *anyone* (except > perhaps its authors) could actually set it forth completely. Just > because we know the abbreviation doesn't mean we know the system. > Eric, I doubt you could get agreement even from the authors. To my knoeledge, there is a version with one set of authors and another version with different authors used by OKBridge. Cheers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.Bill Bickford > > 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 ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Jun 16 15:35:46 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SAYC (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Guthrie" at Jun 16, 2003 03:25:17 PM Message-ID: <200306161435.h5GEZmMS023989@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> TY: Actually, contrary to what Eric says, in this area, SAYC is quite familiar to the average club level player. Eric doesn't play at the club much and only really with the tournament level flight A players. I still direct at least one club level game a week in this area and am a little more familiar with the players that he is. Most of the clubs in this area still keep a pile of the yellow convention cards that give SAYC part of its name and many pick-up partnerships use those as a standard, just crossing out and replacing the parts they don't want to play (a common one is to change weak 2's to Flanner or to add on some form of Bergen instead of limit raises). In my club, I will have one or two partnerships per week in my regularly Wednesday night session and especially if one of the players is a fill-in whom I've called to play, that partnership will end up playing some variation of SAYC. I've seen similar situations when I've played at other clubs. That and Internet bridge seems to have given SAYC a respectable following as a recognized system, just not by tournament insiders. It's no one's favorite system, but it's familiar to many if not most. -Ted. > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:25:17 +0100 > > Several BLMLers have said that SAYC is ill-defined, practically unknown, and > rarely played. In my experience it is widely known by the new generation of > Bridge-players on the internet; and it is played by Americans and > non-Americans alike; although hazy in parts, it is better defined and > understood than the "Acol", "2/1", and "Precision" that I have tried to play > with strange web-partners. > > BLMLers seem unswayed by arguments for a common international default > system. Were the WBFLC to find the arguments sufficiently persuasive, then > SAYC would be prime candidate. Deficiencies in its definition could be > remedied, quickly and easily. > > [Yvanne Calam] > SAYC ? In my country, 90% of the players taking part in WBF events have no > idea what SAYC means. > [Eric Landau] > Here in North American, the number may be less than 90%, but is still > quite large, probably a majority (including yours truly). In fact, > SAYC is such an incoherent system that I'm not sure *anyone* (except > perhaps its authors) could actually set it forth completely. Just > because we know the abbreviation doesn't mean we know the system. > From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 16 15:53:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: SAYC (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) In-Reply-To: <200306161435.h5GEZmMS023989@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Familiarity is one thing but alerting/explaining deviations from standard are quite another. For SAYC (or any other system) to be a standard it would need to be well enough known that questions like "What are the minimum and maximum hands for the sequence 1S-3S?" would receive a near uniform response. I'm afraid my experience of playing "SAYC" on the internet leads me to believe that this is way off the current situation. Players, myself included, just don't know the systems they agree to play. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 16 16:19:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:19:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] A dinkum diamond? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c330d8$dce85a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030616171532.01d6aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:55 13/06/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Sven asked: > > > Why would you open in 1D rather than in 1C with a 4423 or 4414 > > distribution? > >Because I play: 1N balancedish 11/12, 1C nat or balancedish 13/14 or >17/18, 1D nat or balancedish 15/16 or 19/20. I might wish to describe a >15 count like AQxx,KQxx,A,xxxx as balancedish rather than open a "natural" >club. AG : and of course you would open a 4423 15-count 1D. This makes your system a "minor system", not a HUM. In Belgium, it would be allowed at a moderate level (I know of two pairs in Brussels who play about the same - only NV, the cowards !). Please note that this was not the problem in this thread. The question was : may one open 1D on 4423 and 4414, but *not* do it on other balanced and long-club hands ? To which I answer Yes, but some don't. But everybody would accept your C/D system. Best regards, Alain. From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Jun 16 16:54:59 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:54:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: <008a01c3341f$a9defe60$e28d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Sue O'Donnell wrote: >The following situation came up at an ACBL club game >yesterday. NS are excellent players who have played together >at least once a week for years. South, not vul vs. vul, was the >dealer and held > >Axx >AQxxx >xxx >Ax > >The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed >long hesitation) P - P; Dbl- All Pass. > >2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for NS. EW protested, >the director ruled that the table result should stand, and >EW appealed to a committee. The committee said that >Pass was not a logical alternative for S, not Vul vs Vul, >since S held three Aces, knew his partner had at least >6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew >his partner had no more than 2 Hearts so could probably >enjoy a ruff. The Committee said further that since the >hesitation didn't suggest doubling over bidding, the call >should be allowed. >Two aspects of this confuse me. First, the hesitation certainly >suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, >so how much worse would S's hand have to be to make Pass >a logical alternative. Second, given that N was thinking about >doing something, it seems that S's Double caters to any action >N was considering, so maybe should be deemed to be >suggested by the hesitation. > >I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide. I think that Pass is clearly a Logical Alternative for any level of player, even for "excellent players". Also I think that Double is heavily indicated over Pass by the hesitation, so that an adjustment to 100 to N/S is clearly indicated. I wonder if the Director and AC's decisions were along the lines of "it's only a club game, so we'll take it easy on the offenders". Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 16 17:34:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:34:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030616183207.01d64c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:57 13/06/2003 -0700, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > >As many times as I have read discussions about these laws, I'm still >confused. The following situation came up at an ACBL club game yesterday. > >NS are excellent players who have played together at least once a week for >years. South, not vul vs. vul, was the dealer and held > >Axx >AQxxx >xxx >Ax > >The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed long hesitation) >P - P; Dbl- All Pass. > >2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for NS. EW protested, the director >ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to a >committee. The committee said that Pass was not a logical alternative for >S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had at least >6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew his partner had no >more than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a ruff. The Committee said >further that since the hesitation didn't suggest doubling over bidding, >the call should be allowed. > >Two aspects of this confuse me. First, the hesitation certainly suggests >that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so how much worse would >S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical alternative. Second, given >that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that S's Double caters >to any action N was considering, so maybe should be deemed to be suggested >by the hesitation. AG : passing is surely a La in this case. There are cases where doing *something* is indicated by your hand only, and a double is not suggested over other things, but this is not one of those. (and it will seldom be if you passed a 1Nt response). Adjust to 100 (for both sides). Best regards, alain. From rwilley@mit.edu Mon Jun 16 17:59:08 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:59:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> References: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <1055782748.3eedf75c5ba67@webmail.mit.edu> Alert regulations have always generated a great deal of debate on the BLM= L. In=20 particular, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement regarding the be= st way=20 to design an alert structure.=20 One type of alert system defines standard bidding system and then flags a= ny=20 departure from the expected meaning. Nigel=92s suggestion that players s= hould=20 alert any departure from SAYC is a classic example of this type of propos= al. =20 Other alert systems define specific bids that must be alerted, but make n= o=20 effort to anchor these definitions in a comprehensive system. I will readily admit that I am a strong advocate of the former. I=92m no= t sure=20 whether SAYC is necessarily the best choice of systems, however, I think = that=20 something similar [French standard, perhaps???] would be an appropriate c= hoice. I see two significant advantages in defining a standardized system and th= en=20 basing alerts on deviations: First, I think that this type of formulatio= n=20 allows for clear synergies between the alert structure and education prog= rams;=20 ideally, education programs will be designed to =93teach=94 the standardi= zed=20 system. Novice sections and =93no-fear=94 events can be limited to only = allow the=20 standardized systems. I also believe that basing alerts on a standardized system will make it e= asier=20 for players to memorize the alert structure. Most people are much better= at=20 learning logical structures rather than =93isolated=94 facts. The type o= f alert=20 structure that I advocate does require that everyone learn =93standard=94= in order=20 to alert, however, any alert system requires basic work and memorization. Regardless, I don=92t want this to be the main focus of this email. I ha= ve=20 always been fascinated that this discussion generates so much controversy= [and=20 even emotion]. One point that struck me relatively recently is that play= ers=20 who play significant amounts of online bridge often seem to prefer one ty= pe of=20 alert system. Players who predominantly play in clubs often prefer anoth= er. I=20 am wondering whether there is something specific to the nature of online = bridge=20 that makes one type of alert structure more attractive than another? Doe= s=20 anyone have any thoughts on this topic? From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Jun 16 18:26:16 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (D Raija) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:26:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> <1055782748.3eedf75c5ba67@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: SNIP One point that struck me relatively recently is that players who play significant amounts of online bridge often seem to prefer one type of alert system. Players who predominantly play in clubs often prefer another. I am wondering whether there is something specific to the nature of online bridge that makes one type of alert structure more attractive than another? Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic? K: I am a freqent online player. Online, it makes a LOT of sense to alert only deviations from SAYC. SAYC is a simple system and includes all the most common basic conventions. Online is an international environment and trying to enforce any specific ACBL/EBU or whatever alert regulations will be confusing, if not impossible. are allowed (thank goodness for that!) Not everyone is willing to learn a foreign country's specific alert rules. Best regards Kaima From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 16 18:59:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:59:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] "No Play" In-Reply-To: <002501c333d5$e1197b20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <53B18110-A024-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 03:06 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Such issuance of contradictory interpretions really ought to stop. It > might help if LCs would not mess around with interpretations that > could be > left to ZA or SO discretion. There is a line separating > "interpretation" > from "implementation," which LCs would do well not to cross. Someone on the ACBLLC once asserted that "the ACBLLC is the final arbiter of the Laws in the ACBL". I once thought that he meant that the ACBLLC is superior to the WBFLC, but after thinking about it, I concluded he meant that it's the LC, not the BOD, who has the final say *in the ACBL*, leaving the WBFLC as a superior body. Now I'm not so sure again. Can you expand a bit further on the interpretation vs. implementation point, and say who in the ACBL ought to be doing interpretations, if it's not the LC? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 16 19:13:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:13:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <435D948F-A026-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 08:47 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > Here in North American, the number may be less than 90%, but is still > quite large, probably a majority (including yours truly). In fact, > SAYC is such an incoherent system that I'm not sure *anyone* (except > perhaps its authors) could actually set it forth completely. Just > because we know the abbreviation doesn't mean we know the system. SAYC is not a system, it's a hodgepodge of conventions and treatments. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 16 19:17:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:17:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <00a701c33413$1cc06660$329c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > BLMLers seem unswayed by arguments for a common international default > system. Perhaps there's a good reason for that. :) > Were the WBFLC to find the arguments sufficiently persuasive, then > SAYC would be prime candidate. Deficiencies in its definition could be > remedied, quickly and easily. Hm. SAYC might be the prime candidate, but only because so many online players claim to play it. It's not a good candidate, IMHO, otherwise. As for remedying its deficiencies, I'm not so sure "quickly and easily" is accurate, and in any case, the result would bear little resemblance to the current beast. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 16 19:36:59 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:36:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <1055782748.3eedf75c5ba67@webmail.mit.edu> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616142347.01f91060@pop.starpower.net> At 12:59 PM 6/16/03, rwilley wrote: >Regardless, I don't want this to be the main focus of this email. I have >always been fascinated that this discussion generates so much >controversy [and >even emotion]. One point that struck me relatively recently is that >players >who play significant amounts of online bridge often seem to prefer one >type of >alert system. Players who predominantly play in clubs often prefer >another. I >am wondering whether there is something specific to the nature of >online bridge >that makes one type of alert structure more attractive than >another? Does >anyone have any thoughts on this topic? On-line play allows a player to exchange information with his opponents without his partner "overhearing" the exchange, or even being aware that it has occurred, which cannot happen playing at a "real" table. That means that an alert procedure intended for on-line play can be developed based purely on disclosure considerations, without having to worry about its potential for creating UI and the problems that arise as a consequence of its doing so. It's fine in theory (as when we debate alerts here on BLML) to say "we must practice full disclosure to the best of our abilities, and let the UI chips fall where they may", but that doesn't reflect the reality of what goes on in our clubs and tournaments (as the debate in this thread suggests). I do not play on line myself, so I do not know if the insulation of the alert procedure from UI considerations has already affected the alert rules promulgated by the on-line services. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 16 19:48:45 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jun 16, 2003 02:17:18 PM Message-ID: <200306161848.h5GImjJ22824@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > BLMLers seem unswayed by arguments for a common international default > > system. > > Perhaps there's a good reason for that. :) > > > Were the WBFLC to find the arguments sufficiently persuasive, then > > SAYC would be prime candidate. Deficiencies in its definition could be > > remedied, quickly and easily. > > Hm. SAYC might be the prime candidate, but only because so many online > players claim to play it. It's not a good candidate, IMHO, otherwise. > As for remedying its deficiencies, I'm not so sure "quickly and easily" > is accurate, and in any case, the result would bear little resemblance > to the current beast. > BWS is probably the closest base for a consensus expert system. I think you'd need the detail that BWS has for any official base. It is of course terribly North American centric. From rwilley@mit.edu Mon Jun 16 20:13:11 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:13:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616142347.01f91060@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> <007101c32f6e$ee835bc0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c227c5$9c8b2340$57ae1942@austin.rr.com> <5.1.1.6.1.20030610161737.00a123e0@mail.netvision.net.il> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616084327.01f7ad90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030616142347.01f91060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <1055790791.3eee16c7526b9@webmail.mit.edu> Eric is dead on when he identifies that the online playing environment improves the potential for one-way communication. While this will certainly have a significant impact on some aspects of the laws, I'm not sure whether this is sufficient to explain the different perspectives about standardized systems. If I had to make a guess, I would expect that the root cause is related to one of two potential factors. The first factor the "friction" of establishing or breaking a partnership. If I am playing in a face to face game, I need to go to a lot of time and effort to make it to a game. I need to make an appointment with a partner, travel to the game, pay and enterence fee, ... Furthermore, I know going in that I will be playing a minimum of "X" boards with a given partner. In contrast, playing online all I need to do to join a game is to click on a table and start playing. The online environment tends to have many more ephemeral partnerships where people play 5 boards together and never again shall the twain meet. Associated with this, there is much more need to define standardized appraches towards bidding. I think that the second significant factor is related to the existence of different virtual communities within a given zonal authority. For example, the ACBL covers all of North America. At one point in time, there were very significant differences between bidding approaches within the US. Decreases in the cost of travel and improvements in communications are blurring some of these differences, however, they are still noticable. My belief is that the more homogenous the environment, the more attractive it is to base an alert structure on a defined standard. I'm still trying to wrap my head arround this issue. On the one hand, Internet Bridge includes players from all over the world, with radically different ideas about what constitutes "standard". At the other extreme, communication costs are much lower ... From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 16 19:30:56 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:30:56 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] In-Reply-To: <410-220036412124252579@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Thomas Wood wrote: > I was wondering whether any other ACBL players, other than I, > would report an apparently very low level of player awareness > and/or observance of the ACBL delayed-alert regs. Then again, > Ed, since you and I are in tiny secondary play areas (Rochester > NY and Los Angeles CA), that may explain why we have such a > skewed view and are not seeing the big picture of delayed-alert > success. Perhaps the word will eventually reach *our* fellow > players and directors. Well.. I just returned from the Penticton BC regional, the biggest of the tournaments in the northwest US and western Canada. My partner and I had to make delayed alerts an average of twice per session (we play Sweep Cue-bids, and a lot of second-round splinter-type bids, so virtually every slam-try auction involves a delayed alert at my table.) In almost every case we got puzzled reactions. The most common was for our opponents to think one of us had failed to alert. Second-most-common was "whatever, pick your bidding cards up and let me lead." None of my opponents made a delayed alert all week. However, I can't recall any delayed-alert-able bids either. Just the usual round of "is that 0314 or 1430?" questions. GRB From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 16 23:14:03 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:14:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] Message-ID: <038301c33454$9c487f80$329c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [rwilley] I see two significant advantages in defining a standardized system and then basing alerts on deviations: First, I think that this type of formulation allows for clear synergies between the alert structure and education programs; ideally, education programs will be designed to “teach” the standardized system. Novice sections and “no-fear” events can be limited to only allow the standardized systems. I also believe that basing alerts on a standardized system will make it easier for players to memorize the alert structure. Most people are much better at learning logical structures rather than “isolated” facts. The type of alert structure that I advocate does require that everyone learn “standard” in order to alert, however, any alert system requires basic work and memorization. [Nigel] Thank you. I hoped there would be others with the similar views. Other reasons for defining a standard system are... (3) Simple preliminaries to Individual competitions. (4) Instant rapport with substitutes/pick-up partners. (5) WBF Planet-wide alert/explanation rules that don't handicap foreigners. (6) Wolfe type "convention disruption rules" can be enforced for other conventions while exempting the standard system so that learners and amateurs do not suffer (I'm not advocating such rules -- I'm just pointing out that they would be easier to implement). [rwilley] I am wondering whether there is something specific to the nature of online bridge that makes one type of alert structure more attractive than another? Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic? [nigel] Provided you employ a sufficiently comprehensive convention card (your own or the default), on-line Bridge software can automatically explain almost all your calls *and plays*. The software can prompt you to explain other calls that it cannot recognise in the context of the auction. It can display all such explanations to your opponents but not to your partner. Hence, in principle, alerts aren't needed. IMO, alerts are superfluous in the face-to-face game, too; but I'll spare you the tedium of a repeat of my arguments :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From tomwood1@earthlink.net Tue Jun 17 02:25:00 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Tom Wood) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:25:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] Message-ID: <410-2200362171250837@earthlink.net> Gordon, Thx for the feedback on 'delayed alerts' at the Penticton BC Regional. It sounds as if your experience there closely matches my own in Los Angeles. I guess we'll just have to get Kevin P., whose TX area is blessed with 'high D-A compliance', to lend us some of his players for a year or so. How else can we get a sufficient number of us to be seen as exemplars of delayed-alert observance, so that the masses respond more knowingly than "Huh??" whenever we make a delayed alert? BTW, I noticed that you describe your own use of 'sweep cue bids' as an occasion for your making a D-A, something which I had mentioned but had not seen commented on on this list. I am about to start playing sweep denial cuebids with an old friend. His choice of Relay Precision 1C for us will give us lots of above-3N bids that are post-alertable. Can't wait for the reactions at the table . . . Tom Tom Wood, Los Angeles area > [Original Message] > From: Gordon Bower > Cc: blml > Date: 6/16/2003 4:05:12 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [ACBL] > > > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Thomas Wood wrote: > > > I was wondering whether any other ACBL players, other than I, > > would report an apparently very low level of player awareness > > and/or observance of the ACBL delayed-alert regs. Then again, > > Ed, since you and I are in tiny secondary play areas (Rochester > > NY and Los Angeles CA), that may explain why we have such a > > skewed view and are not seeing the big picture of delayed-alert > > success. Perhaps the word will eventually reach *our* fellow > > players and directors. > > Well.. I just returned from the Penticton BC regional, the biggest of the > tournaments in the northwest US and western Canada. My partner and I had > to make delayed alerts an average of twice per session (we play Sweep > Cue-bids, and a lot of second-round splinter-type bids, so virtually every > slam-try auction involves a delayed alert at my table.) In almost every > case we got puzzled reactions. The most common was for our opponents to > think one of us had failed to alert. Second-most-common was "whatever, > pick your bidding cards up and let me lead." > > None of my opponents made a delayed alert all week. However, I can't > recall any delayed-alert-able bids either. Just the usual round of "is > that 0314 or 1430?" questions. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 17 02:53:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:53:48 +1000 Subject: SAYC (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) Message-ID: Ted Ying wrote: [snip] >Most of the clubs in this area still keep a pile of the >yellow convention cards that give SAYC part of its name and >many pick-up partnerships use those as a standard, just >crossing out and replacing the parts they don't want to play >(a common one is to change weak 2's to Flannery or to add on >some form of Bergen instead of limit raises). In my club, I >will have one or two partnerships per week in my regularly >Wednesday night session and especially if one of the players >is a fill-in whom I've called to play, that partnership will >end up playing some variation of SAYC. [snip] Richard replies: I agree with Ted Ying and Nigel Guthrie that "some variation of SAYC" is a popular method online and in ACBL clubs. However, Nigel's idea of SAYC becoming an international standard - and consequently the basis for international alert rules - founders on the rock of "variation". Regular partnerships invariably make minor modifications even to the most rigid of systems. Therefore, "SAYC" or "Acol" are not particular systems, but rather a complex of different systems, which merely have a similar style and approach. Even the highly codified Symmetric Relay system, which I taught to a circle of Canberra friends a decade ago, has now evolved into two different Canberra species so distinct that I do not understand my team-mates' species now known as Transfer Symmetric Relay. Best wishes Richard From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-ID: <004501c33489$eb522920$cf2828c4@john> How about the WBF standard card - as I remember Kokish had a fairly comprehensive set of agreements on that card. John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] | Ed Reppert writes: | > | > | > On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: | > | > > BLMLers seem unswayed by arguments for a common international default | > > system. | > | > Perhaps there's a good reason for that. :) | > | > > Were the WBFLC to find the arguments sufficiently persuasive, then | > > SAYC would be prime candidate. Deficiencies in its definition could be | > > remedied, quickly and easily. | > | > Hm. SAYC might be the prime candidate, but only because so many online | > players claim to play it. It's not a good candidate, IMHO, otherwise. | > As for remedying its deficiencies, I'm not so sure "quickly and easily" | > is accurate, and in any case, the result would bear little resemblance | > to the current beast. | > | BWS is probably the closest base for a consensus expert system. I think | you'd need the detail that BWS has for any official base. | | It is of course terribly North American centric. | | | _______________________________________________ | blml mailing list | blml@rtflb.org | http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jun 16 11:23:41 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:23:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: Message-ID: <001101c333f1$5be44f90$58e41e3e@mikeamos> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C333F9.BD593800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sue Mike Amos here UK director (not too bad) I have to say I dont like your ruling nor your appeal decision Always in UI situations I want to hear the player tell me why he called = as he did -- so i have to ask North -- But double is in my view not = likely to be allowed in this auction =20 Yes North has a fair hand - 3 aces 14 points Yes South has responded 1NT = but thats no reason to think we can make a contract at the three level = our hands are pretty likely to misfit =20 I agree with your implied analysis that Double is suggested -- South = thinks of bidding -- Double caters for all situations - Double may be a = fair shot at MP Pairs but Pass is a clear logical alternative - I = think regular partnerships especially good players get away with this = sort of thing far too often Now everyone will disagrre with me :)) mike ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sue O'Donnell=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again As many times as I have read discussions about these laws, I'm still = confused. The following situation came up at an ACBL club game = yesterday. NS are excellent players who have played together at least once a week = for years. South, not vul vs. vul, was the dealer and held=20 Axx AQxxx xxx Ax The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed long = hesitation) P - P; Dbl- All Pass. 2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for NS. EW protested, the director = ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to a = committee. The committee said that Pass was not a logical alternative = for S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had at = least 6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew his = partner had no more than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a ruff. The = Committee said further that since the hesitation didn't suggest doubling = over bidding, the call should be allowed. =20 Two aspects of this confuse me. First, the hesitation certainly = suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so how much = worse would S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical alternative. = Second, given that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that = S's Double caters to any action N was considering, so maybe should be = deemed to be suggested by the hesitation. I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide. Sue O'Donnell ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C333F9.BD593800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sue Mike Amos here  UK director (not too = bad)
 
I have to say I dont like your ruling nor your = appeal=20 decision
 
Always in UI situations I want to hear the = player tell me=20 why he called as he did -- so i have to ask North -- But double is in my = view=20 not likely to be allowed in this auction  
 
Yes North has a fair hand - 3 aces 14 points Yes = South has=20 responded 1NT but thats no reason to think we can make a contract at the = three=20 level our hands are pretty likely to misfit 
 
I agree with your implied analysis that Double = is=20 suggested -- South thinks of bidding -- Double caters for all situations = -=20 Double may be a fair shot at MP Pairs but  Pass is a clear logical=20 alternative  - I think regular partnerships especially good players = get=20 away with this sort of thing far too often
 
Now everyone will disagrre with me = :))
 
mike
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sue = O'Donnell=20
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 = 9:57 PM
Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and = 73C=20 Again

As many times as I have read discussions about these laws, I'm = still=20 confused.  The following situation came up at an ACBL club game=20 yesterday.
 
NS are excellent players who have played together at least once a = week=20 for years.  South, not vul vs. vul, was the dealer and held =
 
Axx
AQxxx
xxx
Ax
 
The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed long = hesitation)=20 P - P; Dbl- All Pass.
 
2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for  NS.  EW = protested, the=20 director ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to = a=20 committee.  The committee said that Pass was not a logical = alternative=20 for S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had=20 at least 6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew = his=20 partner had no more than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a = ruff.  The=20 Committee said further that since the hesitation didn't suggest = doubling over=20 bidding, the call should be allowed. 
 
Two aspects of this confuse me.  First, the hesitation=20 certainly suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so = how=20 much worse would S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical = alternative. =20 Second, given that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that = S's=20 Double caters to any action N was considering, so maybe should be = deemed to be=20 suggested by the hesitation.
 
I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide.
 
Sue O'Donnell
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C333F9.BD593800-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 16 21:09:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:09:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <783C290D-A036-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> --Apple-Mail-2-177572370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 16:57 US/Eastern, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > 2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for=A0 NS.=A0 EW protested, the = director=20 > ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to a=20 > committee.=A0 The committee said that Pass was not a logical = alternative=20 > for S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had=20= > at=A0least 6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew his=20= > partner had no more than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a ruff.=A0 = The=20 > Committee said further that since the hesitation didn't suggest=20 > doubling over bidding, the call should be allowed.=A0 > =A0 > Two aspects of this confuse me.=A0 First,=A0the hesitation certainly=20= > suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so how much=20= > worse would S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical alternative.=A0=20= > Second, given that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that=20= > S's Double caters to any action N was considering, so maybe should be=20= > deemed to be suggested by the hesitation. > =A0 > I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide. A couple of comments - some of which may not quite match up with what=20 others have said here. :-) First, Law 73F1 says "if the Director determines that a player chose=20 from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have=20= been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or=20= the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law=A016 )." So in order=20= to adjust the score the TD has to (a) determine that there were in fact=20= logical alternative actions and (b) determine that the player chose one=20= that could have been *demonstrably* suggested by (in this case) the=20 hesitation. I emphasis the word "demonstrably" because it means the TD=20= (or committee) will have to be able to demonstrate *how* the hesitation=20= suggests the action in question. Two posters have asserted that,=20 contrary to what the committee decided, double *is* suggested by the=20 hesitation. I presume they can demonstrate it. :-) (Actually, I believe=20= *I* can demonstrate it - but see below.) Second, your second point above bothers me. "Deem" means "to suppose or=20= believe". That's not good enough, IMO. If you can't *demonstrate* that=20= double was suggested by the hesitation, then you can't adjust the score. Third, on the question whether pass is a logical alternative, I have=20 seen it expressed as a general principle, by such bridge writers (and=20 players!) as Marty Bergen and, if I'm not mistaken, Mike Lawrence, that=20= when your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at=20 matchpoints, anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level=20 undoubled. Granted NS here might have exactly half the points, rather=20 than more than half, I'm not so sure pass is an LA here - and perhaps=20 the committee were thinking along the same lines. OTOH, it *is*=20 borderline, and L73C *does* require a player to "carefully avoid taking=20= any advantage", so on that basis I would think the player (and the TD,=20= and the committee) *should* treat pass as an LA. That leaves us with=20 showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That=20= exercise I leave to the reader. :)= --Apple-Mail-2-177572370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 16:57 US/Eastern, Sue O'Donnell wrote: 2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for=A0 NS.=A0 EW protested, = the director ruled that the table result should stand, and EW appealed to a committee.=A0 The committee said that Pass was not a logical alternative for S, not Vul vs Vul, since S held three Aces, knew his partner had at=A0least 6 HCPs, giving his side at least 20 HCPs, and also knew his partner had no more than 2 Hearts so could probably enjoy a ruff.=A0 The Committee said further that since the hesitation didn't suggest doubling over bidding, the call should be allowed.=A0 =A0 Two aspects of this confuse me.=A0 First,=A0the hesitation certainly suggests that partner was thinking about doing SOMETHING, so how much worse would S's hand have to be to make Pass a logical alternative.=A0 Second, given that N was thinking about doing something, it seems that S's Double caters to any action N was considering, so maybe should be deemed to be suggested by the hesitation. =A0 I'd appreciate any enlightenment the list can provide. A couple of comments - some of which may not quite match up with what others have said here. :-) First, Law 73F1 says "Timesif the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see 0000,7F7F,0000Law=A016 )." So in order to adjust the score the TD has to (a) determine that there were in fact logical alternative actions and (b) determine that the player chose one that could have been *demonstrably* suggested by (in this case) the hesitation. I emphasis the word "demonstrably" because it means the TD (or committee) will have to be able to demonstrate *how* the hesitation suggests the action in question. Two posters have asserted that, contrary to what the committee decided, double *is* suggested by the hesitation. I presume they can demonstrate it. :-) (Actually, I believe *I* can demonstrate it - but see below.) Second, your second point above bothers me. "Deem" means "to suppose or believe". That's not good enough, IMO. If you can't *demonstrate* that double was suggested by the hesitation, then you can't adjust the score. Third, on the question whether pass is a logical alternative, I have seen it expressed as a general principle, by such bridge writers (and players!) as Marty Bergen and, if I'm not mistaken, Mike Lawrence, that when your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at matchpoints, anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level undoubled. Granted NS here might have exactly half the points, rather than more than half, I'm not so sure pass is an LA here - and perhaps the committee were thinking along the same lines. OTOH, it *is* borderline, and L73C *does* require a player to "carefully avoid taking any advantage", so on that basis I would think the player (and the TD, and the committee) *should* treat pass as an LA. That leaves us with showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That exercise I leave to the reader. = :)= --Apple-Mail-2-177572370-- From Martin@SPASE.NL Tue Jun 17 09:47:34 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:47:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A67D@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> >-----Original Message----- >From: mamos [mailto:mamos@blueyonder.co.uk] >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 12:24 >To: Sue O'Donnell; blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > > >Hi Sue Mike Amos here UK director (not too bad) > >I have to say I dont like your ruling nor your appeal decision > >Always in UI situations I want to hear the player tell me why he called as he did -- so i have >to ask North -- But double is in my view not likely to be allowed in this auction > >Yes North has a fair hand - 3 aces 14 points Yes South has responded 1NT but thats no reason to >think we can make a contract at the three level our hands are pretty likely to misfit > >I agree with your implied analysis that Double is suggested -- South thinks of bidding -- Double >caters for all situations - Double may be a fair shot at MP Pairs but Pass is a clear logical >alternative - I think regular partnerships especially good players get away with this sort of >thing far too often > >Now everyone will disagrre with me :)) > >mike I might add that West probably hasn't gone completely mad, vulnerable against not, so that 2S very likely makes. Clearly double is not without risk. So I at least agree with you, and probably a lot more with us :0 -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Jun 17 13:00:23 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:00:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "Standard" and alerting (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) In-Reply-To: <004501c33489$eb522920$cf2828c4@john> from "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" at Jun 16, 2003 10:35:43 PM Message-ID: <200306171200.h5HC0Po1032472@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> One of the problems I have with any system is that it will be a problem for almost everyone. Regional differences within the US alone mean that all of the common systems in use vary a great deal. For example, even "simple 2/1" on the West Coast and on the East Coast can have quite different assumptions about style of more than the first few basic agreements. SA has even worse regional differences. Acol varies quite a bit as well. There are very few systems that don't vary so much that in some place, the local version of it is unrecognizable from whatever is decided to be standard. To me, this means that the standard, especially when you are talking about alert procedures, will be designed to accomodate the frequent tournament players to the club players or infrequent players disadvantage. I've had quite a few calls from club players who had no idea that something was or was not alertable. Especially in the ACBL where the national organization continues to break their worthless vow that they will not change the alert procedure again for X years only to change it again the next time they meet to discuss it. I think we should go back to the simple method that anytime a bid does not show what it claims that it should be alertable. Yes, that means that a lot of common doubles will go back to being alertable and that a lot of common cuebids will go back to being alertable, but it makes it so much simpler than trying to tell people that they have to learn not only their own system but whatever the current value of "standard" is. To my mind, this will make teaching the game easier, this will simplify the situations where you have either less experienced or less frequent players against frequent players. This will help to alleviate the "favoritism" to the experienced players by putting the onus on them to keep the less experienced players informed correctly. I think more frequen tournament players should bear more of the burden for more complex systems than their less frequent player counterparts (and I'm a scientific type who plays billions of gadgets). -Ted. > From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:35:43 -0600 > > How about the WBF standard card - as I remember Kokish had a > fairly comprehensive set of agreements on that card. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson" > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 12:48 PM > > | Ed Reppert writes: > | > > | > On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > | > > | > > BLMLers seem unswayed by arguments for a common international default > | > > system. > | > > | > Perhaps there's a good reason for that. :) > | > > | > > Were the WBFLC to find the arguments sufficiently persuasive, then > | > > SAYC would be prime candidate. Deficiencies in its definition could be > | > > remedied, quickly and easily. > | > > | > Hm. SAYC might be the prime candidate, but only because so many online > | > players claim to play it. It's not a good candidate, IMHO, otherwise. > | > As for remedying its deficiencies, I'm not so sure "quickly and easily" > | > is accurate, and in any case, the result would bear little resemblance > | > to the current beast. > | > > | BWS is probably the closest base for a consensus expert system. I think > | you'd need the detail that BWS has for any official base. > | > | It is of course terribly North American centric. > | From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 17 13:16:22 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:16:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <200306161848.h5GImjJ22824@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> At 02:48 PM 6/16/03, Ron wrote: >BWS is probably the closest base for a consensus expert system. I think >you'd need the detail that BWS has for any official base. > >It is of course terribly North American centric. It is also so complex that The Bridge World has been carrying an extensive series of articles by Eric Kokish trying to explain it in all its grandeur and glory to TBW readers, who are in general far more sophisticated when it comes to bidding systems than the average player. Given that it was constructed by polling a large group of experts, it doesn't even have an identifiable "author", leaving nobody who even claims to grasp all of it. And even Mr. Kokish devotes a good deal of his writing to suggestions for filling in the gaps where even BWS has left much undefined. Next to BWS, the ACBL alert procedure is a paragon of simplicity, elegance and clarity. Any "baseline" system for a universal alert procedure would have to be even more complete than BWS, and hence even more complex. Such a procedure would be unusable even by top-level experts; ordinary players wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 17 15:07:04 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:07:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <008101c334d9$cf396aa0$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Eric Landau] Next to BWS, the ACBL alert procedure is a paragon of simplicity, elegance and clarity. Any "baseline" system for a universal alert procedure would have to be even more complete than BWS, and hence even more complex. [Nigel] To some, the French/American 1D opening bid may seem natural but to many it is conventional. Hence, whether Eric admits it or not, an alert procedure implies a *standard* against which to alert. An alternative is to alert every bid, which is a bit pointless. Current alerting procedures are hard to follow because the norm against which we alert is so nebulous, and varies so much from place to place. Adopting a common system against which to alert would simplify the law and level the field for international play. Hence, the question to address isn't *whether* to have a standard but *what* standard to adopt. Its almost impossible to eliminate haziness about all bids, whatever the standard. I'm afraid that you'd still have to alert *any* agreed meaning for such bids (just as you do under current alert procedures). But, whatever standard adopted, an expert committee can systematically resolve ambiguity for auctions that occur with any frequency. *Which* system to adopt? I'd prefer "Nottingham Club" or "Acol." I like BWS too. The French system is excellent. OK, I do feel SAYC is an obvious choice. But it doesn't matter provided you pick something. A BLMLer once suggested a mythical "Nairobi Diamond." We'd be happy to define and go for that. Incidentally, even if the whole daft "Alert" edifice were scrapped, we'd still want a defined standard from which to explain departures. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jun 17 15:16:47 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:16:47 +1200 Subject: "Standard" and alerting (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) In-Reply-To: <200306171200.h5HC0Po1032472@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <000201c334db$16ce3200$c82d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ted Ying > Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2003 12:00 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: "Standard" and alerting (was Re: [blml] delayed > alerts [now WBF]) > > I think we should go back to the simple method that anytime a > bid does not show what it claims that it should be alertable. > Yes, that means that a lot of common doubles will go back to > being alertable and that a lot of common cuebids will go back > to being alertable, but it makes it so much simpler than trying > to tell people that they have to learn not only their own system > but whatever the current value of "standard" is. > > To my mind, this will make teaching the game easier, this will > simplify the situations where you have either less experienced > or less frequent players against frequent players. This will > help to alleviate the "favoritism" to the experienced players > by putting the onus on them to keep the less experienced players > informed correctly. I think more frequen tournament players > should bear more of the burden for more complex systems than > their less frequent player counterparts (and I'm a scientific > type who plays billions of gadgets). > > -Ted. As a teacher I fully support this notion. With our beginners we do not initially teach for example negative doubles. The local regulations say that penalty doubles need an alert. This means that a new player who has just learned what Dbl means gets penalized for not alerting when the bidding starts: 1C (1S) X if the are dealt KQ109xx in spades or something. I am all for alert artificial bids, and forcing bids that sound non-forcing and non-forcing ones that sound forcing etc... Wayne From mustikka@charter.net Tue Jun 17 17:53:55 2003 From: mustikka@charter.net (D Raija) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:53:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> <008101c334d9$cf396aa0$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002801c334f1$0a6500a0$3a65d642@hewlettnvdluy3> SNIP SNIP Nigel Guthrie wrote: Adopting a common system against which to alert > would simplify the law and level the field for international play. K: I would like to throw in my opinion, from a sort-of-advanced player's angle. Leveling the field for international play (quoting Nigel) should be very low on the ladder of important law or regulation issues to resolve. Part of playing internationally is to familiarize oneself with the playing conditions and regulations at the location one plays at. Some players get lucky, when the event regulations are the same they play by at home. No big deal. I don't mean by this any tourist visiting a club during vacation etc. How about starting to get some semblance of duplicate bridge into the clubs and local tournaments, which are now the breeding ground for beginning players to learn illegal and/or plain "bad" habits from the oldtimers who love to socialize, well, also to play a few hands of bridge. And nobody cares to know, let alone play by, the Laws. Oftentimes that includes the Director. "That's for the experts, don't be such a nitpicker, we are here to have fun." Also, how about making the alert procedure such that your average IQ normal human being can learn and use it without constantly reading the charts and rules (and still sometimes get it wrong) okay, okay, that was my soapbox Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 17 18:45:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:45:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules Message-ID: <013301c334f8$4b5807e0$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> GA Teams You, South, deal South S:KQxxxx H:Ax D:x C:Kxx the auction is 1S(X)4S(X*); P(5H)P...(P) The usual questions.... Assuming that our logical alternatives are P X and 5S (a) What does North's hesitation mean? (i) Jxxx KQJ QJxxx Q (ii) Axxxxx x xxxx Ax (iii) Jxxx xx Qxxx Qxx (b) What does North's hesitation suggest? In the past, most people would answer North's hesitation means either (i) Partner thought of doubling. (ii) Partner thought of bidding 5S. Some would aver that these explanations are equally likely so no particular action is suggested to South. Hence South can make his own arrangements choosing any of his 3 options with impunity. More sophisticated commentators would demur saying that South is likely to know on what kind of hand North habitually hesitates. Anyway, they would claim the hesitation suggested some positive action (Bid or Double) over (Pass) So they would penalise him if he chose bid or double. Nowadays, at higher levels, (iii) is the overwhelmingly most likely hand for North. Partner is trying to stop you bidding or doubling unless it is a lead-pipe cinch. IMO The time has come to penalise the hesitation itself and insist on bids and plays in tempo (e.g not before 8 secs or after 16 secs) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jun 17 18:49:26 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:49:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <783C290D-A036-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002101c334f8$cd345ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" >That leaves us with >showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That >exercise I leave to the reader. :) On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action was suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs non-action, then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jun 17 18:58:00 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:58:00 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: <001a01c334f9$fdbdeed0$58e41e3e@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > >That leaves us with > >showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That > >exercise I leave to the reader. :) > > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action was > suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs non-action, > then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jun 17 20:06:29 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:06:29 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules In-Reply-To: <013301c334f8$4b5807e0$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > GA Teams You, South, deal > South S:KQxxxx H:Ax D:x C:Kxx > the auction is 1S(X)4S(X*); P(5H)P...(P) > The usual questions.... > Assuming that our logical alternatives are > P X and 5S I have a sixth trump, I am not expecting a defensive spade trick... I would be surprised if pass, X, and 5S are all LAs. I am sure 5S is one (5S one round sooner crossed my mind, even). Maybe if partner's 4S bids are horribly wide-ranging..... > (a) What does North's hesitation mean? > (i) Jxxx KQJ QJxxx Q > (ii) Axxxxx x xxxx Ax > (iii) Jxxx xx Qxxx Qxx I suppose this depends on your system a bit... but I don't imagine I'd be playing for long with a partner who thinks (i) should be bid 1S-X-4S. (ii) and (iii) both seem possible, but with (ii) I don't think pass is good, and with (iii) I don't see the need to hesitate before passing. > (b) What does North's hesitation suggest? > > In the past, most people would answer > North's hesitation means either > (i) Partner thought of doubling. > (ii) Partner thought of bidding 5S. If partner has a normal 4S bid he's a lot more likely to be thinking of 5S, if he has something to think about, than of doubling. He has preeempted, hasn't he? (A 5-level double to say "I might have a defensive trick, pass if you have two", like a positive slam double, is an interesting idea, but not one I have seen used.) > Some would aver that these explanations are > equally likely so no particular action is suggested to > South. Hence South can make his own arrangements choosing > any of his 3 options with impunity. > > More sophisticated commentators would demur saying > that South is likely to know on what kind of hand > North habitually hesitates. > Anyway, they would claim the hesitation suggested some > positive action (Bid or Double) over (Pass) > So they would penalise him if he chose bid or double. > > Nowadays, at higher levels, (iii) is the overwhelmingly most > likely hand for North. Partner is trying to stop you bidding > or doubling unless it is a lead-pipe cinch. Stopping me from bidding on, I can see. Why stop me from doubling? We get more tricks against 5H opposite (iii) than we do against a hand with longer spades. The more likely hand (iii) is, the more I likely I am to rule South is unconstrained. If hand (iii) is less likely, I will lean towards saying 5S is suggested. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 17 21:59:40 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:59:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <008101c334d9$cf396aa0$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617164643.01f82ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:07 AM 6/17/03, Nigel wrote: >[Eric Landau] >Next to BWS, the ACBL alert procedure is a paragon of simplicity, >elegance and clarity. Any "baseline" system for a universal alert >procedure >would have to be even more complete than BWS, and hence >even more complex. > >[Nigel] >To some, the French/American 1D opening bid may seem natural but to >many it >is conventional. Hence, whether Eric admits it or not, an alert procedure >implies a *standard* against which to alert. An alternative is to alert >every bid, which is a bit pointless. Current alerting procedures are >hard to >follow because the norm against which we alert is so nebulous, and >varies so >much from place to place. Adopting a common system against which to alert >would simplify the law and level the field for international play. > >Hence, the question to address isn't *whether* to have a standard but >*what* >standard to adopt. Its almost impossible to eliminate haziness about all >bids, whatever the standard. I'm afraid that you'd still have to alert >*any* >agreed meaning for such bids (just as you do under current alert >procedures). But, whatever standard adopted, an expert committee can >systematically resolve ambiguity for auctions that occur with any >frequency. > >*Which* system to adopt? I'd prefer "Nottingham Club" or "Acol." I >like BWS >too. The French system is excellent. OK, I do feel SAYC is an obvious >choice. But it doesn't matter provided you pick something. A BLMLer once >suggested a mythical "Nairobi Diamond." We'd be happy to define and go for >that. > >Incidentally, even if the whole daft "Alert" edifice were scrapped, we'd >still want a defined standard from which to explain departures. As Nigel says, an alert procedure implicitly requires a "standard", but that's a much looser requirement than a "standard system". The ACBL alert procedure -- and, ISTM, just about all of the others out there -- uses a "standard" in which bids are defined far less stringently than would be the case in a "system" (e.g. as "natural", where the corresponding "Standard American" definition might be "at least 6 cards, or 5 cards with a high honor"), or may have multiple possible meanings (presumably where each of them are relatively commonly used). Taken in various combinations, they cover a wide range of possible "systems", which in turn fall into a smaller class of "system names" (some very different systems, for example, all get labeled "Standard American", or "Two Over One Game Forcing"). When the smoke clears, the number of pairs whose system conforms to the "standard" is orders of magnitude larger than the number playing any one particular well-defined "system", with a corresponding orders of magnitude reduction in the number of alerts that are required compared to what would be if any one system were chosen as the "standard". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jun 17 20:28:00 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:28:00 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <1055782748.3eedf75c5ba67@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > Regardless, I don=92t want this to be the main focus of this email. I ha= ve > always been fascinated that this discussion generates so much controversy= [and > even emotion]. One point that struck me relatively recently is that play= ers > who play significant amounts of online bridge often seem to prefer one ty= pe of > alert system. Players who predominantly play in clubs often prefer anoth= er. I > am wondering whether there is something specific to the nature of online = bridge > that makes one type of alert structure more attractive than another? Doe= s > anyone have any thoughts on this topic? Sure, I'm opinionated, I have thoughts on this topic. :))) I also happen to play and direct both online and offline. Interestingly, my reaction is different than that of the other respondents so far. I think "alert deviations from standard" might work in some areas for face-to-face games. (ACBL, where almost everyone plays 5-card major natural systems, for instance, it works OK except when local styles are a bit odd.) For online bridge, or for venues where you expect a wide variety of systems to intermingle, attempting to define standard systems is pointless. When players join an online site they plan to play what they already know, and find partners who play the same way they do. If you try to require them to learn a new system just so they know what parts of their old system are alertable, you have just lost a customer. The whole world plays online bridge: not just people who know SAYC, and not just people with tournament experience. There are a LOT of people who learned kitchen-table Goren or Acol 30 years ago who try out online bridge as a way to get back into the game. "Alert all conventions" (or all except Stayman and first-round takeout doubles, maybe) is pretty much the only rule that works in the online environment. Might as well alert nonforcing new suits by responder and a few other things like that that are exotic too while you're at it. But you can't go far wrong if every nonalerted spade bid shows spades. That rule, combined with "announce your general approach at the start of the round (tourney) / start of a new game (social room)", seems to work. Players will learn that "SAYC" =3D 5-card majors, "Acol" =3D 4-card majors and weak notrumps, "Danish standard" =3D 5-card spades, 4-card hearts. They won't bother to learn much beyond that about other people's systems. Many sites have posted system notes for a few common systems (sayc, a consensus version of 2/1, and a couple others) as starting points for new partnerships. If you want to just say "we follow such-and-such system and have no other agreements" (or a short list of exceptions), fine ... but you better mean it. If you play an online tournament I direct, announce "SAYC", and then make a negative double of a 3-level overcall without further comment, you WILL get ruled against for misinformation if your opponent assumes you play negative through 2S as specified in the SAYC notes. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 17 23:57:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:57:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules Message-ID: Nigel wrote: [big snip] >Nowadays, at higher levels, (iii) is the overwhelmingly most >likely hand for North. Partner is trying to stop you bidding >or doubling unless it is a lead-pipe cinch. Richard replies: This issue of "reverse cheating" was discussed many years ago in The Bridge World by Edgar Kaplan in response to a reader's complaint. Edgar pointed out that normal hesitations - when North had something to think about, and South used UI - merely resulted in an adjusted score upon discovery. However, Edgar pointed out that reverse hesitations - when North had nothing to think about, and had a secret agreement with South that that was what the hesitation showed - had more severe consequences upon discovery, expulsion from the SO due to Law 73B2. (Of course, a nefarious North could exploit the ethics of a simon-pure South *once*. Then South would find a new partner.) Nigel continues: >IMO The time has come to penalise the hesitation itself and insist >on bids and plays in tempo (e.g not before 8 secs or after 16 secs) Richard rereplies: Such a draconian policy would require amendment of Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." In my personal opinion, amending Law 73D1 to a stopwatch rule would reduce participation at bridge events to metro-gnomes. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jun 18 06:45:59 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:45:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules Message-ID: <001101c3355c$e9962360$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Nigel reply sent to Richard but meant for list] [Richard] This issue of "reverse cheating" was discussed many years ago in The Bridge World by Edgar Kaplan in response to a reader's complaint. Edgar pointed out that normal hesitations - when North had something to think about, and South used UI - merely resulted in an adjusted score upon discovery. However, Edgar pointed out that reverse hesitations - when North had nothing to think about, and had a secret agreement with South that that was what the hesitation showed - had more severe consequences upon discovery, expulsion from the SO due to Law 73B2. (Of course, a nefarious North could exploit the ethics of a simon-pure South *once*. Then South would find a new partner.) [Nigel] OK in theory; but nobody I know has met a practical example of such an extreme ruling in such a case, -- or any milder ruling based on the same judgement. Often suspicions are aroused only after perusing hand records. Strangely, I cannot remember a case of a player dropping a partner for ethical reasons, either -- although I suspect that such occurrences must be common. >Nigel continues: >IMO The time has come to penalise the hesitation itself and insist >on bids and plays in tempo (e.g not before 8 secs or after 16 secs) [Richard] Such a draconian policy would require amendment of Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." In my personal opinion, amending Law 73D1 to a stopwatch rule would reduce participation at bridge events to metro-gnomes. [nigel] I accept that your criticisms are valid; but IMO, the current law also has difficulties with unauthorised information rulings; to the casual observer such decisions often have as much to do with personalities as with facts. I hoped to take the problem one step back to its objective cause i.e. the hesitation; rather than examine the effect -- putative UI and its alleged use -- which seem to involve complex and controversial subjective judgements. You always seem to favour subjective over objective judgements but I feel that, for a game, we should favour the latter. Subjective judgements are notoriously unreliable; typically, different people arrive at different subjective judgements on the same facts. Without reliability, you can't have validity. So injustice is inevitable. In particular, "Equity" implies "equal treatment under the law". For example different people can expect the same verdict on identical facts. Objective judgements tend to be more reliable Hence, they are more likely to be equitable. Objective verdicts are not necessarily valid or just but at least they hold out the *possibility*. To me other possible connotations of "fairness" seem meaningless and irrelevant(especially in games with a large chance component). Because a game *is* its rules. But I am open to persuasion, here. And, of course, objective laws tend to be shorter and simpler. I'm not trying to teach Granny to suck eggs. I am rehearsing these arguments for my own benefit. They seem obvious to me. I would be grateful if you pointed out flaws. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 18 07:02:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:02:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules Message-ID: Nigel continues: >IMO The time has come to penalise the hesitation itself and insist >on bids and plays in tempo (e.g not before 8 secs or after 16 secs) Richard recounts: In the New York Chess Club in the 1940s, occasionally an evening of speed chess was held. The club had an automatic gong, set to chime every 10 seconds. The rule was that each chessplayer in turn had to make a move when the gong chimed, neither sooner nor later. There was a simple penalty for taking too long on the gong - loss of the game. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jun 18 07:29:31 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 07:29:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030617164643.01f82ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001b01c33562$fdcacf60$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Eric Landau] When the smoke clears, the number of pairs whose system conforms to the "standard" is orders of magnitude larger than the number playing any one particular well-defined "system", with a corresponding orders of magnitude reduction in the number of alerts that are required compared to what would be if any one system were chosen as the "standard". [Nigel Guthrie] Eric, it may be a mental block, but I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. I'd be grateful, if you'd post any example auction that requires an order of magnitude more alerts for departures from SAYC than the alerts it would need using your "standard"? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 18 07:53:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:53:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <002101c334f8$cd345ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <99A05B18-A159-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003, at 13:49 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action > was > suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs non-action, > then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. Maybe. IAC, you still have to demonstrate that action is suggested. From sodonnell@msn.com Wed Jun 18 02:59:47 2003 From: sodonnell@msn.com (Sue O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:59:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <783C290D-A036-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0894_01C33502.9F2F74C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed raises an interesting point below. (Sorry, I can't seem to get my = email to allow my comments to follow his.) To recap: South deals holding S:Axx H:AQxxx D:xxx C:Ax. The auction: = 1H-P-1NT-P; P-2S-. . . P-P; Dbl-All Pass If "Pass" is, indeed, NOT a LA for S, it doesn't seem "fair" to allow a = double after the hesitation, but is it legal? S knows that partner was = thinking of doing something, so he surely has a hand different from a = minimum, plain vanilla 1NT response. Since a Double caters to any = non-minimum non-plain vanilla 1NT hand partner may hold, isn't it the = action that could demonstrably have been suggested over any other = non-pass bid? Or does "could demonstrably have been suggested" require = that the bid the hesitator's partner makes be the same bid the hesitator = was thinking about making, in order to be demonstrably suggested? ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Reppert=20 To: blml=20 Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Third, on the question whether pass is a logical alternative, I have = seen it expressed as a general principle, by such bridge writers (and = players!) as Marty Bergen and, if I'm not mistaken, Mike Lawrence, that = when your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at = matchpoints, anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level = undoubled. Granted NS here might have exactly half the points, rather = than more than half, I'm not so sure pass is an LA here - and perhaps = the committee were thinking along the same lines. OTOH, it *is* = borderline, and L73C *does* require a player to "carefully avoid taking = any advantage", so on that basis I would think the player (and the TD, = and the committee) *should* treat pass as an LA. That leaves us with = showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That = exercise I leave to the reader. :) ------=_NextPart_000_0894_01C33502.9F2F74C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ed raises an interesting point below. (Sorry, I can't seem to get = my email=20 to allow my comments to follow his.)
 
To recap: South deals holding S:Axx H:AQxxx D:xxx C:Ax.  The = auction:=20 1H-P-1NT-P; P-2S-. . . P-P; Dbl-All Pass
 
If "Pass" is, indeed, NOT a LA for S, it doesn't seem "fair" = to allow=20 a double after the hesitation, but is it legal?  S knows that = partner=20 was thinking of doing something, so he surely has a hand different from = a=20 minimum, plain vanilla 1NT response. Since a Double caters to any=20 non-minimum non-plain vanilla 1NT hand partner may hold, isn't it = the=20 action that could demonstrably have been suggested over any other = non-pass=20 bid?  Or does "could demonstrably have been suggested" require that = the bid=20 the hesitator's partner makes be the same bid the hesitator was thinking = about=20 making, in order to be demonstrably suggested?
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Reppert
To: blml
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 = 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A = and 73C=20 Again


Third, on the question whether pass is a logical = alternative, I=20 have seen it expressed as a general principle, by such bridge = writers (and=20 players!) as Marty Bergen and, if I'm not mistaken, Mike Lawrence, = that when=20 your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at = matchpoints,=20 anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level undoubled. = Granted NS=20 here might have exactly half the points, rather than more than half, = I'm not=20 so sure pass is an LA here - and perhaps the committee were thinking = along=20 the same lines. OTOH, it *is* borderline, and L73C *does* require a = player=20 to "carefully avoid taking any advantage", so on that basis I would = think=20 the player (and the TD, and the committee) *should* treat pass as an = LA.=20 That leaves us with showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" = by the=20 hesitation. That exercise I leave to the reader. :)
 
------=_NextPart_000_0894_01C33502.9F2F74C0-- From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jun 18 11:57:30 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:57:30 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: <001501c33588$6a88cb00$58e41e3e@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mamos" To: "Marvin French" Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > And I think Marv is absolutely correct here - Double is the only action > worth contemplating so the only options are Double or Pass > > Double is suggested -- Pass a LA in my opinion > > IMHO experienced and good players get away with murder in club games in this > sort of position - They are able to argue their way out of blatant use of > UI -- what a shame that the Td and the Ac let them get away with it here :) > > mike > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > > > > > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > >That leaves us with > > >showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That > > >exercise I leave to the reader. :) > > > > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action was > > suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs non-action, > > then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jun 18 13:05:02 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:05:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] In-Reply-To: <001b01c33562$fdcacf60$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030617164643.01f82ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030618075921.01f95ae0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:29 AM 6/18/03, Nigel wrote: >[Eric Landau] >When the smoke clears, the number of pairs whose system conforms to the >"standard" is orders of magnitude larger than the number playing any one >particular well-defined "system", with a corresponding orders of magnitude >reduction in the number of alerts that are required compared to what >would be if any one system were chosen as the "standard". >[Nigel Guthrie] >Eric, it may be a mental block, but I'm afraid I don't understand your >argument. I'd be grateful, if you'd post any example auction that requires >an order of magnitude more alerts for departures from SAYC than the alerts >it would need using your "standard"? In my methods, for example: 1S -- ALERT! (four-card majors) followed by, say 1NT -- ALERT! (non-forcing), or 2C -- ALERT! (game-invitational strength, doesn't promise a rebid). And that's plain old Goren, all natural, kitchen-table LOL bridge, none of it currently alertable in ACBL. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 18 13:47:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:47:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules In-Reply-To: <013301c334f8$4b5807e0$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030618144523.01d62b00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:45 17/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >GA Teams You, South, deal >South S:KQxxxx H:Ax D:x C:Kxx >the auction is 1S(X)4S(X*); P(5H)P...(P) >The usual questions.... >Assuming that our logical alternatives are >P X and 5S >(a) What does North's hesitation mean? > (i) Jxxx KQJ QJxxx Q > (ii) Axxxxx x xxxx Ax > (iii) Jxxx xx Qxxx Qxx >(b) What does North's hesitation suggest? > >In the past, most people would answer >North's hesitation means either >(i) Partner thought of doubling. >(ii) Partner thought of bidding 5S. > > Some would aver that these explanations are > equally likely so no particular action is suggested to > South. Hence South can make his own arrangements choosing > any of his 3 options with impunity. > > More sophisticated commentators would demur saying > that South is likely to know on what kind of hand > North habitually hesitates. > Anyway, they would claim the hesitation suggested some > positive action (Bid or Double) over (Pass) > So they would penalise him if he chose bid or double. > >Nowadays, at higher levels, (iii) is the overwhelmingly most >likely hand for North. Partner is trying to stop you bidding >or doubling unless it is a lead-pipe cinch. > >IMO The time has come to penalise the hesitation itself and insist >on bids and plays in tempo (e.g not before 8 secs or after 16 secs) AG : the answer depends heavily from the vulnerability. If V vs NV, North's pass is played by most as forcing. In this case, the slow tempo doesn't mean anything more that the pass (ie, there is doubt as to the best action). For this reason, penalizing a slow pass simply because it's slow isn't opssible : no infraction, no penalty (L12B). From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 18 13:52:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:52:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation rules In-Reply-To: <001101c3355c$e9962360$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030618144947.01d55de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:45 18/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >{Nigel reply sent to Richard but meant for list] >[Richard] >This issue of "reverse cheating" was discussed many years ago >in The Bridge World by Edgar Kaplan in response to a reader's >complaint. Edgar pointed out that normal hesitations - when >North had something to think about, and South used UI - merely >resulted in an adjusted score upon discovery. However, Edgar >pointed out that reverse hesitations - when North had nothing >to think about, and had a secret agreement with South that that >was what the hesitation showed - had more severe consequences >upon discovery, expulsion from the SO due to Law 73B2. > >(Of course, a nefarious North could exploit the ethics of a >simon-pure South *once*. Then South would find a new partner.) > >[Nigel] >OK in theory; but nobody I know has met a practical example of >such an extreme ruling in such a case, -- or any milder ruling >based on the same judgement. >Often suspicions are aroused only after perusing hand records. >Strangely, I cannot remember a case of a player dropping a >partner for ethical reasons, either -- although I suspect that >such occurrences must be common. AG : I did once. My partner played a very emphatic H3 (Iralian discarding), and I played back a diamond. When she asked "didn't you see my call for a heart", I answered : "indeed I saw it, and the guy at the next table too". ... to ba fair, *she* then broke the partnership. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 18 18:58:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:58:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <66B40D96-A1B6-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003, at 21:59 US/Eastern, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > Since a Double caters to any non-minimum non-plain vanilla=A01NT hand=20= > partner may hold, isn't it the action that could demonstrably have=20 > been suggested over any other non-pass bid?=A0 Or does "could=20 > demonstrably have been suggested" require that the bid the hesitator's=20= > partner makes be the same bid the hesitator was thinking about making,=20= > in order to be demonstrably suggested? Let me respond to the second sentence first . The answer to that=20 question is no. "Demonstrably suggested" means only that you have to be=20= able to show how the call in question is suggested. It doesn't matter=20 whether hesitator's partner thought of it. Regarding the first question, maybe. So demonstrate it. Give us a chain=20= of logic that show why partner's hesitation suggests doubling over=20 passing. :-)= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 18 18:59:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:59:44 -0400 Subject: Fw: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <001501c33588$6a88cb00$58e41e3e@mikeamos> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, mamos wrote: >> Double is suggested -- Pass a LA in my opinion Assertion noted. Prove it. :-) From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jun 18 21:18:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <002101c334f8$cd345ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > >That leaves us with > >showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That > >exercise I leave to the reader. :) > > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action > was suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs > non-action, then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. I don't think so. My bidding boxes seem resolutely deficient when it comes to "action" and "non-action" cards. I am forced to make a specific call but may not make a specific call if it is demonstrably suggested over the alternatives. Thus if the UI suggests that one of Double/Bid will be better than pass while the other will be worse *without telling you which* then neither is suggested over a pass. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jun 18 21:44:37 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:44:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: Message-ID: <001301c335da$7030e0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marvin French wrote: > > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action > > was suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs > > non-action, then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. > > I don't think so. My bidding boxes seem resolutely deficient when it > comes to "action" and "non-action" cards. I am forced to make a specific > call but may not make a specific call if it is demonstrably suggested over > the alternatives. Thus if the UI suggests that one of Double/Bid will be > better than pass while the other will be worse *without telling you which* > then neither is suggested over a pass. > Not understood. All I'm saying is that if partner hesitates over, say, a 4S opening, that suggests action on my part. If my hand does not clearly warrant action, then I must pass, even though no particular action (double or bid) has been suggested by the UI. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@irvine.com Wed Jun 18 22:10:41 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:10:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:18:00 BST." Message-ID: <200306182110.OAA27811@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >That leaves us with > > >showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That > > >exercise I leave to the reader. :) > > > > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action > > was suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs > > non-action, then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. > > I don't think so. My bidding boxes seem resolutely deficient when it > comes to "action" and "non-action" cards. I am forced to make a specific > call but may not make a specific call if it is demonstrably suggested over > the alternatives. Thus if the UI suggests that one of Double/Bid will be > better than pass while the other will be worse *without telling you which* > then neither is suggested over a pass. I think there are some cases where UI can suggest one "class of actions" over another, and we should rule as such, without needing to determine what specific call was suggested over what other specific call. For example, a hesitation may suggest bidding on over passing; in a case like that, assuming pass is a LA, we would disallow *any* bid, without needing to determine which specific bid is suggested. Having said that, I agree with Tim when it comes to ye olde "double/bid over pass" situation. A hesitation that suggests doubling over passing suggests that the hesitator has defensive values but isn't sure whether the contract can really be beaten. A hesitation that suggests that double will work better than pass must surely also suggest that pass will work better than bidding, since it suggests a defense-oriented hand. A hesitation that suggests bidding over passing suggests that the hesitator has offensive values, maybe shortness in the opponents' suit or extra length in one of his side's own suits, but isn't sure whether he will be turning a plus into a minus. A hesitation that suggests that bidding will work better than passing must surely also suggest that passing will work better than doubling, since it suggests an offense-oriented hand. But how can a hesitation suggest both simultaneously? Can it suggest both an offense- and a defense-oriented hand? Can it simultaneously suggest that doubling is better than passing, passing is better than bidding, passing is better than doubling, *and* bidding is better than passing? Isn't that a contradiction? The only way to disallow *both* a double and a bid is to come up with a hand in which a hesitation suggests BOTH that doubling would be better than passing AND that bidding would be better than passing---and that passing would be the worst of the three alternatives. Perhaps such a hand might exist, but it would be quite a rare bird indeed. I do not think that the hand originally posted is such a hand. If the hesitation MIGHT suggest that doubling is better than passing, and it MIGHT suggest that bidding is better than passing, then it does not meet the "could demonstrably have been suggested" test in L16A, and thus does not place any restrictions on hesitator's partner. On the orginal hand, assuming 1NT is old-fashioned (6-9) and not "semi-forcing", I think the hesitation is more likely to suggest bidding on, since the 1NT bidder is more likely to have a long minor (or both minors) than to have a hand good enough to want to penalize 2S---a suit that the 1NT bidder already denied having four of. It's close, though, and I'm not sure that I'd disallow a bid by opener in this position. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't prohibit a double. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jun 18 23:38:28 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:38:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field protection Message-ID: <012801c335ea$57e12c60$d89868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Most Bridge-lawyers pooh pooh legal measures to protect the field. Perhaps they under-rate particular problems that often arise. For example (as I have complained before) players who are in contention frequently enter fictitious results better than that they actually achieve. In the last rounds of a large competition, few of their opponents will have sufficient interest in the result to query a score. This may be worth dozens of tops to an unscrupulous pair. If their opponents do notice, they will usually simply ask for a correction without calling the TD. IMO, the laws should specify that a TD be summoned whenever a score is corrected, (especially if the scribe's score is reduced) -- to deter practitioners of this ploy -- and to establish a pattern if they persist. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From sodonnell@msn.com Wed Jun 18 23:43:15 2003 From: sodonnell@msn.com (Sue O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:43:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <66B40D96-A1B6-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Here I'm assuming that pass of a 2 level contract in balancing seat is not a LA (due to the tenets of Marty Bergen, Mike Lawrence, whatever), so let me try a chain of logic to show why partner's hesitation could have suggested doubling over another bid rather than over Pass. Partner hesitated over 2S, so he was thinking about doing something. With his limited hand we can't have game unless he has a long, running minor for 3NT. With that good a suit, he would have bid it after he thought. 2S down one for plus 200 would be better than any partial. If I Double and he was thinking because he's relatively strong, with or without distribution in one of the minors, we beat 2S. If he was thinking because he has some distribution in one of the minors without relative strength, he can pull to the minor; I have support for either. So, no matter why partner was thinking, Double allows us to land on our feet. Besides, Law 16A probably doesn't allow me to bid 2NT, since the hesitation could suggest values. :-) Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again On Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003, at 21:59 US/Eastern, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > Since a Double caters to any non-minimum non-plain vanilla 1NT hand > partner may hold, isn't it the action that could demonstrably have > been suggested over any other non-pass bid? Or does "could > demonstrably have been suggested" require that the bid the hesitator's > partner makes be the same bid the hesitator was thinking about making, > in order to be demonstrably suggested? Let me respond to the second sentence first . The answer to that question is no. "Demonstrably suggested" means only that you have to be able to show how the call in question is suggested. It doesn't matter whether hesitator's partner thought of it. Regarding the first question, maybe. So demonstrate it. Give us a chain of logic that show why partner's hesitation suggests doubling over passing. :-) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 19 00:14:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:14:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field protection In-Reply-To: <012801c335ea$57e12c60$d89868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <9F858CFC-A1E2-11D7-8FB2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 11:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > players who are in contention > frequently enter fictitious results better than that they actually > achieve. "frequently"? > In the last rounds of a large competition, few of their opponents will > have > sufficient interest in the result to query a score. I'm one who would query an incorrect score, yet not one suspicious incident of this type remains in my mind. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Jun 19 00:21:07 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:21:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: Message-ID: <003701c335f0$4be248d0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Roger Eymard writes : Law 16 applies to both calls and plays. That's why the word "action" is used, in order to cover both a call or a play. During the auction period, an action is a call, which can be a bid, a double, a redouble or a pass. The point is not acting (ie. bidding or doubling) vs non-acting (ie. passing). So IMO a pass is an action, in the scope of law 16. Law 16 does not say "one that could demonstrably have been suggested over all others", but "one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another". Let us assume that pass is a LA (I think so, but it is a matter of bridge, not of Laws, and I am even less confident in my judgment). Among 3 LA (pass, double and bid), when South chooses double, that particular action could have been suggested over pass (let us forget the case of reverse cheating), when South "knows" that either NS holds the balance of strength or North needs only a small incentive to bid again. So IMO that particular action is not allowed if a pass is better for the NOS. And it does not matter whether a bid could have been chosen or not instead of a double : it is not the actual case, even if its treatment would be almost the same as soon as pass is a LA. Now, let us assume that pass is not a LA. Double is a LA, showing little interest in a 3C or 3D contract and catering with any shape of North's hand, but is there another LA? even 2NT, in the purpose of allowing North to choose between that contract or a minor contract, would need a better support in the minors. I cannot see how North hesitation could have suggested double over any bid ! Double is obvious with South's hand if pass is not a LA. So IMO, the result stands. The AC is right as soon as its premises - pass is not a LA - are right. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > > > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > >That leaves us with > > >showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. That > > >exercise I leave to the reader. :) > > > > On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action > > was suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs > > non-action, then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. > > I don't think so. My bidding boxes seem resolutely deficient when it > comes to "action" and "non-action" cards. I am forced to make a specific > call but may not make a specific call if it is demonstrably suggested over > the alternatives. Thus if the UI suggests that one of Double/Bid will be > better than pass while the other will be worse *without telling you which* > then neither is suggested over a pass. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jun 19 00:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <200306182110.OAA27811@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > I think there are some cases where UI can suggest one "class of > actions" over another, and we should rule as such, without needing to > determine what specific call was suggested over what other specific > call. For example, a hesitation may suggest bidding on over passing; > in a case like that, assuming pass is a LA, we would disallow *any* > bid, without needing to determine which specific bid is suggested. I think I would arrive at the same result by saying "All of 4C, 4D..... are suggested over pass" but I don't feel strongly about it. I don't think we would arrive at different results. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jun 19 00:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <001301c335da$7030e0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Not understood. All I'm saying is that if partner hesitates over, say, a > 4S opening, that suggests action on my part. If my hand does not clearly > warrant action, then I must pass, even though no particular action > (double or bid) has been suggested by the UI. There are two situations here. a) The hesitation suggests that whichever you choose of bids and double will work better than passing even though pass is otherwise an LA. You must pass. b) The hesitation tells you that *guessing right* between bids/double will be better than passing but *guessing wrong* will be worse while pass remains an LA. Now you can call whatever you wish since neither a bid nor a double is suggested over pass. Note however that double (being more flexible) will often never be wrong (since partner will pull), in which case one may choose a bid or a pass but not double. (Actually there is a third situation where specific knowledge of pard's habits tells you that X is likely to work best in a situation strangers would regard as ambiguous. In this case one may not double even though one could probably win an appeal.) Tim From adam@irvine.com Thu Jun 19 00:40:59 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:40:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:43:15 PDT." Message-ID: <200306182340.QAA29894@mailhub.irvine.com> Sue wrote: > Here I'm assuming that pass of a 2 level contract in balancing seat is not a > LA (due to the tenets of Marty Bergen, Mike Lawrence, whatever) I realize that someone earlier in the thread pointed to a principle that "when your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at matchpoints, anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level undoubled." I cannot see how that general principle could apply to this particular auction, where most likely everyone has a boring hand (note that the spade bidder did not take action directly over 1H), there's a decent chance that nobody has an 8-card fit anywhere, and the opening side has to go to the 3 level to play in a suit. OK, maybe one could argue that it's better to take some action anyway; but for our purposes, where we're just trying to determine whether pass is a logical alternative, I think it's clear that there are enough good players who would seriously consider passing (and probably plenty who wouldn't consider any other action) to make pass a LA. I'm sure neither Bergen nor Lawrence has ever said you shouldn't listen to the auction. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 01:08:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:08:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights Message-ID: <24531AAA-A1EA-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> This is something of a revisit of an old discussion, but I want to make=20= sure that I have it right. Law 43 says, in part: A. Limitations on Dummy 1. =A0General Limitations (a) Calling the Director Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player,=20= dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. (b) Calling Attention to Irregularity Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. Chapter I of the laws, the definitions, says an irregularity is "A=20 deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." Correct procedures are set forth in Chapter V, Part I (laws 17-22) for=20= the auction and Chapter VI, Part I, Section I (laws 41-45) for the play. Now suppose that, during the play, a defender is badgering declarer,=20 asking repeatedly the same question about the dummy's bidding, and the=20= declarer is clearly becoming rattled. This is a violation of Law 74,=20 which is part of the Proprieties, and so *not* an irregularity under=20 the laws. Therefore, dummy is not prohibited by Law 43A from calling=20 the Director. Is this logic correct?= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 01:14:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:14:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 16:18 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >> From: "Ed Reppert" >> >>> That leaves us with >>> showing that double is "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. >>> That >>> exercise I leave to the reader. :) >> >> On this subject, it is not necessary to show that a particular action >> was suggested. If a hesitation demonstrably suggests action vs >> non-action, then any action, double or bid, has been suggested. You responded to that last bit ("not necessary to show..."). You imply here that I said that. I did not. I don't know who did, and I'm not going to try to figure it out, but it wasn't me. What I said is the bit above it ("that exercise I leave to the reader"). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 01:17:31 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:17:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <001301c335da$7030e0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6B08501B-A1EB-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 16:44 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Not understood. All I'm saying is that if partner hesitates over, say, > a > 4S opening, that suggests action on my part. If my hand does not > clearly > warrant action, then I must pass, even though no particular action > (double > or bid) has been suggested by the UI. The law says that in order to be prohibited, a particular call must be demonstrably suggested over another. You say here that if a hesitation suggests doing *something* you can't do anything, even if it cannot be shown that whatever it is you might do is demonstrably suggested. This directly contravenes the law. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 01:21:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:21:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <200306182110.OAA27811@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 17:10 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I think there are some cases where UI can suggest one "class of > actions" over another, and we should rule as such, without needing to > determine what specific call was suggested over what other specific > call. For example, a hesitation may suggest bidding on over passing; > in a case like that, assuming pass is a LA, we would disallow *any* > bid, without needing to determine which specific bid is suggested. This seems to be getting to another case of "the law isn't worded quite right, so we'll do what we think is right, regardless what the law actually says". If the law says the *call* must be demonstrably suggested, then you can't rule it illegal if it is not so suggested. And if you're going to rule it *is* demonstrably suggested, you have to be able to demonstrate it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 01:41:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:41:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <200306182340.QAA29894@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 19:40 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I realize that someone earlier in the thread pointed to a principle > that "when your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at > matchpoints, anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level > undoubled." That would be me. :-) > I cannot see how that general principle could apply to > this particular auction, where most likely everyone has a boring hand > (note that the spade bidder did not take action directly over 1H), > there's a decent chance that nobody has an 8-card fit anywhere, and > the opening side has to go to the 3 level to play in a suit. OK, > maybe one could argue that it's better to take some action anyway; but > for our purposes, where we're just trying to determine whether pass is > a logical alternative, I think it's clear that there are enough good > players who would seriously consider passing (and probably plenty who > wouldn't consider any other action) to make pass a LA. I'm sure > neither Bergen nor Lawrence has ever said you shouldn't listen to the > auction. "I am only an egg." If it's the consensus of this list that pass is an LA, so be it. Is it so? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 01:51:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:51:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1A374F6E-A1F0-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 18:43 US/Eastern, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > Here I'm assuming that pass of a 2 level contract in balancing seat is > not a > LA (due to the tenets of Marty Bergen, Mike Lawrence, whatever), so > let me > try a chain of logic to show why partner's hesitation could have > suggested > doubling over another bid rather than over Pass. > > Partner hesitated over 2S, so he was thinking about doing something. Indeed. Had Wendy just walked by? :-) > With his limited hand we can't have game unless he has a long, running > minor for 3NT. With that good a suit, he would have bid it after he > thought. > 2S down one for plus 200 would be better than any partial. If I Double > and > he was thinking because he's relatively strong, with or without > distribution > in one of the minors, we beat 2S. If he was thinking because he has > some > distribution in one of the minors without relative strength, he can > pull to > the minor; I have support for either. So, no matter why partner was > thinking, > Double allows us to land on our feet. Given the assumptions that Pass is not an LA and that partner was thinking of bidding (or doubling?) this logic seems valid. > Besides, Law 16A probably doesn't allow me to bid 2NT, since the > hesitation could suggest values. :-) Ah. This is another kettle of fish entirely, requiring a new chain of logic, or at least the showing of a connection to the chain above. :-) From adam@irvine.com Thu Jun 19 02:07:56 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:07:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:21:04 EDT." Message-ID: <200306190107.SAA31038@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 17:10 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > I think there are some cases where UI can suggest one "class of > > actions" over another, and we should rule as such, without needing to > > determine what specific call was suggested over what other specific > > call. For example, a hesitation may suggest bidding on over passing; > > in a case like that, assuming pass is a LA, we would disallow *any* > > bid, without needing to determine which specific bid is suggested. > > This seems to be getting to another case of "the law isn't worded quite > right, so we'll do what we think is right, regardless what the law > actually says". > > If the law says the *call* must be demonstrably suggested, then you > can't rule it illegal if it is not so suggested. And if you're going to > rule it *is* demonstrably suggested, you have to be able to demonstrate > it. Except that the relevant Laws don't use the word "call" or "play"---they use the word "action", which is not defined in the Laws. So it really isn't contradicting the Laws to say that "action" can, in the appropriate circumstances, be defined as "any bid", rather than "a certain particular bid". Regardless, I agree with Tim that you'd probably get the same result either way. My concern is that, in a situation where pass is the indicated call, but partner made a hesitation suggesting that bidding on will work, a less-than-ethical player could make an off-the-wall strange-sounding bid (let's say it's 4D) that partner would be certain not to pass, and then try to argue, "How the heck could the hesitation have suggested bidding 4D over passing???" The TD should be able to rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested *any* bid over passing, and thus *any* bid should be illegal including a very strange one. The TD should probably rule this way regardless of how the Laws are interpreted; but without being trained in the sort of general principle I suggested, a TD could get confused into trying to determine whether the UI actually suggested the particular strange call the unethical player made. -- Adam From tomwood1@earthlink.net Thu Jun 19 02:29:15 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Tom Wood) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:29:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] Field protection Message-ID: <410-22003641912915590@earthlink.net> Nigel Guthrie offered: > > Most Bridge-lawyers pooh pooh legal measures to protect the field. > Perhaps they under-rate particular problems that often arise. > > For example (as I have complained before) players who are in contention > frequently enter fictitious results better than that they actually achieve. > In the last rounds of a large competition, few of their opponents will have > sufficient interest in the result to query a score. This may be worth dozens > of tops to an unscrupulous pair. If their opponents do notice, they will > usually simply ask for a correction without calling the TD. IMO, the laws > should specify that a TD be summoned whenever a score is corrected, > (especially if the scribe's score is reduced) -- to deter practitioners of > this ploy -- and to establish a pattern if they persist. > I recall an ACBL Blue Ribbon Qual session, where two younger players *just* qualified -- with the help of a 2220 *their* way, N/S. Joke here is obvious. All other results were +2220 E/W. I believe that the result was from next-to- last 2-board round and had slipped by the then vaunted (several years ago) "unlikely results spotter" logic in ACBL-Score. -- When I turned the correction in, Dir told me: "It's not possible! Scoring program spots much more subtle errors than that!" I had played against the young pair, and was curious whether they qualified for next stage. Thx to my curiosity, they didn't. No other players left in the area when I spotted it and reported. Did not affect our fate. -- My gut feel said this case was probably not intentional., but, over the years there have been more than several top players where I would not have been surprised to see it. As Nigel suggests, what is the downside for the score-fudger? Tom Wood Los Angeles From sodonnell@msn.com Thu Jun 19 02:32:40 2003 From: sodonnell@msn.com (Sue O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:32:40 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <200306182340.QAA29894@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > > Sue wrote: > > > Here I'm assuming that pass of a 2 level contract in balancing seat is > > not a > > LA (due to the tenets of Marty Bergen, Mike Lawrence, whatever) > > I realize that someone earlier in the thread pointed to a principle > that "when your side has the balance of the points, you should not (at > matchpoints, anyway) allow the opponents to play at the two level > undoubled." I cannot see how that general principle could apply to > this particular auction, where most likely everyone has a boring hand > (note that the spade bidder did not take action directly over 1H), > there's a decent chance that nobody has an 8-card fit anywhere, and > the opening side has to go to the 3 level to play in a suit. OK, > maybe one could argue that it's better to take some action anyway; but > for our purposes, where we're just trying to determine whether pass is > a logical alternative, I think it's clear that there are enough good > players who would seriously consider passing (and probably plenty who > wouldn't consider any other action) to make pass a LA. I'm sure > neither Bergen nor Lawrence has ever said you shouldn't listen to the > auction. > > -- Adam I agree with you, but if a whole generation of bridge players at the club level misinterpret the gurus, and directors and committees agree, then pass ceases to be a LA. If Pass is not a LA, it seems to me that a double always could demonstrably have been suggested over a bid, because it is flexible. Maybe the original hesitator should be barred from pulling a double, while remaining free to change a suit or NT contract? Sue From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 02:50:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:50:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <200306190107.SAA31038@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <601B22B8-A1F8-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 21:07 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Except that the relevant Laws don't use the word "call" or > "play"---they use the word "action", which is not defined in the Laws. > So it really isn't contradicting the Laws to say that "action" can, in > the appropriate circumstances, be defined as "any bid", rather than "a > certain particular bid". I think that idea has already been effectively squashed by another poster (IOW, I agree with him :). > Regardless, I agree with Tim that you'd probably get the same result > either way. My concern is that, in a situation where pass is the > indicated call, but partner made a hesitation suggesting that bidding > on will work, a less-than-ethical player could make an off-the-wall > strange-sounding bid (let's say it's 4D) that partner would be certain > not to pass, and then try to argue, "How the heck could the hesitation > have suggested bidding 4D over passing???" The TD should be able to > rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested *any* bid over > passing, and thus *any* bid should be illegal including a very strange > one. The TD should probably rule this way regardless of how the Laws > are interpreted; but without being trained in the sort of general > principle I suggested, a TD could get confused into trying to > determine whether the UI actually suggested the particular strange > call the unethical player made. There's an awful lot of hand-waving in there. Suffice it to say that I disagree, particularly with "the TD should probably rule this way regardless of how the laws are interpreted". From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 19 03:15:51 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 03:15:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030617164643.01f82ec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030618075921.01f95ae0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <01cd01c33608$b573a880$d89868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John A. MacGregor] How about the WBF standard card - as I remember Kokish had a fairly comprehensive set of agreements on that card. John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com [Nigel] I had not heard of that one; but as an international standard system it is likely to be a better candidate than SAYC -- because it is already so-named; because it is probably better defined; and because its WBF origin may prompt fewer nationalist objections. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 11/06/2003 From raycrowe@thenet.net.nz Thu Jun 19 00:04:00 2003 From: raycrowe@thenet.net.nz (Ray Crowe) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:04:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] is the answer AI? Message-ID: <002c01c335ed$e905d260$c16837d2@oemcomputer> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C33652.7C864BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Law 73B1 forbids a player from getting information from partner, not = from opponents. So when your partner asks a question to an opponent, a player has no = right to make deductions from the question. But what about the opponent's answer, is it AI to the partner of the = person who asked the question? Cheers, Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C33652.7C864BA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Law 73B1 forbids a player from getting = information=20 from partner, not from opponents.
 
So when your partner asks a question to = an=20 opponent, a player has no right to make deductions from the=20 question.
 
But what about the opponent's answer, = is it AI to=20 the partner of the person who asked the question?
 
Cheers,
 
Ray. 
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C33652.7C864BA0-- From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Jun 19 08:14:08 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:14:08 +1200 Subject: [blml] is the answer AI? In-Reply-To: <002c01c335ed$e905d260$c16837d2@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <001101c33632$60bd4fb0$0100a8c0@Desktop> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ray Crowe Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 11:04 a.m. To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] is the answer AI? Law 73B1 forbids a player from getting information from partner, not from opponents. So when your partner asks a question to an opponent, a player has no right to make deductions from the question. But what about the opponent's answer, is it AI to the partner of the person who asked the question? Wayne: If it is not then we will have a lot of repeat questions. Wayne Cheers, Ray. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Jun 19 09:35:29 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:35:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Field protection Message-ID: >From: Gordon Rainsford >CC: >Subject: Re: [blml] Field protection >Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:14:34 +0100 > > >On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 11:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>players who are in contention >>frequently enter fictitious results better than that they actually >>achieve. > >"frequently"? > >>In the last rounds of a large competition, few of their opponents will >>have >>sufficient interest in the result to query a score. > >I'm one who would query an incorrect score, yet not one suspicious incident >of this type remains in my mind. > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK Oh, it happens all the time. Then they write books boasting about it. Is it just me, or is there, in Nigel Guthrie's postings a creeping and sweeping paranoia? It's possible that these no-specific allegations might undermine serious points made by Mister Guthrie... _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 19 07:33:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:33:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] is the answer AI? In-Reply-To: <002c01c335ed$e905d260$c16837d2@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <000201c3362c$a7aab7b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3363D.6B3387B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ray Crowe Sent: 19. juni 2003 01:04 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] is the answer AI? Law 73B1 forbids a player from getting information from partner, not from opponents. So when your partner asks a question to an opponent, a player has no right to make deductions from the question. But what about the opponent's answer, is it AI to the partner of the person who asked the question? Cheers, Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3363D.6B3387B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes

Sven

 

-----Original Message-----
From: = blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On = Behalf Of Ray Crowe
Sent: 19. juni 2003 = 01:04
To: blml@rtflb.org
Subject: [blml] is the = answer AI?

 

Law 73B1 forbids a player from getting information = from partner, not from opponents.

 

So when your partner asks a question to an = opponent, a player has no right to make deductions from the = question.

 

But what about the opponent's answer, is it AI to the partner of the person who asked the question?

 

Cheers,

 

Ray. 

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3363D.6B3387B0-- From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 19 13:31:28 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:31:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <66B40D96-A1B6-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030619082247.01f99650@pop.starpower.net> At 01:58 PM 6/18/03, Ed wrote: >On Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003, at 21:59 US/Eastern, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > >>Since a Double caters to any non-minimum non-plain vanilla 1NT hand >>partner may hold, isn't it the action that could demonstrably have >>been suggested over any other non-pass bid? Or does "could >>demonstrably have been suggested" require that the bid the >>hesitator's partner makes be the same bid the hesitator was thinking >>about making, in order to be demonstrably suggested? > >Let me respond to the second sentence first . The answer to that >question is no. "Demonstrably suggested" means only that you have to >be able to show how the call in question is suggested. It doesn't >matter whether hesitator's partner thought of it. > >Regarding the first question, maybe. So demonstrate it. Give us a >chain of logic that show why partner's hesitation suggests doubling >over passing. :-) (1) Partner's hesitation suggests that he was considering acting over 2S. (2) As partner was considering an action which would insure that 2S would not be the final contract, his hand must be less suited for selling out to 2S (undoubled) than other hands he might hold (those with which he would not have hesitated before passing). (3) If partner's hand is relatively unsuited for selling out to 2S, doing so is less likely to be successful than would be the case were it not so. (4) If you pass, 2S will become the final contract; if you double, your side will not be selling out to 2S. (5) Doubling is more likely to be successful than passing. Q.E.D. 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 Jun 19 17:41:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:41:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <24531AAA-A1EA-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030619183359.01d5edd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:08 18/06/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >This is something of a revisit of an old discussion, but I want to make >sure that I have it right. > >Law 43 says, in part: > >A. Limitations on Dummy >1. General Limitations >(a) Calling the Director > Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, > dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. >(b) Calling Attention to Irregularity > Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. > >Chapter I of the laws, the definitions, says an irregularity is "A >deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." > >Correct procedures are set forth in Chapter V, Part I (laws 17-22) for the >auction and Chapter VI, Part I, Section I (laws 41-45) for the play. > >Now suppose that, during the play, a defender is badgering declarer, >asking repeatedly the same question about the dummy's bidding, and the >declarer is clearly becoming rattled. This is a violation of Law 74, which >is part of the Proprieties, and so *not* an irregularity under the laws. >Therefore, dummy is not prohibited by Law 43A from calling the Director. > >Is this logic correct? AG : I don't think it is. Properties are part of the Law since 1987. Correect procedures for bidding and play are set forth in Chapters V-VI. Other chapters set forth correct procedures for other parts of the play (dealing, counting, general behavior, TD's actions etc.). The whole book's purpose is to set up correct procedures, as mentioned in its very first sentence. However, Dummy ceases to be Dummy as soon as the last card is played, and may well complain at this time. Also remark that it suffices that declarer reacts to the badgering, eg by asking for silence, to enable dummy to call, according to L 9B1b. Best regards, Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 19 20:28:57 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:28:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field protection References: Message-ID: <00bd01c33699$189dd940$e39468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Norman Scorbie] Oh, it happens all the time. Then they write books boasting about it. Is it just me, or is there, in Nigel Guthrie's postings a creeping and sweeping paranoia? It's possible that these no-specific allegations might undermine serious points made by Mister Guthrie... [Nigel] I've just joined rec.games.bridge and you're obviously fellow member :) :) Thank you for your warning. I'll try to whinge less. Most of my points are serious but sometimes ironic; rarely, in my enthusiasm, I may even exaggerate ;) but I am happy to admit to valid criticisms and corrections. OK OK not so happy but at least I do admit some mistakes :( I do enjoy Bridge and hope I'm not paranoid; but "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". OK, Norman *often* may be over the top when applied to individual *pairs*, but I would like a scorer's (?anonymous?) view on the frequency of suspicious score errors by contenders, in the last rounds of a large pairs event. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 19 20:29:59 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:29:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field protection References: Message-ID: <00be01c33699$2d1430e0$e39468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Of course I realise that it is human nature that your scoring mistakes are often in your favour; what worries me that accidents become habits; my suggested law-refinement may slightly reduce the opportunity to cheat in this way. I envy Gordon Rainsford who says "I'm one who would query an incorrect score, yet not one suspicious incident of this type remains in my mind." My experience is less happy. An ancient but blatant example was... As previously related, in the last round of the Guardian pairs, we defeated a pair of world-champions by two tricks in two spades. Declarer insisted on entering +110 rather than -200. When I suggested we go back through the play, opponents shuffled their hands and put them back in the board. Dummy aquiesced in the deception until I eventually embarrassed him by starting to call the director. Then he shook his head resignedly. The score was corrected, with bad grace. I am not suggesting that opponents broke any law; although shuffling your cards may have been an infraction, even then; but I still castigate myself that I failed to insist that a TD record the incident; because, as expected, opponents' last session improved their score enough to win a prize; but I suppose the BLML chorus would be.... * caveat campus * --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 21:27:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:27:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Field protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <79DE16A9-A294-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 04:35 US/Eastern, Norman Scorbie wrote: > It's possible that these no-specific allegations might undermine > serious points made by Mister Guthrie... Oh, it's more than possible. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 19 21:29:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:29:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030619082247.01f99650@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 08:31 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > (1) Partner's hesitation suggests that he was considering acting over > 2S. > > (2) As partner was considering an action which would insure that 2S > would not be the final contract, his hand must be less suited for > selling out to 2S (undoubled) than other hands he might hold (those > with which he would not have hesitated before passing). > > (3) If partner's hand is relatively unsuited for selling out to 2S, > doing so is less likely to be successful than would be the case were > it not so. > > (4) If you pass, 2S will become the final contract; if you double, > your side will not be selling out to 2S. > > (5) Doubling is more likely to be successful than passing. > > Q.E.D. Well done, Eric, thank you. :) From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Jun 20 00:30:48 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:48 +1200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <24531AAA-A1EA-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c336ba$d15e21d0$d04236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:08 p.m. > To: blml > Cc: rulings@acbl.org > Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights >=20 >=20 > This is something of a revisit of an old discussion, but I=20 > want to make=20 > sure that I have it right. >=20 > Law 43 says, in part: >=20 > A. Limitations on Dummy > 1. =A0General Limitations > (a) Calling the Director > Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by=20 > another player,=20 > dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. > (b) Calling Attention to Irregularity > Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. >=20 > Chapter I of the laws, the definitions, says an irregularity is "A=20 > deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." >=20 > Correct procedures are set forth in Chapter V, Part I (laws=20 > 17-22) for=20 > the auction and Chapter VI, Part I, Section I (laws 41-45)=20 > for the play. >=20 > Now suppose that, during the play, a defender is badgering declarer,=20 > asking repeatedly the same question about the dummy's=20 > bidding, and the=20 > declarer is clearly becoming rattled. This is a violation of Law 74,=20 > which is part of the Proprieties, and so *not* an irregularity under=20 > the laws. Therefore, dummy is not prohibited by Law 43A from calling=20 > the Director. >=20 > Is this logic correct? I would be happy interpreting irregularity in that way. Proprietries etc are not part of the procedure IMO. Wayne >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Jun 20 00:34:35 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:34:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <24531AAA-A1EA-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c336bb$58619400$d04236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:08 p.m. > To: blml > Cc: rulings@acbl.org > Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights >=20 >=20 > This is something of a revisit of an old discussion, but I=20 > want to make=20 > sure that I have it right. >=20 > Law 43 says, in part: >=20 > A. Limitations on Dummy > 1. =A0General Limitations > (a) Calling the Director > Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by=20 > another player,=20 > dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. > (b) Calling Attention to Irregularity > Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. >=20 > Chapter I of the laws, the definitions, says an irregularity is "A=20 > deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." >=20 > Correct procedures are set forth in Chapter V, Part I (laws=20 > 17-22) for=20 > the auction and Chapter VI, Part I, Section I (laws 41-45)=20 > for the play. >=20 > Now suppose that, during the play, a defender is badgering declarer,=20 > asking repeatedly the same question about the dummy's=20 > bidding, and the=20 > declarer is clearly becoming rattled. This is a violation of Law 74,=20 > which is part of the Proprieties, and so *not* an irregularity under=20 > the laws. Therefore, dummy is not prohibited by Law 43A from calling=20 > the Director. >=20 > Is this logic correct? If you do not agree and this is an irregularity then the director has a responsibility to deal with it under L81C6. It doesn=92t make sense that a proprietry rather than a procedural = matter is limited by dummy's calling the director. Wayne >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 01:07:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:07:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: Eric Landau syllogismed: [snip] >(2) As partner was considering an action which would insure that 2S >would not be the final contract, his hand must be less suited for >selling out to 2S (undoubled) than other hands he might hold (those >with which he would not have hesitated before passing). [snip] Richard rebutted: The post-comma conclusion is not a logical consequence of the pre-comma premise. Eric has an unstated assumption that hesitation time is proportional to partner's accurate or semi-accurate evaluation of hand suitability for a non-Pass action. Eric's unstated assumption is usually correct, but I have known players who sometimes inadvertently hesitate with yarboroughs, because they were thinking about the double-squeeze on the previous hand. However, such players usually make the timely admission, "Sorry, I was thinking about the double-squeeze on the previous hand," so that opponents are not misled. Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Fri Jun 20 01:25:46 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:25:46 -0700 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:31:28 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20030619082247.01f99650@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200306200025.RAA15027@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > >Regarding the first question, maybe. So demonstrate it. Give us a > >chain of logic that show why partner's hesitation suggests doubling > >over passing. :-) > > (1) Partner's hesitation suggests that he was considering acting over 2S. > > (2) As partner was considering an action which would insure that 2S > would not be the final contract, his hand must be less suited for > selling out to 2S (undoubled) than other hands he might hold (those > with which he would not have hesitated before passing). > > (3) If partner's hand is relatively unsuited for selling out to 2S, > doing so is less likely to be successful than would be the case were it > not so. > > (4) If you pass, 2S will become the final contract; if you double, your > side will not be selling out to 2S. > > (5) Doubling is more likely to be successful than passing. > > Q.E.D. After reading Eric's argument, I'm getting the idea that my previous post, which said that a hesitation could not simultaneously suggest both a bid and a double, might not apply here. I still think my argument is correct where a double by hesitator's partner would be penalty-oriented, or when one can expect the double would often be passed for penalties. I'm not sure that applies here; Eric seems to treat double in this auction as either takeout-oriented or simply a "do-something-intelligent" double. I hadn't thought of that, and I'm not sure my previous argument applies to that sort of double. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 05:04:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:04:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] is the answer AI? Message-ID: Ray Crowe asked: >Law 73B1 forbids a player from getting information >from partner, not from opponents. > >So when your partner asks a question to an opponent, >a player=A0has no right to make deductions from the >question. > >But what about the opponent's answer, is it AI to >the partner of the person who asked the question? Richard replied: The answer to a question is *usually* AI to the partner of the person who asked the question. However, if the question itself is illegal, then the answer is UI to partner. For example, an illegal "pro question", where the pro already knows the answer to the question *before* asking it, but still asks so that the pro's partner will also know the answer. Best wishes Richard= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jun 20 04:44:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:44:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field protection References: <79DE16A9-A294-11D7-BD6A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <012e01c336e3$48b4f240$139868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > It's possible that these no-specific allegations might undermine > serious points made by Mister Guthrie... Oh, it's more than possible. [Nigel] Master Reppert, I wish I could learn your art of the succinct put-down. {:No. On second thoughts, I'd rather continue arguing constructively:} Seriously, Ed, some braver BLML contributors libel people by name; but my aim is to change the law by rational argument, eschewing arguments ad hominem. On the whole, my arguments refer to what I believe are common shared experiences. Their intention is never to pillory individuals. When I relate a personal incident it is often from my late middle age, in the expectation that most of the caste are dead by now. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jun 20 04:46:02 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:46:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030617080419.022ca130@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030617164643.01f82ec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030618075921.01f95ae0@pop.starpower.net> <01cd01c33608$b573a880$d89868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <012f01c336e3$4a3e9f80$139868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John A. MacGregor] How about the WBF standard card - as I remember Kokish had a fairly comprehensive set of agreements on that card. John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com [Nigel] Now... I vaguely remember it being suggested before. http://www.bridge.gr/Dept/systems/WBFStandardCard.pdf I agree John, it is the best candidate for an international standard system; because it is already so-named; because it is well defined; because it is a good modern system; because it is close to what most people play; and because its WBF origin may prompt fewer nationalist objections. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 06:00:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field protection Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>players who are in contention frequently enter fictitious results >>better than that they actually achieve. Gordon Rainsford queried: >"frequently"? > >I'm one who would query an incorrect score, yet not one suspicious >incident of this type remains in my mind. Richard continued: I agree that "frequently" is a big overstatement, but "never" is just as big an understatement. Many years ago a pair of pros and a pair of dear LOLs confronted the TD after a session. The LOLs gushed that they had mis-scored a board against "clever Mr X", and the "correct" score for the pair of pros should have been better for them. Under the Laws then in force, the TD was forced to "correct" the pros' score upwards. When Edgar Kaplan heard of this incident, he was moved to ensure that Law 79B now includes these words: "...No increase in score need be granted unless the Director is called before the round ends..." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 06:45:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:45:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Broken Windows Theory Message-ID: In The Tipping Point, page 141, Malcolm Gladwell wrote: >If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by >will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon, >more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will >spread from the building to the street on which it faces, >sending a signal that anything goes. In a city, relatively >minor problems like graffiti, public disorder, and aggressive >panhandling - are all the equivalent of broken windows, >invitations to more serious crimes. >The theory is from James Q. Wilson, and George Kelling Richard continues: The "broken windows theory" applies to bridge crimes, as well as to urban crimes. If a bridge club is lax in its enforcement of Law 74A2 and Law 90B2, soon most people in the club will be yelling at their partners during endless post-mortems after each deal. Best wishes Richard From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Jun 20 06:43:33 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:43:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: <012501c336ee$e9076c40$b68d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Adam Beneschan wrote: >But how can a hesitation suggest both simultaneously? >Can it suggest both an offense- and a defense-oriented hand? >Can it simultaneously suggest that doubling is better than >passing, passing is better than bidding, passing is better >than doubling, *and* bidding is better than passing? >Isn't that a contradiction? > >The only way to disallow *both* a double and a bid is to >come up with a hand in which a hesitation suggests BOTH >that doubling would be better than passing AND that bidding >would be better than passing---and that passing would be the >worst of the three alternatives. Perhaps such a hand might >exist, but it would be quite a rare bird indeed. A rare bird? IMO actually quite common. RHO opens 3H. You call 3S. 4H by LHO, Hesitation then Pass by partner, Pass by RHO. Of course both Double and 4S are indicated over Pass by partner's hesitation. Often partner will have something like Qx, xx, AJxxx, Kxxx and have some offense, some defense, but no clear bid. The hesitation lets a 3S bidder who holds something like AK10xxx, xx, Kxx, Axx know that both 4S and Double are more likely to turn out better than Pass of 4S. Adam's division of all bridge hands into offense-oriented and defense-oriented ones is such an unrealistic concept that it has IMO led him to some wildly inaccurate conclusions. The above example is not exceptional - it is the sort of everyday situation in which hesitations occur. Hesitations often give partner UI that acting in two ways will work better than Passing. Sue O'Donnell began this thread with: >>>NS are excellent players who have played together at least >>>once a week for years. South, not vul vs. vul, was the dealer >>>and held >>> >>>Axx >>>AQxxx >>>xxx >>>Ax >>> >>>The bidding proceeded 1H - P - 1NT - P; P - 2S - (agreed >>>long hesitation) P - P; Dbl- All Pass. >>> >>>2S* was down 1 resulting in a top for NS. EW protested, >>>the director ruled that the table result should stand, and >>>EW appealed to a committee. The committee said that >>>Pass was not a logical alternative for S, not Vul vs Vul, >>>since S held three Aces .... "three Aces", which will be enough to beat 5S, and giving partner a trick or two for his 1NT response, perhaps even to beat 4S or 3S. Let's give North xxx, xx, AQxx, Qxxx. Let's give West some intelligence. With KQJx, KJxx, xx, xxx he passes 1H then balances with 2S as the well-placed hearts (with partner hopefully able to over-ruff) make the vulnerable risk worthwhile. The cards which remain for dummy to have are 109x, xx, KJxx, KJ10x and 2S Doubled looks like making on any defence and may even make an overtrick. For that example I gave North a maximum for his 1NT bid with the missing ace amongst his assets. I gave the 2S bidder a balanced pile of junk. I gave dummy a balanced pile of junk (admittedly with nice spade pips). My point is that 2S will often make, and if N/S venture to the three level when the earlier auction has made it clear that they do not want to go the the three level, there is a fair chance that they will be doubled at the three level. In other words, Passing out 2S with the South cards could very very easily be the best thing to do, especially against competent players. Note that North's unspectacular eight count in most unlikely to take long to pass 2S, and South will then have no trouble passing out 2S and conceding 110 or 140. However, if North holds K10x, xx, Axxxx, Qxx, he will be worried that if he doubles 2S, it may make, so he thinks for ages and eventually decides not to. Or he holds x, Kx, KJxxxx, xxxx and wants to bid 3D but decides it's too risky so he thinks then passes 2S to the opener who Doubles, pulled to 3D of course. IMO Double is very clearly indicated over Pass with the South cards, and Pass by South is obviously a LA. My previous post in this thread was unusually brief because I thought both those points were obvious and thus the thread would die a quick death, a prediction which has been as accurate as most predictions on BLML. Adam wrote: > I do not think that the hand originally posted is >such a hand. I do. >If the hesitation MIGHT suggest that doubling is better >than passing, and it MIGHT suggest that bidding is better >than passing, then it does not meet the "could demonstrably >have been suggested" test in L16A, and thus does not place >any restrictions on hesitator's partner. I am staggered that this paragraph slipped through BLML without a torrent of protest. As my above examples are meant to indicate, it is IMO outrageous and totally contrary to the Laws of Bridge to think that there are no restrictions in such a situation. In a subsequent post, Adam wrote: >After reading Eric's argument, I'm getting the idea that my >previous post, which said that a hesitation could not >simultaneously suggest both a bid and a double, might not >apply here. I still think my argument is correct where a >double by hesitator's partner would be penalty-oriented, >or when one can expect the double would often be passed >for penalties .... as in my example of the double of 4H by the 3S bidder, which will mostly be passed out for penalties? It worries me that a case such as this, which IMO is a simple case of adjusting to 2S undoubled minus 100, is not so widely regarded as a simple case. Peter Gill Australia. From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Jun 20 06:43:47 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:43:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: <012801c336ee$f2c021a0$b68d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Ed Reppert wrote: >This seems to be getting to another case of "the law isn't >worded quite right, so we'll do what we think is right, >regardless what the law actually says". So what does Law 16 actually say? >If the law says the *call* must be demonstrably suggested, That is NOT what Law 16 says. >then you can't rule it illegal if it is not so suggested. >And if you're going to rule it *is* demonstrably suggested, >you have to be able to demonstrate it. Law 16 actually says: "that could demonstrably have been suggested ...", not "must be demonstrably suggested" The introduction at the start of the Laws indicates that such verbs were chosen deliberately rather than indiscriminantly, so we may as well quote the Laws accurately. Peter Gill Australia. From walt1@verizon.net Fri Jun 20 06:54:17 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:54:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Field protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030620012935.033253f0@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:00 AM 20/06/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Many years ago a pair of pros and a pair of dear LOLs confronted the >TD after a session. The LOLs gushed that they had mis-scored a >board against "clever Mr X", and the "correct" score for the pair of >pros should have been better for them. Under the Laws then in force, >the TD was forced to "correct" the pros' score upwards. > >When Edgar Kaplan heard of this incident, he was moved to ensure that >Law 79B now includes these words: > >"...No increase in score need be granted unless the Director is >called before the round ends..." Interesting. Within the past year I had a disagreement during the break with my partner regarding the score on a hand in the round we had just played. Her answer was "I must be right, he (a pro) signed the score slip." During the first round of the second session a director came to our table and asked to see my score sheet from the first round. Seeing that I had scored the board the same as the pro (who had signed the slip with another score on it) he decided to adjust the score. This time I think equity was restored but frequently my score sheet has inaccurate scores on it. Why should the score I had written on my sheet have a significant bearing on whether or not to adjust the score two hours after the score slip was signed? In an ACBL Regional tournament is an adjustment normally allowed after that type of time lapse? Did the director handle this correctly? Thanks Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 07:23:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:23:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: [snip] >Law 16 actually says: "that could demonstrably have been >suggested ...", not "must be demonstrably suggested" > >The introduction at the start of the Laws indicates that >such verbs were chosen deliberately rather than >indiscriminantly, so we may as well quote the Laws accurately. > >Peter Gill >Australia. Is "could demonstrably" an oxymoron? In my humble opinion, something which is "demonstrably" true is more definitely factual than something which "could" be true. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 07:35:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:35:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Message-ID: Peter Gill wrote: [big snip] >In other words, Passing out 2S with >the South cards could very very easily >be the best thing to do, especially >against competent players. [big snip] >Pass by South is obviously a LA. [big snip] Richard replied: Peter's second statement is not a logical consequence of his first. Bad players often poorly evaluate their cards and the auction. So, even when Pass is "the best thing to do", nil bad players may consider Passing. This makes Pass *not* a logical alternative for that class of player. See the similar discussion on the Cornelius Coldbottom thread, where the TD and AC ruled that Pass was not an LA for the class of player the UI-recipient was, even though Peter and myself did consider Pass an LA. Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 20 13:16:40 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:16:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030620080812.02018b80@pop.starpower.net> At 08:07 PM 6/19/03, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau syllogismed: > > >(2) As partner was considering an action which would insure that 2S > >would not be the final contract, his hand must be less suited for > >selling out to 2S (undoubled) than other hands he might hold (those > >with which he would not have hesitated before passing). > >The post-comma conclusion is not a logical consequence of the pre-comma >premise. Eric has an unstated assumption that hesitation time is >proportional to partner's accurate or semi-accurate evaluation of hand >suitability for a non-Pass action. I'd have said that my unstated assumption was that partner's hesitation time was spent thinking about his call, but that's much the same thing. >Eric's unstated assumption is usually correct, but I have known players >who sometimes inadvertently hesitate with yarboroughs, because they >were thinking about the double-squeeze on the previous hand. However, >such players usually make the timely admission, "Sorry, I was thinking >about the double-squeeze on the previous hand," so that opponents are >not misled. The unstated assumption isn't relevant. This would make the explicit premise (and therefore the conclusion) false, not negate the implication. Of course, if it's clear from the table action that the hesitator was not thinking about his call, the TD is free to rule that no UI was exchanged. But it ought to be *very* clear for him to do that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jun 21 04:42:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 04:42:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <012801c336ee$f2c021a0$b68d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <018a01c337a7$28730ac0$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> I understand Law 16 to mean: "For the TD to rule that a player is guilty of an infraction, the TD must be able to show that the extraneous information from partner may suggest the player's actual choice from among plausible alternatives" I feel it is usually be better to penalize the extraneous information itself, rather than the alleged use of it. IMO, however, keeping to the spirit of the current law, it might be better to say something like "...the extraneous information from partner may contra-suggest a plausible alternative to the player's actual choice." This would alleviate BLMLers' concerns that... (1) There really is a plausible alternative. (2) The recipient of information does not cunningly choose an *illogical* alternative that is likely to have the *same effect* as a suggested plausible alternative. And, IMO, the law book should define "plausible [or logical] alternative" in clear percentage terms, preferably without reference to the TD's knowledge of (: or relationship with :) the putative offender. Probably all this has been suggested many times before. If so, I am just recording an assenting vote. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From john@asimere.com Sat Jun 21 04:45:24 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 04:45:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Terrorism in the Bear Pit Message-ID: xx Axxx Kxx 98xx QJxx AKT98xx x x JTxxxx Qxx xx Ax - KQJ9xxx A KQJTx Butler Imps; NS Vul, dealer north, EBU alerting S W N E P 1S 2S 2N 4H 4S 4N 5S P P 6H P P x P 6S x End 2N is passing the time of day, no agreement but is alerted. East *knows* it'll be a spade fit even so. Before East doubles he enquires about 4N and is told rkc. He figures both Aces stand up and doubles after thinking about it. West remembers the system that it shows 1 defensive trick and pulls it. facts: the agreement is definitely correct, they can prove it. West's pass over 6H is not alerted, neither is East's double. 1660 or 500? -- 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 21 05:08:09 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:08:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Terrorism in the Bear Pit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030620235821.00b5b480@mail.vzavenue.net> At 11:45 PM 6/20/2003, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > xx > Axxx > Kxx > 98xx >QJxx AKT98xx >x x >JTxxxx Qxx >xx Ax > - > KQJ9xxx > A > KQJTx > >Butler Imps; NS Vul, dealer north, EBU alerting > >S W N E > P 1S >2S 2N 4H 4S >4N 5S P P >6H P P x >P 6S x End > >2N is passing the time of day, no agreement but is alerted. East *knows* >it'll be a spade fit even so. Before East doubles he enquires about 4N >and is told rkc. He figures both Aces stand up and doubles after >thinking about it. West remembers the system that it shows 1 defensive >trick and pulls it. > >facts: the agreement is definitely correct, they can prove it. West's >pass over 6H is not alerted, neither is East's double. > >1660 or 500? West has UI from East's failure to alert the pass of 6H, and from East's slow double. The failure to alert the pass suggests that East may have forgotten the system, but if East has forgotten the system, then East is expecting to beat the contract, so it suggests 6S over pass, not the other way around. The slow double, given that East knows the system, is uninformative; East may think he has zero tricks (would have bid 6S) or two tricks (would have passed). Regardless, once West assumes that East knows the system, he has no logical alternative to 6S as he has absolutely no defense. Thus, given that the E-W agreement on slam doubles has been proved, I see no case for disallowing West's 6S bid, and I let the table result stand. I would remind E-W that the agreement needs to be alerted. The TD/AC seems to have already ruled that E-W have this agreement, despite West's failure to alert. From agot@ulb.ac.be Sat Jun 21 08:44:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:44:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Terrorism in the Bear Pit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030621093731.01d61ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:45 21/06/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > xx > Axxx > Kxx > 98xx >QJxx AKT98xx >x x >JTxxxx Qxx >xx Ax > - > KQJ9xxx > A > KQJTx > >Butler Imps; NS Vul, dealer north, EBU alerting > >S W N E > P 1S >2S 2N 4H 4S >4N 5S P P >6H P P x >P 6S x End > >2N is passing the time of day, no agreement but is alerted. East *knows* >it'll be a spade fit even so. Before East doubles he enquires about 4N >and is told rkc. He figures both Aces stand up and doubles after >thinking about it. West remembers the system that it shows 1 defensive >trick and pulls it. > >facts: the agreement is definitely correct, they can prove it. West's >pass over 6H is not alerted, neither is East's double. > >1660 or 500? AG : the only problem here (apart from the fact that the double wasn't alerted, but this has no incidence to the result) is that West knows, or may suspect, from East's failure to double, that East didn't remember the agreement and has in fact enough to make 6H down (as East believed he had). Therefore, a pass is suggested to West by the non-alert, in lieu of the normal decision of pulling according to tthe system (1 trick, as described by the double, plus 0 in West's hand). West's pull is therefore perfectly ethical, to the extent of "bending backwards". That it worked is a combination of South's BWing with a void, East believing him, and East erring in his system. None of those are illegal. 500, but some severe remark (or possibly PP) for West's non-alert (*he* knows), and about the strange 2NT bis (Is this an undisclosed agreement ? I would incline to think so. However, it had no influence on the result) NB : DwS should not be applied here 'to West's non-alert), as the bidding figures to stop there. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Sat Jun 21 08:47:17 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:47:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Terrorism in the Bear Pit In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030620235821.00b5b480@mail.vzavenue.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030621094610.01d62ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:08 21/06/2003 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 11:45 PM 6/20/2003, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> xx >> Axxx >> Kxx >> 98xx >>QJxx AKT98xx >>x x >>JTxxxx Qxx >>xx Ax >> - >> KQJ9xxx >> A >> KQJTx >> >>Butler Imps; NS Vul, dealer north, EBU alerting >> >>S W N E >> P 1S >>2S 2N 4H 4S >>4N 5S P P >>6H P P x >>P 6S x End >> >>2N is passing the time of day, no agreement but is alerted. East *knows* >>it'll be a spade fit even so. Before East doubles he enquires about 4N >>and is told rkc. He figures both Aces stand up and doubles after >>thinking about it. West remembers the system that it shows 1 defensive >>trick and pulls it. >> >>facts: the agreement is definitely correct, they can prove it. West's >>pass over 6H is not alerted, neither is East's double. >> >>1660 or 500? > >West has UI from East's failure to alert the pass of 6H, and from East's >slow double. The failure to alert the pass suggests that East may have >forgotten the system, but if East has forgotten the system, then East is >expecting to beat the contract, so it suggests 6S over pass, not the other >way around. AG : David surely means that the non-alert suggests a pass would be successful and this means that West should bid to avoid taking advantage. >The slow double, given that East knows the system, is uninformative; East >may think he has zero tricks (would have bid 6S) or two tricks (would have >passed). Regardless, once West assumes that East knows the system, he has >no logical alternative to 6S as he has absolutely no defense. > >Thus, given that the E-W agreement on slam doubles has been proved, I see >no case for disallowing West's 6S bid, and I let the table result >stand. I would remind E-W that the agreement needs to be alerted. The >TD/AC seems to have already ruled that E-W have this agreement, despite >West's failure to alert. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 23 01:18:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:18:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field protection Message-ID: >>Law 79B now includes these words: >> >>"...No increase in score need be granted unless the Director is >>called before the round ends..." >Interesting. > >Within the past year I had a disagreement during the break with my partner >regarding the score on a hand in the round we had just played. Her answer >was "I must be right, he (a pro) signed the score slip." > >During the first round of the second session a director came to our table >and asked to see my score sheet from the first round. Seeing that I had >scored the board the same as the pro (who had signed the slip with another >score on it) he decided to adjust the score. > >This time I think equity was restored but frequently my score sheet has >inaccurate scores on it. Why should the score I had written on my sheet >have a significant bearing on whether or not to adjust the score two hours >after the score slip was signed? > >In an ACBL Regional tournament is an adjustment normally allowed after that >type of time lapse? > >Did the director handle this correctly? > >Thanks > >Walt Richard replies: The word in Law 79B is "need", not "may". If the ACBL has not promulgated a regulation limiting the TD's Law 79B discretion, then *both* possible decisions by the ACBL Regional TD are legal, either correcting the score or not correcting the score. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 23 17:56:06 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:56:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK Message-ID: <004c01c339a8$578c3040$6b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional continuations)? For example... (1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx (2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx (3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx (4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents open. Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? I have posed similar questions before in BLML and rec.games.bridge, so far without clear resolution. Has the EBULC considered this question? Is anybody yet able to apply the "Orange Book", to give an authoritative ruling. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Jun 23 18:24:57 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (D Raija) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:24:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK References: <004c01c339a8$578c3040$6b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, > in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified > types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional > continuations)? > For example... > > (1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx > (2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx > (3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx > (4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x > > Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents open. > Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? > > I have posed similar questions before in BLML and rec.games.bridge, so far > without clear resolution. Has the EBULC considered this question? > Is anybody yet able to apply the "Orange Book", to give an authoritative > ruling. K: This doesn't affect me, nor am I qualified to give ruling anywhere. However, out of curiosity, what on earth could be the problem opening any of the example hands 3rd seat, some even first or second???? Are EBU rules crooked or is there a misunderstanding on Nigel's part somehow? Will await qualified comments with interest. Kaima aka D Raija Davis From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 23 23:44:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:44:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK Message-ID: >K: This doesn't affect me, nor am I qualified to give >ruling anywhere. However, out of curiosity, what on >earth could be the problem opening any of the example >hands 3rd seat, some even first or second???? Are EBU >rules crooked or is there a misunderstanding on Nigel's >part somehow? Will await qualified comments with >interest. > >Kaima >aka D Raija Davis The ABF also has a rule of 18. Hcp + length of longest suit + length of second longest suit = 18 or better for an opening bid at the one level. In the ABF, systems which breach the rule of 18 will automatically be classified as Yellow systems (which is equivalent to a HUM system). However, ancient bidding theory recommends that it is advantageous to open light in third seat. Therefore, many ABF and EBU players open lighter than regulation permits in third seat. (In my ABF experience, most of these non-reg third seat openings are due to ignorance of ABF regulation, as the ABF has made no attempt to publicise or enforce its ban on light third seat openings.) Unfortunately for the ABF and the EBU, their rule of 18 regulation is unLawful, as it is directly contrary to Law 40D: "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility." Non-conventional opening bids with 8 hcp or more cannot be *directly* restricted. For example, classifying non- conventional opening bids of 8 hcp or more as Yellow or HUM, then banning the consequently classified Yellow/HUM systems from most ABF/EBU events, is directly contrary to Law 40D. However, the ACBL has *indirectly* restricted 8 or 9 hcp mini-1NT opening bids, by ruling that a partnership which has that agreement is prohibited from using *any* conventions. Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jun 24 01:15:22 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:15:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: <004c01c339a8$578c3040$6b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030623201029.023bb618@mail.vzavenue.net> At 12:56 PM 6/23/2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, >in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified >types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional >continuations)? >For example... > >(1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx >(2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx >(3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx >(4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x > >Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents open. >Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? The right answer depends on the EBU interpretation of the rules. In the ACBL, for example, the rule that 1NT cannot be opened with less than 10 HCP is enforced to the letter; if you upgrade a 9-count to a 10-count, then you have agreed to open with 9, and you may not use conventions. In contrast, the rule that a weak 2-bid cannot have a range wider than 7 HCP is not, and players are allowed to use judgment; you may write 5-11 HCP on your card, and still open 2S on KQJxxx J Jxx Axx or KJT9xx x T9x xxx. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 24 10:17:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:17:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK Message-ID: <00a601c33a31$7a00ff00$3c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Hills] However, the ACBL has *indirectly* restricted 8 or 9 hcp mini-1NT opening bids, by ruling that a partnership which has that agreement is prohibited from using *any* conventions. [Nigel Guthrie sent to Richard by mistake] The EBU Rule of 18/19 for opening bids is also rendered "lawful" by the same dubious ruse of permitting them provided you play no conventional call thereafter }: }: }: }: --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jun 24 12:24:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > However, the ACBL has *indirectly* restricted 8 or 9 hcp > mini-1NT opening bids, by ruling that a partnership > which has that agreement is prohibited from using *any* > conventions. Which is no different, and no more legal, than what the EBU have done (but is different from the ABF). However both the EBU and ACBL have done this by attaching a regulation to a natural opening of within a King of average strength. For what the EBU are attempting to have even a semblance of legality they need to attach regulations to the conventions themselves. Thus "4N may be used to ask for aces unless the pair has agreed to open hands which do not conform to rule of 19" etc, etc. It would still be a disgusting abuse of the spirit of the law but it might leave the emperor with some skimpy underwear. Tim From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jun 24 13:16:42 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:16:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> After a busy weekend i/c events on opposite sides of London, there was perhaps one interesting ruling. Partner deals at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-5D-? (oppos silent). What are your logical alternatives with 9x-xx-Kxxx-9xxxx? What if partner rebids 5H rather than 5D, what are your LAs? [ Now let's look at partner's hand ] You deal at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-? (opponents silent). 4C showed a good pre-empt in hearts, what is 5C? Is 5D a logical alternative to 5H with Jxx-AKQJxxx-Ax-x ? [ Now the full hand ] Teams A Q x x x Dealer West x x x NS Vulnerable x A J 10 x J x x 9 x A K Q J x x x x x A x K x x x x 9 x x x x K x x x Q J x x x x K Q x W N E S 4C P 5C P 5H P P P Nothing was alerted. 5H-1, NS +50. 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. If we adjust on the basis that West should bid 5D what do we adjust to? Is East bound to wake up and bid 5H? or might East pass as he has Kxxx? Can we constrain East's actions because West should have alerted 5C, so East too would be subject to L16? As Herman is in Menton, I could point out that the dWS (de Wael School) would not alert 5C and so avoid the last issue. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 24 14:00:13 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:00:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: <004c01c339a8$578c3040$6b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624145113.00ab80c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:56 23/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, >in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified >types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional >continuations)? >For example... > >(1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx >(2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx >(3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx >(4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x > >Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents open. >Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? > >I have posed similar questions before in BLML and rec.games.bridge, so far >without clear resolution. Has the EBULC considered this question? >Is anybody yet able to apply the "Orange Book", to give an authoritative >ruling. AG : too much depends on the regulations. In Belgium, no "rule of #" is implemented at intermediate or higher level, in 3rd/4th hand. Thus nobody could disallow you to open those hands, but you will have to pre-alert this. When rule of # is on, you are simply *not* allowed to open at the 1-level below the given threshold. Neither are your opponents. Therefore, read attentively the conditions of contest. Either they allow lightish openings in 3rd/4th hand, and please do, or they don't and you only need to call the TD when the opponents do. Note that, according to EBU, when rule of # is on, a lightish, but natural, opening is not considered a psyche but an infraction. [I don't like this, sed lex] In the unexpected case where those openings would be tolerated as long as they're not systemic, I would suggest you to : 1) open #1 and tell the TD "this is an exceptional case", which it truly is; 2) open #2 and #4 with weak 2-bids (your CC should mention possible deviations facing PH) ; 3) avoid opening #3, which will make weak opening bids verge to the systemic. Best regards, Alain. >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 24 14:20:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:20:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030623201029.023bb618@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <004c01c339a8$578c3040$6b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624150209.00abcd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:15 23/06/2003 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 12:56 PM 6/23/2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, >>in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified >>types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional >>continuations)? >>For example... >> >>(1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx >>(2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx >>(3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx >>(4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x >> >>Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents= open. >>Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? > >The right answer depends on the EBU interpretation of the rules. In the=20 >ACBL, for example, the rule that 1NT cannot be opened with less than 10=20 >HCP is enforced to the letter; if you upgrade a 9-count to a 10-count,=20 >then you have agreed to open with 9, and you may not use conventions. In= =20 >contrast, the rule that a weak 2-bid cannot have a range wider than 7 HCP= =20 >is not, and players are allowed to use judgment; you may write 5-11 HCP on= =20 >your card, and still open 2S on KQJxxx J Jxx Axx or KJT9xx x T9x xxx. AG : isn't just there a tiny chance that the problem lie with the point=20 count ? Are we allowed to state our ranges in playing tricks ? In Belgium, a weak=20 2-bid defined as "fair 6+ card suit and 4=BD-6 tricks, but fewer than=20 2=BD defensive tricks" would be legal, and include both your examples, as= =20 well as QJ10987 / xx / - / J10987. The problem is, some legislators seem to require you to state your ranges=20 using a flawed tool. There was once a legislation that disallowed you to open a strong club with= =20 a solid 12-card suit and an outside Ace, because this didn't reach the 15=20 HCP threshold. This has been discarded since, but similar restrictions=20 still remain. I understand reasons behind exclusion of mini-mini-notrumps better than=20 those behind limitations of opening bids or overcalls with shapely hands. A= =20 bid is an affirmation that you intend to make several tricks ; counting=20 points with too much strictness verges on numerology. There is a regulation, in Belgium, which, strictly read, means you have to= =20 alert if your 1-level overcalls may be made on less than 7 HCP, as=20 "uncommon agreements". If you ask Belgian experts whether they overcall 1S= =20 over 1m on KQJ109 and out, more than half will answer positively. Yet none= =20 would alert such a bid, which means that they are conscious that=20 point-count doesn't solve everything, at least for unbalanced hands. But=20 lawmakers don't seem to take this into account. As far as I'm concerned, I often state ranges in playing tricks or losers=20 rather than points. When called on to state a HCP range, I give a very=20 extended range (like 5-18 HCP for a 1/1 overcall), and the TD won't quarrel= =20 with this, since I'm telling the truth. Putting it more straightforwardly : many systems state ranges for a strong= =20 2-bid or an Acol 2-bid in playing tricks (or alternatively in HCP or=20 playing tricks). This is allowed. Why shouldn't this be the same for=20 1-bids and weak 2's ? Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 24 14:01:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:01:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c33a50$cbd7ad50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker=20 > Partner deals at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-5D-? (oppos silent). > What are your logical alternatives with 9x-xx-Kxxx-9xxxx? >=20 > What if partner rebids 5H rather than 5D, what are your LAs? >=20 >=20 > [ Now let's look at partner's hand ] >=20 >=20 > You deal at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-? (opponents silent). > 4C showed a good pre-empt in hearts, what is 5C? > Is 5D a logical alternative to 5H with Jxx-AKQJxxx-Ax-x ? >=20 >=20 > [ Now the full hand ] >=20 >=20 > Teams A Q x x x > Dealer West x x x > NS Vulnerable x > A J 10 x > J x x 9 x > A K Q J x x x x x > A x K x x x > x 9 x x x x > K x x > x > Q J x x x x > K Q x >=20 > W N E S > 4C P 5C P > 5H P P P >=20 > Nothing was alerted. 5H-1, NS +50. >=20 > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid).=20 >=20 > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped his = possible 4S bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than cue-bidding = in Diamonds is perfectly legal. East has (in Norway) no UI at this stage so if he "wakes up" and passes = the 5H bid so be it.=20 In an area where the 5C bid would be alertable (immediately, not = delayed) East will have UI (due to the 5C bid not being alerted) that "confirms" = his misunderstanding of the 4C opening bid. This UI will probably deny him = the right to "wake up" and force him to bid 6C whether West bids 5D or 5H. Regards Sven >=20 > If we adjust on the basis that West should bid 5D what do > we adjust to? Is East bound to wake up and bid 5H? or > might East pass as he has Kxxx? >=20 > Can we constrain East's actions because West should have > alerted 5C, so East too would be subject to L16? >=20 > As Herman is in Menton, I could point out that the dWS > (de Wael School) would not alert 5C and so avoid the > last issue. >=20 > Robin >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. >=20 > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. >=20 > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 24 14:34:04 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:34:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624152211.00aab440@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:16 24/06/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >After a busy weekend i/c events on opposite sides of London, >there was perhaps one interesting ruling. > >Partner deals at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-5D-? (oppos silent). >What are your logical alternatives with 9x-xx-Kxxx-9xxxx? AG : the logical alternatives are that partner has gone mad or that he believes (truly or wrongly) that he could open a Namyats 4C. I can't help with the first, therefore I bid 5H, which caters for the second. >What if partner rebids 5H rather than 5D, what are your LAs? AG : same response, but partner's hand would be slightly different. >[ Now let's look at partner's hand ] > > >You deal at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-? (opponents silent). >4C showed a good pre-empt in hearts, what is 5C? >Is 5D a logical alternative to 5H with Jxx-AKQJxxx-Ax-x ? AG : 5C is either a cue-bid or an asking bid, depending on your agreements. Assuming it's a cue, 5D is the only possibility. I'd say *5H* is suggested if partner didn't alert 4C, andf possibly disallowed Whether I should alert 5C is left open. I wouldn't, according to DwS principles. >[ Now the full hand ] > > >Teams A Q x x x >Dealer West x x x >NS Vulnerable x > A J 10 x >J x x 9 x >A K Q J x x x x x >A x K x x x >x 9 x x x x > K x x > x > Q J x x x x > K Q x > > W N E S > 4C P 5C P > 5H P P P > >Nothing was alerted. 5H-1, NS +50. > >4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. >If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. AG : are 5-bids alertable ? Bad idea. Apart from openings and possibly overcalls, one would be far better off if bids at the 4-level or higher veren't. >West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D >- if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. AG : indeed, he should (unless, of course, 5C is an asking bid). Facing at least one of my partners, 5C would be Lackwood, and the correct answer would be 5H (0/3 keycards outside clubs). >If we adjust on the basis that West should bid 5D what do >we adjust to? Is East bound to wake up and bid 5H? or >might East pass as he has Kxxx? AG : let's be serious. If West bids 5H, he could well be taking partner's non-alert into account. (however, partner could have a genuine cue-bid in clubs and only forgot to alert, which would make West's decision silly). But, anyway, both 5D and 5H would be enouh to awaken East ; and since 5C over a Namyats is forcing, pass isn't a LA. So WTP ? You could penalize West for his Unlawful 5H bid, but not East. >Can we constrain East's actions because West should have >alerted 5C, so East too would be subject to L16? AG : yes, we may, but in this case East has no other choice than to pass 5H. Surely yuo don't intend to pretend that 5H is a cue for clubs ? >As Herman is in Menton, I could point out that the dWS >(de Wael School) would not alert 5C and so avoid the >last issue. AG : indeed. Its gain here is substantial. Thank you for mentioning it. Best regards, Alain. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jun 24 14:21:15 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:21:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk> Sven > > > > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. > > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. > > Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid). I was trying to say: "This was played in juristriction where 5C (if it is a cue bid) is alertable". > > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D > > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. > > Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped > his possible 4S > bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than > cue-bidding in > Diamonds is perfectly legal. Does this depend on the style of cue-bidding? If EW cue first-before-second, how would West bid KQx-xxx-xxx-Axxx? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 24 14:40:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:40:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000301c33a56$33abc740$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker > > > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. > > > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. > > > > Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid). >=20 > I was trying to say: "This was played in juristriction where 5C > (if it is a cue bid) is alertable". So I understood, but is it also immediately alertable or just delayed? = The answer to this question makes all the difference in the world. And I = believe I covered both alternatives with my post. >=20 > > > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D > > > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. > > > > Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped > > his possible 4S > > bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than > > cue-bidding in > > Diamonds is perfectly legal. >=20 > Does this depend on the style of cue-bidding? It sure does. > If EW cue first-before-second, how would West bid KQx-xxx-xxx-Axxx? (Typo for East I suppose?) In that case the auction would go: 4C - 5C - 5H - 5S except that East would probably not cue his second = control in spades when he hears West denying Diamond control. But really: Where is the slam with a hand like this opposite a hand that promises 8 tricks (and not much more) with Hearts as (a solid) trump?=20 Sven From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Jun 24 14:47:44 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:47:44 -0300 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <039301c33a57$3350e090$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> I don't think 5d is a LA because 5c already denied the spade control, so why cuebid diammonds if you are losing AK of spades? 5h is the only bid available to opener over the 5c cue. They were very lucky to find 5 clubs in pd's hands for a "raise" of 4c. Namyats rule #4: "Make sure you are short in the suit you open, just in case... just in case...." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D > After a busy weekend i/c events on opposite sides of London, > there was perhaps one interesting ruling. > > Partner deals at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-5D-? (oppos silent). > What are your logical alternatives with 9x-xx-Kxxx-9xxxx? > > What if partner rebids 5H rather than 5D, what are your LAs? > > > [ Now let's look at partner's hand ] > > > You deal at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-? (opponents silent). > 4C showed a good pre-empt in hearts, what is 5C? > Is 5D a logical alternative to 5H with Jxx-AKQJxxx-Ax-x ? > > > [ Now the full hand ] > > > Teams A Q x x x > Dealer West x x x > NS Vulnerable x > A J 10 x > J x x 9 x > A K Q J x x x x x > A x K x x x > x 9 x x x x > K x x > x > Q J x x x x > K Q x > > W N E S > 4C P 5C P > 5H P P P > > Nothing was alerted. 5H-1, NS +50. > > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. > > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. > > If we adjust on the basis that West should bid 5D what do > we adjust to? Is East bound to wake up and bid 5H? or > might East pass as he has Kxxx? > > Can we constrain East's actions because West should have > alerted 5C, so East too would be subject to L16? > > As Herman is in Menton, I could point out that the dWS > (de Wael School) would not alert 5C and so avoid the > last issue. > > Robin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 24 16:03:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:03:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <039301c33a57$3350e090$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624165653.00abf040@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:47 24/06/2003 -0300, Luis Argerich wrote: >I don't think 5d is a LA because 5c already denied the spade control, so why >cuebid >diammonds if you are losing AK of spades? >5h is the only bid available to opener over the 5c cue. >They were very lucky to find 5 clubs in pd's hands for a "raise" of 4c. >Namyats rule #4: "Make sure you are short in the suit you open, just in >case... just in case...." AG : Namyats is second only to Ghestem in the number of system errors. Surely "convention disruption" will crane its neck there sooner or later. A problem encountered by a partner of mine several years ago : AQJ10xxxxxx (TEN of them) xx x -- LHO : 4D. RHO : 6S. You are vul vs not. What do you do ? Answer : unless you double, you score 2 / 14. You're cold for 5S. If they escape to 7D, it's 800 to you. And nobody bid 6D over 5S. The opposing hands were smoething like : -- Kx xx AKQJxxx KQ10xxxx x A10xx Jxx From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jun 24 22:57:24 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SAYC (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) Message-ID: <200306242157.RAA27769@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Regular partnerships invariably make minor modifications even > to the most rigid of systems. Therefore, "SAYC" or "Acol" are > not particular systems, but rather a complex of different > systems, which merely have a similar style and approach. That's true for Acol but at best controversial for SAYC. Some people think SAYC refers to the exact published system. It certainly did back when the ACBL held "SAYC-only" events. If you played something different, you were breaking the rules. Nowadays, there are people who call their system SAYC but play something different. The question is whether these people are misusing the language or whether the language has evolved so that SAYC includes their methods as well. As with any debate about linguistic purity, opinions will vary. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 25 01:23:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:23:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: Luis Argerich wrote: >I don't think 5d is a LA because 5c already denied the >spade control, so why cuebid diamonds if you are losing >AK of spades? > >5h is the only bid available to opener over the 5c cue. > >They were very lucky to find 5 clubs in pd's hands for >a "raise" of 4c. > >Namyats rule #4: "Make sure you are short in the suit >you open, just in case... just in case...." Richard replied: An excellent summation by Luis, but I have one minor caveat. Is 5C systemically a cuebid agreeing hearts as trumps, or is it systemically a natural signoff? Sure, the most sensible partnership agreement is that 5C is a cuebid, but a partnership that forgets that they are playing Namyats might also fail to have a sensible cuebidding agreement. If the partnership's system card does not provide clear evidence that after opening 4C Namyats, a 5C response is a cuebid, then I would join Herman De Wael in adjusting the score to 5C undoubled, failing by zillions of undertricks. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 25 03:18:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:18:59 +1000 Subject: SAYC (was Re: [blml] delayed alerts [now WBF]) Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >Nowadays, there are people who call their system SAYC >but play something different. The question is whether >these people are misusing the language or whether the >language has evolved so that SAYC includes their >methods as well. As with any debate about linguistic >purity, opinions will vary. Richard replies: It is not so much a question about linguistic purity, but rather a question of system taxonomy. In biology, one of the taxonomical tests to determine whether two varieties of birds belong to different species is whether they can interbreed. If they cannot interbreed, the variety of birds are deemed to be different species. Unfortunately, this Aristotelian test to determine separate species of birds came unstuck when a series of varieties of birds had a non-transitive relationship. The habitats of these varieties of birds girdled the earth. Each variety could interbreed with their geographically adjacent varieties, but varieties from opposite ends of the earth could not interbreed. A similar problem occurs with the Standard American system. A player from Australia who played the Aussie style of Standard American would not be able to interbreed with (sorry, understand the bidding of) a Canadian partner from the opposite end of the earth who played the ACBL style of Standard American. Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 25 04:44:12 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:44:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624145113.00ab80c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <004c01c339a8$578c3040$6b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.1.0.14.0.20030624145113.00ab80c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030624145113.00ab80c0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 17:56 23/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, >>in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified >>types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional >>continuations)? >>For example... >> >>(1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx >>(2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx >>(3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx >>(4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x >> >>Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents open. >>Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? >> >>I have posed similar questions before in BLML and rec.games.bridge, so far >>without clear resolution. Has the EBULC considered this question? >>Is anybody yet able to apply the "Orange Book", to give an authoritative >>ruling. > >AG : too much depends on the regulations. In Belgium, no "rule of #" is >implemented at intermediate or higher level, in 3rd/4th hand. Thus nobody >could disallow you to open those hands, but you will have to pre-alert this. >When rule of # is on, you are simply *not* allowed to open at the 1-level >below the given threshold. Neither are your opponents. I have said before, I say again, that systems designed for opening in the first two seats bear *no* resemblance to systems (if indeed we may call them such) used in 3rd and 4th. If we recognise Pearson points in 4th (I slung in a 13 count wk NT today for 80%), we recognise fLOBS in 3rd. Partner being a passed hand changes us from Venus to Mars. The EBU doesn't recognise we've even walked down Broadway (aka Park lane). The more I think about it, at imps particularly, I want to play precision in 1 and 2 (with an 11-13 NT), and fLOBs and 4 weak 2's in 3rd and 4th. Now, I run a serious risk of having my license revoked for all this, but I'd rather go back to being on the outside pissing in than be part of such a megalomaniac junta. [It is a matter of record I got appointed as an EBU TD on the basis of (inter alia) a discussion where persons present included the current WBF CTD and the words "we'd rather have him on the inside pissing out ....." occurred - a perfect case of poacher turned gamekeeper.] - This statement alone should get me nailed. >Therefore, read attentively the conditions of contest. Either they allow >lightish openings in 3rd/4th hand, and please do, or they don't and you >only need to call the TD when the opponents do. >Note that, according to EBU, when rule of # is on, a lightish, but natural, >opening is not considered a psyche but an infraction. [I don't like this, >sed lex] > >In the unexpected case where those openings would be tolerated as long as >they're not systemic, I would suggest you to : >1) open #1 and tell the TD "this is an exceptional case", which it truly is; >2) open #2 and #4 with weak 2-bids (your CC should mention possible >deviations facing PH) ; >3) avoid opening #3, which will make weak opening bids verge to the systemic. The whole point about opening No.3 Alain, is that no-one in their right mind would do so, except me, Tim and a non-insignificant proportion of the 5 pound game. He knows it, I know it, and they know it. Sadly for Tim and me they don't play in EBU games. Perhaps they're right. regards John > >Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > > > >>--- >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 25 04:46:51 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:46:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <000201c33a50$cbd7ad50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> <000201c33a50$cbd7ad50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c33a50$cbd7ad50$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Robin Barker >> Partner deals at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-5D-? (oppos silent). >> What are your logical alternatives with 9x-xx-Kxxx-9xxxx? >> >> What if partner rebids 5H rather than 5D, what are your LAs? >> >> >> [ Now let's look at partner's hand ] >> >> >> You deal at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-? (opponents silent). >> 4C showed a good pre-empt in hearts, what is 5C? >> Is 5D a logical alternative to 5H with Jxx-AKQJxxx-Ax-x ? >> >> >> [ Now the full hand ] >> >> >> Teams A Q x x x >> Dealer West x x x >> NS Vulnerable x >> A J 10 x >> J x x 9 x >> A K Q J x x x x x >> A x K x x x >> x 9 x x x x >> K x x >> x >> Q J x x x x >> K Q x >> >> W N E S >> 4C P 5C P >> 5H P P P >> >> Nothing was alerted. 5H-1, NS +50. >> >> 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. >> If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. > >Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid). > >> >> West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D >> - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. > >Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped his possible 4S >bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than cue-bidding in >Diamonds is perfectly legal. > >East has (in Norway) no UI at this stage so if he "wakes up" and passes the >5H bid so be it. > >In an area where the 5C bid would be alertable (immediately, not delayed) >East will have UI (due to the 5C bid not being alerted) that "confirms" his >misunderstanding of the 4C opening bid. This UI will probably deny him the >right to "wake up" and force him to bid 6C whether West bids 5D or 5H. I rule 300 in the UK, John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 25 04:52:18 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:52:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Sven > >> > >> > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. >> > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. >> >> Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid). > >I was trying to say: "This was played in juristriction where 5C >(if it is a cue bid) is alertable". > >> > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D >> > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. >> >> Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped >> his possible 4S >> bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than >> cue-bidding in >> Diamonds is perfectly legal. > >Does this depend on the style of cue-bidding? >If EW cue first-before-second, how would West bid KQx-xxx-xxx-Axxx? 4H We need a shedload more tricks than this ordurous manifestation to move over a strong 4H bid. First time ever I'm close to flaming you, Robin, for being a completely stupid pillock. John 4H, 4H and 4H. So rule 6C without breaking sweat. Don't mind 6H if 6C is doubled and if you must. John > >Robin > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. >If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or >disclose such information. > >NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any >attachments are free from viruses. > >NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 >Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 25 04:54:41 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:54:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <000301c33a56$33abc740$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk> <000301c33a56$33abc740$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000301c33a56$33abc740$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Robin Barker >> > > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. >> > > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. >> > >> > Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid). >> >> I was trying to say: "This was played in juristriction where 5C >> (if it is a cue bid) is alertable". > >So I understood, but is it also immediately alertable or just delayed? The >answer to this question makes all the difference in the world. And I believe >I covered both alternatives with my post. > >> >> > > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D >> > > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. >> > >> > Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped >> > his possible 4S >> > bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than >> > cue-bidding in >> > Diamonds is perfectly legal. >> >> Does this depend on the style of cue-bidding? > >It sure does. > >> If EW cue first-before-second, how would West bid KQx-xxx-xxx-Axxx? > >(Typo for East I suppose?) In that case the auction would go: >4C - 5C - 5H - 5S except that East would probably not cue his second control >in spades when he hears West denying Diamond control. > >But really: Where is the slam with a hand like this opposite a hand that >promises 8 tricks (and not much more) with Hearts as (a solid) trump? > ~ adds Sven to list of completely stupid pillocks. That's two of my top ten fave TDs in the world I've just flamed. john >Sven > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 25 05:03:24 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 05:03:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624165653.00abf040@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> <039301c33a57$3350e090$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030624165653.00abf040@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7sxPHcBM8R++EwkI@asimere.com> In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030624165653.00abf040@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 10:47 24/06/2003 -0300, Luis Argerich wrote: >>I don't think 5d is a LA because 5c already denied the spade control, so why >>cuebid >>diammonds if you are losing AK of spades? >>5h is the only bid available to opener over the 5c cue. >>They were very lucky to find 5 clubs in pd's hands for a "raise" of 4c. >>Namyats rule #4: "Make sure you are short in the suit you open, just in >>case... just in case...." > >AG : Namyats is second only to Ghestem in the number of system errors. >Surely "convention disruption" will crane its neck there sooner or later. >A problem encountered by a partner of mine several years ago : > > AQJ10xxxxxx (TEN of them) > xx > x > -- > >LHO : 4D. RHO : 6S. You are vul vs not. What do you do ? Take all my bidding cards out of the box and shred them. Take all my pass cards out of the box and shred them Take all my redouble cards out of the box and shred them Tear up the stop card, and the alert card. Put a double card on the table, with all the rest of them. Put the TD card and a five pound note on top of the doubles. Go to the bar. Wander back 7 minutes later and ask "Did it go down?" This wasn't a serious question was it? -- 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 Wed Jun 25 05:15:29 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:15:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Flame fame Message-ID: In Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D, John (MadDog) Probst flamed: >~ adds Sven to list of completely stupid pillocks. > >That's two of my top ten fave TDs in the world I've just flamed. Yes Minister related: "The Letters JB in capitals are one of the highest Commonwealth honours. They stand for Jailed by the British. The order includes Gandhi, Nkrumah, Makarios, Ben Gurion, Kenyatta, Nehru..." Richard suggests: Perhaps the letters FMD (flamed by the MadDog) could be the second- highest blml honour. Of course, the highest blml honour would have to be FDB. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 25 07:21:02 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:21:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst asserted: [snip] >I have said before, I say again, that systems designed >for opening in the first two seats bear *no* resemblance >to systems (if indeed we may call them such) used in 3rd >and 4th. If we recognise Pearson points in 4th (I slung >in a 13 count wk NT today for 80%), we recognise fLOBS in >3rd. [snip] The question of whether fLOBS are best in 3rd seat, while being the recommended strategy by many bidding theorists for half-a-century, is still not definitively decided. Empirical evidence from Aussie national events in the 1980s suggest that fLOBS are most effective in 1st and 2nd seat. Ex-Kiwi bidding theorist Paul Marston used a Forcing Pass Relay system back then. Analysis of the results showed that the biggest imp gains for Marston's system occurred when one of the distribution-describing 8-12 hcp bids was opened in 1st or 2nd seat. The reasons for 1st and 2nd seat fLOB success include: * striking the first blow in an auction, so opponents are prevented from having an uncontested constructive auction, but instead must use their (usually less detailed) defensive bidding methods * permitting partner to respond with a leap with a good fit, preempting the opponents and/or picking up game swings & double-game swings * keeping partner out of trouble on misfits * more frequent information for partner, if the opponents buy the contract, and pard has to make the opening lead * more frequent information for partner, making successful penalty doubles easier to diagnose Best wishes Richard From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000501c33ae8$297a4b10$822d6651@annescomputer> If this doesn't ratify the wisdom of such NAs as EBU, in protecting level 3/4 type (Club) players from such theorists, while allowing the perpetrators full reign in EBL and WBF events, I don't know what does. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) > > John (MadDog) Probst asserted: > > [snip] > > >I have said before, I say again, that systems designed > >for opening in the first two seats bear *no* resemblance > >to systems (if indeed we may call them such) used in 3rd > >and 4th. If we recognise Pearson points in 4th (I slung > >in a 13 count wk NT today for 80%), we recognise fLOBS in > >3rd. > > [snip] > > The question of whether fLOBS are best in 3rd seat, while > being the recommended strategy by many bidding theorists > for half-a-century, is still not definitively decided. > > Empirical evidence from Aussie national events in the > 1980s suggest that fLOBS are most effective in 1st and 2nd > seat. > > Ex-Kiwi bidding theorist Paul Marston used a Forcing Pass > Relay system back then. Analysis of the results showed > that the biggest imp gains for Marston's system occurred > when one of the distribution-describing 8-12 hcp bids was > opened in 1st or 2nd seat. > > The reasons for 1st and 2nd seat fLOB success include: > > * striking the first blow in an auction, so opponents > are prevented from having an uncontested constructive > auction, but instead must use their (usually less > detailed) defensive bidding methods > > * permitting partner to respond with a leap with a good > fit, preempting the opponents and/or picking up game > swings & double-game swings > > * keeping partner out of trouble on misfits > > * more frequent information for partner, if the opponents > buy the contract, and pard has to make the opening lead > > * more frequent information for partner, making successful > penalty doubles easier to diagnose > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jun 25 09:58:03 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:58:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658F@hotel.npl.co.uk> John I didn't make my point very well (obviously!) What would East bid with everything he could have except SA. e.g. KQx - xxxx - KQJx AK Robin -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@asimere.com] Sent: 25 June 2003 04:52 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In article <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404658B@hotel.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Sven > >> > >> > 4C was systemically a good 4H bid (alertable), East forgot. >> > If 5C would be a cue bid it is alertable. >> >> Not in Norway (above 3NT and not a conventional opening bid). > >I was trying to say: "This was played in juristriction where 5C >(if it is a cue bid) is alertable". > >> > West has UI from the failure to alert 4C, so should bid 5D >> > - if 5D is a logical alternative to 5H. >> >> Doesn't a cue bid in 5C deny stopper in spade? (East skipped >> his possible 4S >> bid). In view of this I think West's bid of 5H rather than >> cue-bidding in >> Diamonds is perfectly legal. > >Does this depend on the style of cue-bidding? >If EW cue first-before-second, how would West bid KQx-xxx-xxx-Axxx? 4H We need a shedload more tricks than this ordurous manifestation to move over a strong 4H bid. First time ever I'm close to flaming you, Robin, for being a completely stupid pillock. John 4H, 4H and 4H. So rule 6C without breaking sweat. Don't mind 6H if 6C is doubled and if you must. John > >Robin > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. >If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or >disclose such information. > >NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any >attachments are free from viruses. > >NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 >Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 25 11:02:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:02:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030625115857.00abe0a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:23 25/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >If the partnership's system card does not provide clear >evidence that after opening 4C Namyats, a 5C response is >a cuebid, then I would join Herman De Wael in adjusting >the score to 5C undoubled, failing by zillions of >undertricks. AG : sorry, I have to disagree. You may ask people to bend backwards after UI has been transmitted ; you can't ask them to act irrationally. 5C is no more natural after a 4C Namyats than it is after a 4H preempt. You can't ask for evidence for what is IOTTMCO. Why not ask for evidence that a 1/1 response is forcing ? (if somebody claims *it isn't*, then you ask for evidence). From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 25 11:06:50 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:06:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Flame fame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030625120601.00ac0350@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:15 25/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Perhaps the letters FMD (flamed by the MadDog) could be the second- >highest blml honour. Of course, the highest blml honour would have >to be FDB. AG : I feel deeply proud of being so distinguished. When does the Ceremony take place ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 25 13:04:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:04:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: <7sxPHcBM8R++EwkI@asimere.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030624165653.00abf040@pop.ulb.ac.be> <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046587@hotel.npl.co.uk> <039301c33a57$3350e090$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030624165653.00abf040@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030625134748.00ab4c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:03 25/06/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >A problem encountered by a partner of mine several years ago : > > > > AQJ10xxxxxx (TEN of them) > > xx > > x > > -- > > > >LHO : 4D. RHO : 6S. You are vul vs not. What do you do ? > >Take all my bidding cards out of the box and shred them. >Take all my pass cards out of the box and shred them >Take all my redouble cards out of the box and shred them >Tear up the stop card, and the alert card. >Put a double card on the table, with all the rest of them. >Put the TD card and a five pound note on top of the doubles. AG : against yourself, for infringing L74A3, 74B5, 74C2 and 74C8, I presume. Because the opponents can't be deemed to have infringed anything. >Go to the bar. > >Wander back 7 minutes later and ask "Did it go down?" > >This wasn't a serious question was it? AG : yes, it was. After all your mannerisms (and who would not show=20 surprise in an obvious manner when confronted with that bidding sequence=20 ?), RHO wouldn't find it difficult to convince the TD that it was *you* who= =20 helped her realize her mistake, and escape to 7D. What defense do you have= =20 vs 7D ? (yes, they were playing Namyats and could prove it) Could Andr=E9 (a sound player and a good TD) be blamed for thinking that 400= =20 to 600 would be better than a possible 300 (or -1630) in 7D, and that after= =20 his long tempo and head-scratching LHO would be allowed to bid them) ?=20 Remember that West surely has a spade void and that East should have a=20 fairly strong hand, and you will conclude that a possibility of scoring 800= =20 was quite unexpected. Rule #1 for diplomats : never ask any question to which a positive response= =20 would be embarrassing, eg "are you taking the mickey ?". BTA some don't=20 care about looking diplomatic. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 25 13:16:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:16:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] new cards Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030625140838.00ab97f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Your opinion is most wanted about an incident which happened last monday in a small club tournament As the playing TD, you have asked to shuffle the cards with great care, because these are new decks. 1) In the next-to-last position, when deal 26 is played for the fifth and last time, East has : Q84 Q84 J73 AK95 And sees in dummy : AK95 J73 Q84 Q84 What should he do ? 2) Right or wrong, East calls you ans says "I'm sure the cards haven't been shuffled. Look, I have the same cards as dummy, suits inverted. I'm sure the other two players have corresponding hands, too." North : "you shouldn't have said that. The board is now unplayable" East : "I don't want to take advantage from the knowledge I have. I now *know* which defense will make you down." Which, incidentally, is true. How do you rule ? Thank you for your help. Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jun 25 13:23:51 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:23:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030625140838.00ab97f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030625081830.00a0f590@pop.starpower.net> At 08:16 AM 6/25/03, Alain wrote: >1) In the next-to-last position, when deal 26 is played for the fifth >and last time, East has : >Q84 >Q84 >J73 >AK95 > >And sees in dummy : >AK95 >J73 >Q84 >Q84 > >What should he do ? > >2) Right or wrong, East calls you ans says "I'm sure the cards haven't >been shuffled. Look, I have the same cards as dummy, suits inverted. >I'm sure the other two players have corresponding hands, too." >North : "you shouldn't have said that. The board is now unplayable" >East : "I don't want to take advantage from the knowledge I have. I >now *know* which defense will make you down." Which, incidentally, is true. > >How do you rule ? A+/A+, L16B3, L12C1. North apparently knows the hands, through no fault of his own, so I treat this as I would had he inadvertently learned them from a loud discussion at the next table. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From lskelso@ihug.com.au Wed Jun 25 16:23:07 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:23:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030625081830.00a0f590@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030625140838.00ab97f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030626012307.00a18380@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 08:23 25/06/03 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:16 AM 6/25/03, Alain wrote: > >>1) In the next-to-last position, when deal 26 is played for the fifth >>and last time, East has : >>Q84 >>Q84 >>J73 >>AK95 >> >>And sees in dummy : >>AK95 >>J73 >>Q84 >>Q84 >> >>What should he do ? >> >>2) Right or wrong, East calls you ans says "I'm sure the cards haven't >>been shuffled. Look, I have the same cards as dummy, suits inverted. >>I'm sure the other two players have corresponding hands, too." >>North : "you shouldn't have said that. The board is now unplayable" >>East : "I don't want to take advantage from the knowledge I have. I >>now *know* which defense will make you down." Which, incidentally, is true. >> >>How do you rule ? > >A+/A+, L16B3, L12C1. North apparently knows the hands, through no >fault of his own, so I treat this as I would had he inadvertently >learned them from a loud discussion at the next table. > Law 6D2 says that not only can there be no result on the board at this table, but that the other four previous results on the board must also be cancelled. Hence we throw the board out of the session! Laurie (In Australia) From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Jun 25 21:23:06 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:23:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030623201029.023bb618@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030623201029.023bb618@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: >At 12:56 PM 6/23/2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>With or without explicit partnership agreement, at an EBU level 3/4 event, >>in third seat, may I *regularly* open one of a suit with certain specified >>types of hand that are "rule of 18/17". (using normal conventional >>continuations)? >>For example... >> >>(1) AKQJ xxx xxx xxx >>(2) AKQxx xxx xxx xx >>(3) AJTx Ax xxx xxxx >>(4) AQT9xx JTxxx x x >> >>Our team lose matches on this kind of hand when we pass and opponents open. >>Are we unnecessarily handicapping ourselves? > >The right answer depends on the EBU interpretation of the rules. In >the ACBL, for example, the rule that 1NT cannot be opened with less >than 10 HCP is enforced to the letter; if you upgrade a 9-count to a >10-count, then you have agreed to open with 9, and you may not use >conventions. In contrast, the rule that a weak 2-bid cannot have a >range wider than 7 HCP is not, and players are allowed to use >judgment; you may write 5-11 HCP on your card, and still open 2S on >KQJxxx J Jxx Axx or KJT9xx x T9x xxx. At a sectional at Jefferson City, Missouri, in the spring of 2002 one player opened 1NT on 9 HCP, though claiming to play 10-12. After much back and forth phoning to ACBL headquarters it was ruled that if this opening on 9HCP had not been made other than on rare occasions (not the exact words but the meaning) then it was not subject to the sanction against using conventions after a 1NT opening. Those who did it claimed it had not been done very often, last time several months ago. So it was allowed. So the enforcement to the letter seems not to be absolutely solid. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 00:14:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:14:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] new cards Message-ID: Laurie wrote: >Law 6D2 says that not only can there be no result on the >board at this table, but that the other four previous results >on the board must also be cancelled. Hence we throw the >board out of the session! A Belgian judge replies: It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of 1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards were dealt from a shuffled deck. As we all know, 1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 chances occur with monotonous frequency, as evidenced by many newspaper reports of all four players being dealt thirteen-card suits. Best wishes Avogadro From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 00:24:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:24:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: Alain's assertion: >5C is no more natural after a 4C Namyats than it is >after a 4H preempt. Richard's rhetoric: What is true for Alain is not a universal truth. Two top class Aussie players, a year-old partnership playing in a major national championship, perpetrated this auction: Expert 1 Expert 2 4H 5C Pass Like Alain, Expert 2 thought that "everybody" knew that 5C was an asking bid after a 4H preempt. Like me, Expert 1 thought that a bid undiscussed by the partnership should be treated as natural. Result: Down zillions of undoubled undertricks in a 2-1 fit. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 00:41:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:41:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK Message-ID: Robert E. Harris wrote: [snip] >Those who did it claimed it had not been done very >often, last time several months ago. So it was allowed. > >So the enforcement to the letter seems not to be >absolutely solid. Richard responds: On the contrary, I am surprised but delighted that the ACBL is finally correctly applying Law 40A, and has abandoned the iniquitous "one psyche in a lifetime" interpretation. Best wishes Richard From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Jun 26 02:48:02 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:48:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> North South were bidding hearts and East West spades. North bids 6H and East hesitates before passing. West now doublesand North calls me immediately. I allow the bidding to proceed. East now pulls the double to 6S which goes off 800. In fact 6H is making, even though West has two aces. I decide that pass is not a logical alternative for West. But even so, says I, North is not damaged by the double since 6Hx is making. North claims he would rather play in 6H making than collect 800 for 6Sx, and West's double catered for East's hesitation. So it seems that NS really have been damaged subsequent to the double. What should I have ruled supposing that I had decided that West's double was not an LA?? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 03:23:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:23:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: Tony asks: >North South were bidding hearts and East West >spades. North bids 6H and East hesitates >before passing. West now doubles and North >calls me immediately. > >I allow the bidding to proceed. > >East now pulls the double to 6S which goes off >800. > >In fact 6H is making, even though West has two >aces. I decide that pass is not a logical alternative >for West. But even so, says I, North is not >damaged by the double since 6Hx is making. > >North claims he would rather play in 6H making >than collect 800 for 6Sx, and West's double catered >for East's hesitation. So it seems that NS really >have been damaged subsequent to the double. > >What should I have ruled supposing that I had >decided that West's double was not an LA?? Richard replies: First, check if East-West are playing some variant of conventional slam double. (A popular agreement in competitive slam auctions is that a death seat double promises exactly one defensive trick.) If West's double was not conventional, then there is no problem, assuming that West did not hesitate. The distinction is that made by Edgar Kaplan between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage. North-South were not damaged as a consequence of West's penalty double - they were damaged by East's subsequent irrational action. East's decision to defend 6H when pard could not double for penalty, but to sacrifice against 6H when pard could double for penalty, is obviously irrational - but lucky in this case. There is no bridge Law against irrationality getting lucky, much as North-South may wish it to be so. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 26 04:55:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:55:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: Message-ID: <006801c33b96$cd18e5c0$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard] East's decision to defend 6H when pard could not double for penalty, but to sacrifice against 6H when pard could double for penalty, is obviously irrational - but lucky in this case. There is no bridge Law against irrationality getting lucky, much as North-South may wish it to be so. [Nigel] Are you sure Richard? It seems to me that East may fear that his hesitation overstated his values. Unfortunately, it seems that West has taken it too seriously. So East pulls West's double as a safety play. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 10:40:46 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:40:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626113251.00ab06f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:41 26/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Robert E. Harris wrote: > >[snip] > > >Those who did it claimed it had not been done very > >often, last time several months ago. So it was allowed. > > > >So the enforcement to the letter seems not to be > >absolutely solid. > >Richard responds: > >On the contrary, I am surprised but delighted that the >ACBL is finally correctly applying Law 40A, and has >abandoned the iniquitous "one psyche in a lifetime" >interpretation. AG : please note that, while opening a 15-17 HCP on a 9-count is a psyche, opening a 10-12 NT on a 9-count is not. It doesn't fulfil the primary condition for being a psyche, ie being a "gross distortion". Psyches are covered by one set of rules (concedo, the ACBL principles about restricting psyches is wrong. This isn't the matter here). Minor variations are covered by L75B, and the decision discussed here seems to have been taken in concordance with this law (if you open those hands 1NT too often, you create an agreement. You are then deemed to play 9-12 NT, which incidentally creates restrictions. If it's very uncommon, no problem). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 10:53:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:53:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626114326.00ab8480@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:24 26/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >What is true for Alain is not a universal truth. Two >top class Aussie players, a year-old partnership >playing in a major national championship, perpetrated >this auction: > >Expert 1 Expert 2 >4H 5C >Pass > >Like Alain, Expert 2 thought that "everybody" knew >that 5C was an asking bid after a 4H preempt. > >Like me, Expert 1 thought that a bid undiscussed by >the partnership should be treated as natural. > >Result: Down zillions of undoubled undertricks in a > 2-1 fit. AG : I grant Richard the fact that 4H - 5C is undicussed by most partnerships. However : a) a huge majority (at least in Europa) think that 4H - 5C isn't natural, even when undiscussed. Whether it should be an asking bid is another matter. b) for this reason, the absence of any information on the pair's CC would mean "standard", that is, "not natural", the same way that no information about the sequence 1C-1H would mean "forcing". c) I don't think that a pair who had a "misunderstanding + MI + UI problem" and escapes because neither the MI nor the UI had any impact on the deal (this is allowed to happen, according to "object of laws", alinea 3, and L12B) should be penalized for the mere reason that a minority of Aussie experts play it otherwise (perhaps they're right, but that's another story). I would be stumped to hear any AC deciding that 5C should be treated as natural barring evidence to the contrary. Of course, that's always a risk against Aussies :-) Best regards, Alain. From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Jun 26 12:34:11 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:34:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: <007501c33bd6$ddcc4de0$81c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Robin Barker wrote: >I didn't make my point very well (obviously!) > >What would East bid with everything he could have except >SA. e.g. KQx - xxxx - KQJx AK Possibly 4NT (if playing straight Blackwood not RKCB) with those cards, but with KQxxx, xxxx, KQJx, - 5C might be the call. With Kxx, xxxx, Kx, AKQ10, playing straight Blackwood one might bid 5C to avoid wrongsiding the hearts via 4NT. Playing RKCB, Robin's hand will do just fine as an illustration, as one cannot bid 5H over 5S. A quick look at the relevant pair's Conventiuon Card might reveal in the Cue Bids section whether their cue bids are Italian style (1st or 2nd round) or Traditional style (first round controls at first). With Kxx, -, Jx, KQJ109876 in practice, I strongly think that ANYONE WHO FORGETS NAMYATS is also quite capable of bidding 5C as a natural bid, perahps somewhat absent- mindedly, unless as Richard says there is evidence to the contrary. Thus, assuming that Namyats is alertable, I think that Pass of 5C is a LA. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. Robin Barker had written: >>Partner deals at teams, NV v V: 4C-5C-5D-? (oppos silent). >>What are your logical alternatives with 9x-xx-Kxxx-9xxxx? >>What if partner rebids 5H rather than 5D, what are your LAs? From David Stevenson Thu Jun 26 13:44:12 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: writes > >Laurie wrote: > >>Law 6D2 says that not only can there be no result on the >>board at this table, but that the other four previous results >>on the board must also be cancelled. Hence we throw the >>board out of the session! > >A Belgian judge replies: > >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." > >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards >were dealt from a shuffled deck. Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the officials, TDs and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is undeniably correct. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Jun 26 13:48:08 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:48:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove writes >North South were bidding hearts and East West >spades. North bids 6H and East hesitates >before passing. West now doublesand North >calls me immediately. >I allow the bidding to proceed. > >East now pulls the double to 6S which goes off >800. > >In fact 6H is making, even though West has two >aces. I decide that pass is not a logical alternative >for West. But even so, says I, North is not >damaged by the double since 6Hx is making. > >North claims he would rather play in 6H making >than collect 800 for 6Sx, and West's double catered >for East's hesitation. So it seems that NS really >have been damaged subsequent to the double. > >What should I have ruled supposing that I had >decided that West's double was not an LA?? 6H making. West did not know for certain what East was thinking about. But his hesitation suggested action was better than inaction. In fact, a player of less than perfect ethics would always double in such a situation if he had any extras as a two-way shot: partner can leave it in or progress as suitable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Jun 26 15:21:55 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:21:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! Message-ID: May I be the first to welcome David Stevenson back to the mailing list? Hopefully now we'll have some opinions based on common sense and pragmatism, rather than airy ambuguity and weasel words. Regards Norman. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 15:45:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:45:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626164017.00ab7230@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:44 26/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: > >A Belgian judge replies: > > > >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if > >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." > > > >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. > >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of > >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards > >were dealt from a shuffled deck. > > Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the officials, TDs >and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is undeniably correct. AG : you missed something here, David. This is a reference to a recent judgement by a Belgian court : "The fact that two deals in this match were the same, card by card, as two given deals in some bridge book, might be due to chance, however small the probability is. For this reason, it may not be inferred that the defender made up the deals." This decision put the Belgian Federation on verge of bankruptcy because of damages to the defender. Bridge laws are not efficient for dealing with cheats ; neither are general laws. Best regards, Alain. >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bbickford@charter.net Thu Jun 26 15:47:18 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:47:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] new cards References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626164017.00ab7230@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <093901c33bf1$d7e23870$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] new cards > At 13:44 26/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: > > >A Belgian judge replies: > > > > > >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if > > >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." > > > > > >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. > > >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of > > >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards > > >were dealt from a shuffled deck. > > > > Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the officials, TDs > >and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is undeniably correct. > Is it possible that some number of perfect shuffles would produce this situation? For example, 8 perfect shuffles returns the deck to its original state. Does anyone have any knowledge what would result from 2-7 perfect shuffles? Cheers................................/Bill Bickford > > >-- > >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 26 15:51:54 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> In article , Norman Scorbie writes >May I be the first to welcome David Stevenson back to the mailing list? >Hopefully now we'll have some opinions based on common sense and pragmatism, >rather than airy ambuguity and weasel words. > agree, welcome back DWS. I'll break open a new bottle of Glenmoranjie. >Regards > >Norman. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jun 26 16:03:27 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:03:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] new cards Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046595@hotel.npl.co.uk> Alain This is incredible - I hope the man banned in Wales does not hear of it. Will the Belgium Federation appeal (perhaps they can get Burn on the AC)? English law talks about "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal cases and a lesser test ("preponderance of the evidence"?) for civil cases - which I guess this was. All manner of forensic and eye-witness evidence would have to be disregarded if the witnesses had to be more certain they were right than 1-(1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000)^2 ** Robin ** not really the right odds: perhaps what want is wanted is the chance that two of the hands the player dealt (in this lifetime) are equal to two of the hands ever published. -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] Sent: 26 June 2003 15:46 To: David Stevenson; Subject: Re: [blml] new cards At 13:44 26/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: > >A Belgian judge replies: > > > >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if > >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." > > > >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. > >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of > >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards > >were dealt from a shuffled deck. > > Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the officials, TDs >and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is undeniably correct. AG : you missed something here, David. This is a reference to a recent judgement by a Belgian court : "The fact that two deals in this match were the same, card by card, as two given deals in some bridge book, might be due to chance, however small the probability is. For this reason, it may not be inferred that the defender made up the deals." This decision put the Belgian Federation on verge of bankruptcy because of damages to the defender. Bridge laws are not efficient for dealing with cheats ; neither are general laws. Best regards, Alain. >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > >_______________________________________________ >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 e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 16:30:46 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:30:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046595@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626172645.00ab5af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:03 26/06/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >Alain > >This is incredible - I hope the man banned in Wales does not hear of it. > >Will the Belgium Federation appeal (perhaps they can get Burn on the >AC)? > >English law talks about "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal cases and >a lesser test ("preponderance of the evidence"?) for civil cases - which >I guess this was. AG : Belgian laws do, too. Judges, like TDs and ACs, sometimes do absurd things. Incredible indeed. >All manner of forensic and eye-witness evidence would have to be >disregarded if the witnesses had to be more certain they were right >than 1-(1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000)^2 ** > >Robin > >** not really the right odds: > perhaps what want is wanted is the chance that two of the hands the > player dealt (in this lifetime) are equal to two of the hands ever > published. AG : a Belgian bridge expert and mathematician (incidentally, British too) did the computations in an expert's report to the Court. This didn't seem to be enough. From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Thu Jun 26 16:21:57 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:21:57 +0400 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> References: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> Message-ID: <3EFB0F95.1010503@elnet.msk.ru> Am really happy to see David's returning and to read his comments Best regards Vitold From luis@fuegolabs.com Thu Jun 26 16:27:19 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:27:19 -0300 Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions References: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> Message-ID: <084d01c33bf7$764f5f60$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Hi, three quick questions Incident 1) Auction ends in 4s to be played by south, East leads out of turn the diammond 3 face-up, North asks South to table the dummy and let him play. Is he allowed to do that? Incident 2) Declarer is playing a 2nt contract, he plays the spade A, dummy has KT, lho plays low and dummy without any indication picks the spade ten, RHO discards the dQ. Now declarer asks who is playing this hand? He asks dummy to play the sK and RHO now picks up his dQ and plays the d2. THEN the director is called by declarer. How would you rule? Incident 3) North: J83, AQ532, AT76, 2 South: AKQ942, K65, 4, J83 Auction (west dealer): 3c p 3nt x p 4h p 4s p 6s p p p West leads the cA, easts drops the cK. Now declarer shows his hand, no comments. Evrybody waits in silence. Declarer put his cards back on the board, East says ok down 2. The director is called. He asks declarer to state his line of play Declarer starts to think Easts says he's down 2 he can' dispose the club losers on the hearts because they are 4-1 he asks west to play a diammond at trick 2. Declarer emerges from the tank and says ruff one club with the s8 and the other with the sJ returning to hand with a trump first and then with a diammond ruff and then with a heart to draw trumps. The director asks east if he can overrfuf the club? Easts says he can't Director rules 6s making for NS. Is this right? From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 26 17:05:03 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 03:51 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I'll break open a new bottle of Glenmoranjie. Is this a new bootleg brand, perhaps from the Indian sub-continent? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 17:36:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:36:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions In-Reply-To: <084d01c33bf7$764f5f60$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626181928.00aa7a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:27 26/06/2003 -0300, Luis Argerich wrote: >Hi, three quick questions > >Incident 1) >Auction ends in 4s to be played by south, East leads out of turn the >diammond 3 face-up, North asks South to >table the dummy and let him play. Is he allowed to do that? AG : No. *South* has to decide without asking his partner. However, the result could well be the same, since South's reaction will make his side lose the right to a penalty. The LOOT will therefore be treated as a correct lead, making South declarer. Since this doesn't seem fair, I'm ready to decide according to L16A and ask North to choose among the other 4 alternatives, treating "I let him play" as a suggested alternative. >Incident 2) >Declarer is playing a 2nt contract, he plays the spade A, dummy has KT, lho >plays low and dummy without any >indication picks the spade ten, RHO discards the dQ. Now declarer asks who >is playing this hand? He asks dummy >to play the sK and RHO now picks up his dQ and plays the d2. THEN the >director is called by declarer. How would >you rule? AG : East's play of a small card condones the irregular play by dummy. The trick is made of : small, small, 10, D Queen. The game goes on. Procedural penalty to N/S for repeated incorrections (play by dummy, trying to retract condoned play, late call). If the play of the 10 was better than the king, the score may be adjusted (L45F) In the case where declarer called "spade, no, the king, please" and where the TD would decide it was corrected without pause, the DQ may be taken back without penalty. >Incident 3) >North: J83, AQ532, AT76, 2 >South: AKQ942, K65, 4, J83 > >Auction (west dealer): >3c p 3nt x >p 4h p 4s >p 6s p p >p > >West leads the cA, easts drops the cK. >Now declarer shows his hand, no comments. >Evrybody waits in silence. >Declarer put his cards back on the board, East says ok down 2. >The director is called. >He asks declarer to state his line of play >Declarer starts to think >Easts says he's down 2 he can' dispose the club losers on the hearts because >they are 4-1 he asks west to play a diammond >at trick 2. >Declarer emerges from the tank and says ruff one club with the s8 and the >other with the sJ returning to hand with a trump first and then >with a diammond ruff and then with a heart to draw trumps. >The director asks east if he can overrfuf the club? Easts says he can't >Director rules 6s making for NS. >Is this right? AG : no. 6S may be down (the TD has to check how many down) by some non-irrational play of the cards ; therefore 6S is down. Claiming without any word has to be treated as "I make all remaining tricks whatever you play back and in whicherver order I play the cards", which of course isn't true. I guess several of us would rule 5 to 6 down, because declarer could play all his trumps, then DA, D, but this seems to me to correspond to the definition of "irrational". Down 2 seems normal. Best regards, Alain. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jun 26 17:23:57 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:57 +0100 Subject: Incident 2) RE: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046598@hotel.npl.co.uk> How would you rule? SK and D2 are played, Law45D. DQ is UI to declarer, Law16C. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Luis Argerich [mailto:luis@fuegolabs.com] Sent: 26 June 2003 16:27 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Hi, three quick questions Incident 1) [snipped] Incident 2) Declarer is playing a 2nt contract, he plays the spade A, dummy has KT, lho plays low and dummy without any indication picks the spade ten, RHO discards the dQ. Now declarer asks who is playing this hand? He asks dummy to play the sK and RHO now picks up his dQ and plays the d2. THEN the director is called by declarer. How would you rule? ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jun 26 17:28:48 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:48 +0100 Subject: Incident 3) RE: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046599@hotel.npl.co.uk> Is this right? No. Director should ask claimer to repeat his statement, Law70B1. He should not ask for a new statement, Law70D. I rule it is normal to assume hearts are 3-2 and win diamond switch, draw trumps in three rounds, and go two off. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Luis Argerich [mailto:luis@fuegolabs.com] Sent: 26 June 2003 16:27 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Hi, three quick questions Incident 1) [snipped] Incident 2) [snipped] Incident 3) North: J83, AQ532, AT76, 2 South: AKQ942, K65, 4, J83 Auction (west dealer): 3c p 3nt x p 4h p 4s p 6s p p p West leads the cA, easts drops the cK. Now declarer shows his hand, no comments. Evrybody waits in silence. Declarer put his cards back on the board, East says ok down 2. The director is called. He asks declarer to state his line of play Declarer starts to think Easts says he's down 2 he can' dispose the club losers on the hearts because they are 4-1 he asks west to play a diammond at trick 2. Declarer emerges from the tank and says ruff one club with the s8 and the other with the sJ returning to hand with a trump first and then with a diammond ruff and then with a heart to draw trumps. The director asks east if he can overrfuf the club? Easts says he can't Director rules 6s making for NS. Is this right? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From rwilley@mit.edu Thu Jun 26 17:30:28 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:30:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Optimal movements for computerized tournaments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1056645028.3efb1fa41e6b9@webmail.mit.edu> Hi All I have a question for the peanut gallery: As people are no doubt aware,=20 computerized bridge uses a very different playing environment that normal= =93face- to-face=94 games. Has anyone given much thought to how this might affect= =20 tournament =93movements=94? Traditionally, when I think of a =93movement=94 I am conceptualizing an o= rdered set=20 of pairings that is attempting to fulfill a specific set of goals. For=20 example, I might want to design a movement such that=20 1. A total of 27 boards will be played 2. Each North/South pair will play every East/West pair 3. Each N/S pair will play the same number of boards against every E/W pa= ir Alternatively, I might prefer a movement in which=20 1. A total of 24 boards will be played 2. Each pair will be matched against every other pair 3. Each pair plays the same number of boards against every other pair. Or, the radically different: 1. Play will continue for 2.5 hours +/- epsilon 2. All players are grouped in a single pool 3. All players will play three boards against the pair that they are curr= ently=20 matched against 4. Pairs will be matched barometer style at the end of each round. Multi= ple=20 contests against a single pair are permitted. To look at an extremely simple case, is it better to use a single large p= ool in=20 which all pairs could potentially be matched or large numbers of small=20 sections, which guarantees that all pairs in a section play are matched a= gainst=20 every other pair? I suspect that it is impossible to define a single optimal movement. In=20 particular, some dimensions that can be used for mappings must be traded = off=20 against others. Movements that strive to match pairs that play quickly s= eem=20 antithetical to barometers. However, I would be interested to understand= what=20 attributes are valued =93most=94 in a movement. Ideally, we might be abl= e to=20 define a small set of =93movements=94, each optimized for a given set of=20 preferences. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jun 26 17:35:27 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:35:27 +0100 Subject: FW: Incident 1) RE: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404659A@hotel.npl.co.uk> No he is not allowed to do that: Law10C2. North's remark is UI. South must not choose to allow North to play the contract if other of this five choices are logical alternatives. There may be some "devil in the detail" of this ruling. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Luis Argerich [mailto:luis@fuegolabs.com] Sent: 26 June 2003 16:27 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Hi, three quick questions Incident 1) Auction ends in 4s to be played by south, East leads out of turn the diammond 3 face-up, North asks South to table the dummy and let him play. Is he allowed to do that? ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 26 19:18:55 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:18:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Optimal movements for computerized tournaments In-Reply-To: <1056645028.3efb1fa41e6b9@webmail.mit.edu> References: <1056645028.3efb1fa41e6b9@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <$+xuDsAPkz++EwF9@asimere.com> In article <1056645028.3efb1fa41e6b9@webmail.mit.edu>, rwilley@mit.edu writes > >Hi All > >I have a question for the peanut gallery: As people are no doubt aware,= =20 >computerized bridge uses a very different playing environment that norma= l =E2=80=9Cface- >to-face=E2=80=9D games. Has anyone given much thought to how this might= affect=20 >tournament =E2=80=9Cmovements=E2=80=9D? > >Traditionally, when I think of a =E2=80=9Cmovement=E2=80=9D I am concept= ualizing an ordered set=20 >of pairings that is attempting to fulfill a specific set of goals. For=20 >example, I might want to design a movement such that=20 > >1. A total of 27 boards will be played >2. Each North/South pair will play every East/West pair >3. Each N/S pair will play the same number of boards against every E/W p= air > 1 winner or two? If one, then switch one round. Very fair competition btw. >Alternatively, I might prefer a movement in which=20 > >1. A total of 24 boards will be played >2. Each pair will be matched against every other pair >3. Each pair plays the same number of boards against every other pair. same remarks as above. > >Or, the radically different: > >1. Play will continue for 2.5 hours +/- epsilon >2. All players are grouped in a single pool >3. All players will play three boards against the pair that they are cur= rently=20 >matched against >4. Pairs will be matched barometer style at the end of each round. Mult= iple=20 >contests against a single pair are permitted. Swiss without restriction. Pretty random. > >To look at an extremely simple case, is it better to use a single large = pool in=20 >which all pairs could potentially be matched or large numbers of small=20 >sections, which guarantees that all pairs in a section play are matched = against=20 >every other pair? 1 winner or multiple winners? > >I suspect that it is impossible to define a single optimal movement. In= =20 >particular, some dimensions that can be used for mappings must be traded= off=20 >against others. Movements that strive to match pairs that play quickly = seem=20 >antithetical to barometers. However, I would be interested to understan= d what=20 >attributes are valued =E2=80=9Cmost=E2=80=9D in a movement. Ideally, we= might be able to=20 >define a small set of =E2=80=9Cmovements=E2=80=9D, each optimized for a = given set of=20 >preferences. Buy a copy of the EBU movement manual. It explains what attributes are most preferred, and has some pretty l33t movements too. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From RCraigH@aol.com Wed Jun 25 01:41:58 2003 From: RCraigH@aol.com (RCraigH@aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:41:58 EDT Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives 4C-5C-5D Message-ID: <119.25826ac1.2c2a49d6@aol.com> --part1_119.25826ac1.2c2a49d6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ahh, Andy, I had a good one, too! At matchpoints against Barry Crane and Kerri Shuman, I opened 4D, thinking it was NAMYATS, but it went pass pass longggg hesitation, pass, down 900, for a virtual top! They were cold for six diamonds, 920. Craig Hemphill --part1_119.25826ac1.2c2a49d6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ahh, Andy, I had a good one, t= oo!  At matchpoints against Barry Crane and Kerri Shuman, I opened 4D,=20= thinking it was NAMYATS, but it went pass pass longggg hesitation, pass, dow= n 900, for a virtual top!  They were cold for six diamonds, 920.


Craig Hemphill
--part1_119.25826ac1.2c2a49d6_boundary-- From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Jun 26 20:53:20 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:53:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Laurie wrote: > >>Law 6D2 says that not only can there be no result on the >>board at this table, but that the other four previous results >>on the board must also be cancelled. Hence we throw the >>board out of the session! > >A Belgian judge replies: > >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." > >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards >were dealt from a shuffled deck. > >As we all know, 1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 chances >occur with monotonous frequency, as evidenced by many newspaper >reports of all four players being dealt thirteen-card suits. > >Best wishes > >Avogadro Looks more like 5x10^-28 to me than anything asociated with 6x10^23. 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 Jun 26 21:03:54 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:03:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm sure we all hope David stays. Too much is lost with him away. So please stick to polite toasting when a flaming urge comes on. "Sadly mistaken" would do well enough for all of us, at least those of us who now and the are supposed to be in error. 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 Jun 26 21:14:58 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Optimal movements for computerized tournaments In-Reply-To: <1056645028.3efb1fa41e6b9@webmail.mit.edu> References: <1056645028.3efb1fa41e6b9@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: rwilley writes: ... > >Or, the radically different: > >1. Play will continue for 2.5 hours +/- epsilon >2. All players are grouped in a single pool >3. All players will play three boards against the pair that they are currently >matched against >4. Pairs will be matched barometer style at the end of each round. Multiple >contests against a single pair are permitted. Is there some easy way to implement this for ftf dupe? I imagine the wonderful effect on our Monday and Thursday evening games, sometimes threatening to turn into Tuesday and Friday AM games. Just set an upper limit of boards to be played, put fast vs. fast and slow vs. slow after each round, and score. "The more boards you play, the more matchpoints you may earn!" REH PS. Three weeks in London and no bridge. Now I'm playing pretty well for me. How often do I have to go to London for three weeks to have this nice effect? -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Jun 26 21:29:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:29:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626113251.00ab06f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c33c21$9b91d940$7b2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2003 9:41 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL rules OK > > > At 09:41 26/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Robert E. Harris wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > > >Those who did it claimed it had not been done very > > >often, last time several months ago. So it was allowed. > > > > > >So the enforcement to the letter seems not to be > > >absolutely solid. > > > >Richard responds: > > > >On the contrary, I am surprised but delighted that the > >ACBL is finally correctly applying Law 40A, and has > >abandoned the iniquitous "one psyche in a lifetime" > >interpretation. > > AG : please note that, while opening a 15-17 HCP on a 9-count > is a psyche, > opening a 10-12 NT on a 9-count is not. It doesn't fulfil the primary > condition for being a psyche, ie being a "gross distortion". > Psyches are covered by one set of rules (concedo, the ACBL > principles about > restricting psyches is wrong. This isn't the matter here). > Minor variations are covered by L75B, and the decision > discussed here seems > to have been taken in concordance with this law (if you open > those hands > 1NT too often, you create an agreement. There is no logic to that last statement. If you open those hands 1NT too often you create experience. If you open those hands 1NT too often you *may* create an agreement. This is how I see it in logic and how the laws are written "...habitual violations ... may create implicit agreements..." L75B There is no necessity in the law and neither their should be. One player's judgement as to what constitutes a 10-12 1NT has little to no bearing on what the partnership's agreement is. As an example, my partner's frequently make bids that I disagree with, as I am sure do most partners, sometimes they repeatedly make those bids but this in no way forms an agreement. Wayne > You are then deemed > to play 9-12 > NT, which incidentally creates restrictions. If it's very > uncommon, no > problem). > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Jun 26 22:38:06 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:38:06 +1200 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: <093901c33bf1$d7e23870$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <000001c33c2b$3db861e0$379737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Bill Bickford > Sent: Friday, 27 June 2003 2:47 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] new cards > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "David Stevenson" ; > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:45 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] new cards > > > > At 13:44 26/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: > > > >A Belgian judge replies: > > > > > > > >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if > > > >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." > > > > > > > >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. > > > >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of > > > >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards > > > >were dealt from a shuffled deck. > > > > > > Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the > officials, TDs > > >and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is > undeniably correct. > > > > > Is it possible that some number of perfect shuffles would produce this > situation? For example, 8 perfect shuffles returns the deck > to its original > state. Does anyone have any knowledge what would result from > 2-7 perfect > shuffles? If the cards are in new deck order, from the face SA2345678910JQK DA2345678910JQK CKQJ1098765432 HKQJ1098765432 No shuffles or eight suffles produce: J73 T62 T62 AK95 Q84 1062 AK95 J73 J73 AK95 Q84 1062 AK95 Q84 Q84 J73 One perfect shuffle produces: Q108642 - AKJ9753 - - - AKJ9753 Q108642 - - Q108642 AKJ9753 AKJ9753 - Q108642 - Two perfect shuffles produce: - - - AKQJ1098765432 - - AKQJ1098765432 - - AKQJ1098765432 - - AKQJ1098765432 - - - In general if cards are gathered together in blocks of 13 (bridge hands) and two perfect faro shuffles are applied then the same four hands will be dealt. Three perfect shuffles produce: - KQJ1098 A765432 - - KQJ1098 A765432 - KQJ1098 - - A765432 A765432 - - KQJ1098 Four Perfect Shuffles produce: 963 Q52 Q963 852 K1074 Q52 AJ8 963 K107 Q963 AJ4 852 AJ8 K1074 AJ4 K107 Five Perfect Shuffles produce: QJ5 10943 J54 1093 K76 10943 A82 QJ5 KQ76 1093 A82 J54 A82 K76 A82 KQ76 Six Perfect Shuffles produce: J73 1062 1062 AK95 Q84 1062 AK95 J73 J73 AK95 Q84 1062 AK95 Q84 Q84 J73 Seven Perfect Shuffles produce: K1052 J83 K85 J63 Q74 J83 A96 K1052 1072 J63 AQ94 K85 A96 Q74 AQ94 1072 Note: These are the results for so called 'out-faro shuffles'. Out-faros cycle with a period of eight shuffles. There is a closely related beast called an 'in-faro' which cycles with a period of 52 (I think). After 26 in-faros the deck order is reversed (I think this is correct I didn't check). These of course will produce a different set of hands. After any out-faro or in-faro from an new deck order deck west's spades will be the same as south's hearts and vice-verca. There is a similar relationship in the minors. There is also a similar relationship between north and east. A cut of the cards will rotate the cards north to east etc or similar. Cuts and then subsequent faros will produce different deals. Wayne > > Cheers................................/Bill Bickford > > > > > >-- > > >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats > Railways /\ /\ > > >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 > @ @ > > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > > > Lawspage: > http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Jun 26 23:24:00 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:24:00 +1000 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030627082356.0280b170@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:23:19 +1000 >To: Nigel Guthrie >From: Tony Musgrove >Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > >At 04:55 AM 26/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: >>[Richard] >>East's decision to defend 6H when pard could not double >>for penalty, but to >>sacrifice against 6H when pard could double for >>penalty, is obviously irrational - but lucky in this >>case. There is no bridge Law against irrationality >>getting lucky, much as North-South may wish it to be >>so. >> >>[Nigel] >>Are you sure Richard? It seems to me that East may >>fear that his hesitation overstated his values. >>Unfortunately, it seems that West has taken it too >>seriously. So East pulls West's double as a safety >>play. >> >I think I might have been taking BLML for too long, but I find >Nigel's suggestion curiously compelling. Can East be brought >to book for using unauthorised information? Surely East must >assume that his partner is taking a 75% action, not predicated >upon his own hesitation. Yet some new (perhaps irrational) >information seems to have come to him. At the table, East >remarked that "I had too many spades". > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) From David Stevenson Fri Jun 27 00:15:17 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:15:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK In-Reply-To: <000001c33c21$9b91d940$7b2f37d2@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626113251.00ab06f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000001c33c21$9b91d940$7b2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows writes >As an example, my partner's frequently make bids that I disagree with, >as I am sure do most partners, sometimes they repeatedly make those bids >but this in no way forms an agreement. Let me tell you a story. I sat on an AC at the EBU Jersey Congress, a holiday-type congress. The problem was that a player had opened 2NT, showing the minors, and described as weak. Unfortunately she had 19 points, though she was 5/5 in the minors, and the opposition went wrong, and claimed they had been misled. Their CC said "6-10". We had to decide whether the pair [a married couple] had an agreement to open 2NT on a strong minor 2-suiter. We asked him whether it had happened before. "Well," he said, "the silly bitch opened 2NT with a 17 count about three weeks ago, but I told her never to do it again." We decided they had no agreement to open it on a strong hand! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Jun 27 01:01:02 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:01:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions In-Reply-To: <084d01c33bf7$764f5f60$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> <084d01c33bf7$764f5f60$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Luis Argerich writes >Hi, three quick questions > >Incident 1) >Auction ends in 4s to be played by south, East leads out of turn the >diammond 3 face-up, North asks South to >table the dummy and let him play. Is he allowed to do that? No. Communication between partners is forbidden. This option will no longer be available to declarer. >Incident 3) >North: J83, AQ532, AT76, 2 >South: AKQ942, K65, 4, J83 > >Auction (west dealer): >3c p 3nt x >p 4h p 4s >p 6s p p >p > >West leads the cA, easts drops the cK. >Now declarer shows his hand, no comments. >Evrybody waits in silence. >Declarer put his cards back on the board, East says ok down 2. >The director is called. >He asks declarer to state his line of play >Declarer starts to think >Easts says he's down 2 he can' dispose the club losers on the hearts because >they are 4-1 he asks west to play a diammond >at trick 2. >Declarer emerges from the tank and says ruff one club with the s8 and the >other with the sJ returning to hand with a trump first and then >with a diammond ruff and then with a heart to draw trumps. >The director asks east if he can overrfuf the club? Easts says he can't >Director rules 6s making for NS. >Is this right? No. The TD wants the sack! The TD has caused most of the problems here. There is a laid-down procedure outlined in the Laws, and the TD should learn to follow it. He should have asked declarer to *repeat* any claim statement. Since there was not one then there is nothing to repeat. He then judges the claim. He will invite East-West to state their objections, but not to play any card! You have not given us the full hands, so I cannot be sure what the ruling would be. If there is any reasonable line which fails then the TD should rule one off. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Jun 26 23:59:57 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626164017.00ab7230@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626164017.00ab7230@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 13:44 26/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: >> >A Belgian judge replies: >> > >> >It is true that Law 6D2 states that, "No result may stand if >> >the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck....." >> > >> >However, Laurie has not yet proved that this is the case. >> >There is a significant chance - a likely possibility of >> >1/2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000 - that the cards >> >were dealt from a shuffled deck. >> >> Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the officials, TDs >>and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is undeniably correct. > >AG : you missed something here, David. This is a reference to a recent >judgement by a Belgian court : >"The fact that two deals in this match were the same, card by card, as two >given deals in some bridge book, might be due to chance, however small the >probability is. For this reason, it may not be inferred that the defender >made up the deals." >This decision put the Belgian Federation on verge of bankruptcy because of >damages to the defender. >Bridge laws are not efficient for dealing with cheats ; neither are general >laws. That is true, but the question that started this thread was nothing to do with cheating, thus my answer still stands. TDs and ACs make decisions that are not concerned with cheating on a basis of preponderance of the evidence and their judgement. When alleged cheating is involved then the standard is much higher - and if this thread had been about cheating I would have made a different answer! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Jun 27 00:35:57 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:35:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$XuOU0EdN4++EwXJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Norman Scorbie writes >May I be the first to welcome David Stevenson back to the mailing list? >Hopefully now we'll have some opinions based on common sense and pragmatism, >rather than airy ambuguity and weasel words. Thanks very much to you, Norman, and the four others that I have read. I have promised myself that if I find anyone too annoying I shall not answer them whatever. Hopefully this will keep my own annoyance in check, and thus I shall be less rude myself. I have been hearing things from BLML via my friends, of course. I hope in fact it is better than has been reported to me! We shall see. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Jun 27 01:00:47 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:00:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626181928.00aa7a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3twcXUAKiw++Ew17@asimere.com> <084d01c33bf7$764f5f60$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030626181928.00aa7a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 12:27 26/06/2003 -0300, Luis Argerich wrote: >>Incident 2) >>Declarer is playing a 2nt contract, he plays the spade A, dummy has KT, lho >>plays low and dummy without any >>indication picks the spade ten, RHO discards the dQ. Now declarer asks who >>is playing this hand? He asks dummy >>to play the sK and RHO now picks up his dQ and plays the d2. THEN the >>director is called by declarer. How would >>you rule? > >AG : East's play of a small card condones the irregular play by dummy. Are you sure? Under which Law? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Jun 26 23:32:36 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:32:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <3EE976E8.7030106@skynet.be> Message-ID: One almost Menton case appears below ... but before that a few words about Menton 1) The playing conditions were deplorable 2) This isn't the 1st time - apparently salsamajorie has had a similar 4 year record !! 3) The entrance fees considering the location and organisation were exorbitant 4) The turn around time in getting the next round going (swiss teams etc) was poor. Any competitor I talked to was generally unhappy with the organisational side of things. Personally abit of a breather to try and regain the litres of water lost were welcome. 5) Hand records were available on occasion BEFORE the round in question ended. 6) A petition signed by alot of the players complaining about the whole fiasco was organised and got an apology in the daily bulletin. IMO an apology is worthless without some future concrete action. 7) How could the organisers of such a major event have been so short sighted ?? I personally will never go back to any event organised in Menton and will think twice about any EBL event organised in a hot weather country. To summarise - an absolute disgrace. Case North S T9754 H KT942 D 3 C 62 S A63 S Q8 H J8 H A765 D KT976 D AQJ C Q43 C JT75 South S KJ2 H Q3 D 8542 C AK98 Bidding E S W N 1C P 1D 2D(1) P 3NT Dbl 4H DBl(2) 4S Dbl all pass (1) Alerted as Natural by S to E (N/S follow M. Lawerence here). N alerted it as majors to W. (2) S alerted that N almost certainly has forgotten the system and meant 2D's as the majors Small spade lead, Q, K. Heart, small, T, A. 4S dbled making Td ruled that unless some evidence can be produced to support 2D's as natural it would be +3/-3 imps to E/W. Ok 3 cases (1) Evidence is supplied. Now I think a clearcut 4S dbled making result. (2) No evidence is supplied but a similar auction 2 rounds ago was alerted correctly as natural (1H P 1S 2H was the auction). The opps on that sequence + the hand records will verify this. What now ?? IMO once again 4S dbled making. (3) No Evidence : Regardless, it is quite clear that S acted in good faith on his understanding of their partnership agreement. It is also clear that after N's 4H bid the wheels have come off and N has forgotten the system (I'm sure arguments can be made for a 6/5 or 6/6 or 7/5 D/H hand etc but anyone with abit of sense will realize an error has occured and N is not bidding on looking at some distributional monster). E/W now start wacking. IMO poor defence and a very lucky lie of the cards allow N/S to make 4S's. E/W now look for recourse claiming damage. This whole scenario has a double shot ring about it. Comments ?? One other thing about this almost case struck me as odd. I doubt 99% of the players had written proof as to their agreement on 1C P 1D 2D. Surely N/S had the right to appeal and let the case be judged on what happened and not be tried directly due to a lack of written proof ?? If this were the case then far more complcated auctions would require written proof to validate a pairs interpretation of that sequence. Why did the TD imply that without written proof N/S had no case ?? K. From Anne Jones" What happened to the above thread, to which I contributed on 26th? My mailing has not appeared, and the thread seems to have died. I thought this had considerable interest, especially in view of an anticipated OB in EBUland. ============================== If this doesn't ratify the wisdom of such NAs as EBU, in protecting level 3/4 type (Club) players from such theorists, while allowing the perpetrators full reign in EBL and WBF events, I don't know what does. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) > > John (MadDog) Probst asserted: > > [snip] > > >I have said before, I say again, that systems designed > >for opening in the first two seats bear *no* resemblance > >to systems (if indeed we may call them such) used in 3rd > >and 4th. If we recognise Pearson points in 4th (I slung > >in a 13 count wk NT today for 80%), we recognise fLOBS in > >3rd. > > [snip] > > The question of whether fLOBS are best in 3rd seat, while > being the recommended strategy by many bidding theorists > for half-a-century, is still not definitively decided. > > Empirical evidence from Aussie national events in the > 1980s suggest that fLOBS are most effective in 1st and 2nd > seat. > > Ex-Kiwi bidding theorist Paul Marston used a Forcing Pass > Relay system back then. Analysis of the results showed > that the biggest imp gains for Marston's system occurred > when one of the distribution-describing 8-12 hcp bids was > opened in 1st or 2nd seat. > > The reasons for 1st and 2nd seat fLOB success include: > > * striking the first blow in an auction, so opponents > are prevented from having an uncontested constructive > auction, but instead must use their (usually less > detailed) defensive bidding methods > > * permitting partner to respond with a leap with a good > fit, preempting the opponents and/or picking up game > swings & double-game swings > > * keeping partner out of trouble on misfits > > * more frequent information for partner, if the opponents > buy the contract, and pard has to make the opening lead > > * more frequent information for partner, making successful > penalty doubles easier to diagnose > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 27 04:29:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:29:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] new cards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7E1FFD11-A84F-11D7-AE28-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 26, 2003, at 08:44 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Decisions in bridge are made on the judgement of the officials, TDs > and ACs, not on proof. Thus Laurie's decision is undeniably correct. Welcome back, David! From john@asimere.com Fri Jun 27 04:43:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:43:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) In-Reply-To: <004f01c33c47$fd6c65b0$822d6651@annescomputer> References: <004f01c33c47$fd6c65b0$822d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: In article <004f01c33c47$fd6c65b0$822d6651@annescomputer>, Anne Jones writes >What happened to the above thread, to which I contributed on 26th? My >mailing has not appeared, and the thread seems to have died. I thought this >had considerable interest, especially in view of an anticipated OB in >EBUland. >============================== >If this doesn't ratify the wisdom of such NAs as EBU, in protecting level >3/4 type (Club) players from such theorists, while allowing the perpetrators >full reign in EBL and WBF events, I don't know what does. >Anne >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:21 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) > > >> >> John (MadDog) Probst asserted: >> >> [snip] >> >> >I have said before, I say again, that systems designed >> >for opening in the first two seats bear *no* resemblance >> >to systems (if indeed we may call them such) used in 3rd >> >and 4th. If we recognise Pearson points in 4th (I slung >> >in a 13 count wk NT today for 80%), we recognise fLOBS in >> >3rd. >> >> [snip] >> >> The question of whether fLOBS are best in 3rd seat, while >> being the recommended strategy by many bidding theorists >> for half-a-century, is still not definitively decided. >> >> Empirical evidence from Aussie national events in the >> 1980s suggest that fLOBS are most effective in 1st and 2nd >> seat. This is indeed a different question, I played 8-12 openers with great success at the YC for a bit with Animal. We played it with strong club and a 9-11, and we devalued all our openers about 4 points and used an Acol structure, so responding values were a 9-count and 2/1 was about 14. Of course our 3rd and 4th seat systems were strong NT, and a 13 count was now a fLOB. This however is not the question we're trying to address. The question is whether a regulation which defines what is considered "normal" for 1st and 2nd seat action can be applied with any meaningfulness to a 3rd or 4th seat action. My view is that it is common bridge knowledge that in 3rd seat players open lighter than would be considered "normal" for 1st or 2nd seat action, and the regulation does not, but should, cater for this, just as it should cater for passing a 1444 14 count in 4th, but opening a 6332 9 count. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 27 05:12:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:12:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst asserted: [snip] >My view is that it is common bridge knowledge that >in 3rd seat players open lighter than would be >considered "normal" for 1st or 2nd seat action, [snip] Amend the phrase "in 3rd seat players open lighter" to "in 3rd seat *most* players open lighter". The expert author and Aussie champion, Tim Bourke, holds the contrary bidding theory that 1st seat actions and 3rd seat actions should be equivalent. For what it's worth, I am an acolyte of this Bourke bidding style. Of course, whether my accolade is relevant is a moot point. :-) Best wishes Richard From walt1@verizon.net Fri Jun 27 05:31:14 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:31:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626113251.00ab06f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030627001743.03e437e0@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:40 AM 26/06/2003, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : please note that, while opening a 15-17 HCP on a 9-count is a psyche, >opening a 10-12 NT on a 9-count is not. It doesn't fulfill the primary >condition for being a psyche, i.e. being a "gross distortion". >Psyches are covered by one set of rules (concedo, the ACBL principles >about restricting psyches is wrong. This isn't the matter here). >Minor variations are covered by L75B, and the decision discussed here >seems to have been taken in concordance with this law (if you open those >hands 1NT too often, you create an agreement. You are then deemed to play >9-12 NT, which incidentally creates restrictions. If it's very uncommon, >no problem). Alain While I agree with you, to the best of my knowledge the ACBL does not. Some time ago (late 1980s? I'm writing from memory here) John Kieren published a booklet called something like "Big Club, Little Notrump or You Ought to Open an Average Hand". This is usually referred to as "The Kamikaze NT". Basic tenets of the system which the ACBL could not stomach (sounded like fun to me) were the 8-12 point NT and mandatory third seat openings if you held less than 8 HCP. (Partner had less than 8, I have less than 8, no way do we let 4th seat make the opening bid.) In response to this system the ACBL essentially outlawed the use of a NT opened with less than 10 HCP (no upward evaluation for 9 point NT's allowed). If you or your partner were known to ever have opened a 9 point NT in this partnership you were forbidden to use Stayman or any other conventional bids after a 10-12 (or whatever) NT opening. Also they ruled that a partnership agreement to open on less than 8 HCP was illegal. The details are fuzzy in my mind but this is what they did and I believe they still are very strict on these points. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 27 07:22:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:22:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : please note that, while opening a 15-17 HCP on a 9-count is a psyche, >opening a 10-12 NT on a 9-count is not. It doesn't fulfill the primary >condition for being a psyche, i.e. being a "gross distortion". >Psyches are covered by one set of rules (concedo, the ACBL principles >about restricting psyches is wrong. This isn't the matter here). >Minor variations are covered by L75B, [snip] Richard replies: 1. Alain is correct in rebutting my loose use of "psyche". 2. Alain is incorrect in implying that minor variations of agreed methods are covered *only* by Law 75B. Law 40A states: "A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." That is, Law 40A merely defines a "psyche" as a subset of "any call". In other words, any non-conventional call not based on a partnership understanding is legal according to Law 40A. Therefore, in the specific case under discussion, *both* Law 40A and Law 75B permit a player whose partnership uses a 10-12 1NT opening to open a 9hcp 1NT if "such call is not based on a partnership understanding". Best wishes Richard From Martin@SPASE.NL Fri Jun 27 09:56:56 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:56:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Three quick an easy questions Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A687@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > >Incident 2) > >Declarer is playing a 2nt contract, he plays the spade A, > dummy has KT, lho > >plays low and dummy without any > >indication picks the spade ten, RHO discards the dQ. Now > declarer asks who > >is playing this hand? He asks dummy > >to play the sK and RHO now picks up his dQ and plays the d2. THEN the > >director is called by declarer. How would > >you rule? > > AG : East's play of a small card condones the irregular play > by dummy. The > trick is made of : small, small, 10, D Queen. The game goes > on. Procedural > penalty to N/S for repeated incorrections (play by dummy, > trying to retract > condoned play, late call). Nope. Dummy played a card which declared did not name. L45D states that if discovered before both sides play to the next trick (which is the case) we go back, and any cards of defenders played after the error may be retracted without penalty. So what actually happened at the table is correct (except that the TD should have been called earlier). Of course, defenders' cards are UI for declarer, AI for defenders (16C1, 2). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jun 27 11:41:29 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (=?iso-8859-1?q?Herman=20De=20Wael?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:41:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] David's back Message-ID: <20030627104129.82394.qmail@web20710.mail.yahoo.com> Welcome Back, David. Some comments from here, when I proposed to toast: "whoopie" "I knew he couldn't resist" "He's resisted longer than I though" and from a namesake of his: "Bloody Hell" ===== I am currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton, Cote d'Azur, France. I can read my e-mail but cannot send, except by Yahoo. Please continue to use my normal address hermandw@skynet.be ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 27 12:03:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:03:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL rules OK In-Reply-To: <000001c33c21$9b91d940$7b2f37d2@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030626113251.00ab06f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030627121508.00ab7990@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:29 27/06/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >There is no necessity in the law and neither their should be. One >player's judgement as to what constitutes a 10-12 1NT has little to no >bearing on what the partnership's agreement is. > >As an example, my partner's frequently make bids that I disagree with, >as I am sure do most partners, sometimes they repeatedly make those bids >but this in no way forms an agreement. AG : if it's only a matter of judgement, then two things may happen : a) only wery few 9-counts are treated as 10 : no problem b) many 9-counts are upgraded : then (at least half of) the pair plays 9=BD-= NTs. I don't know whether this view can be backed up by the laws, but my view of= =20 an agreement is "any feature of the system and the way it's played, that=20 both partners are aware of". Many ACs have agreed with this view ; I hope=20 they were right. With this definition, my former statement returns to logic. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 27 12:15:46 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:15:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: References: <3EE976E8.7030106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030627130650.00ab90a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:32 26/06/2003 +0100, Karel wrote: >6) A petition signed by alot of the players complaining about the whole >fiasco was > organised and got an apology in the daily bulletin. IMO an apology is >worthless > without some future concrete action. >7) How could the organisers of such a major event have been so short sighted >?? I > personally will never go back to any event organised in Menton and will >think twice > about any EBL event organised in a hot weather country. > AG : two personal comments : a) you can't both demand that action be taken to avoid such problems in the future and state that, whatever is done in future tournaments, you will abstain. This is what we call in Belgium the "trade union syndrome" : "you must change this-and-this, and even if you do, we'll conduct a strike". This has in general as primary effect that the opposing side sees no reason to act. b) France is not a hot weather country. The idea of holding the Championship in Menton, ie in the second hottest part of the country, may be questioned; However, you have to take into account that naver in the past (er, in the last 140 years or so) mid-june was that hot in Southern France. Of course yuo could complain that the organizing body was not able to change the weather, but it seems a little bit far-fetched. Ten days before, the weather was perfect in neighbouring Juan les Pins. Apart from that, my sources too have some complaints to issue. Best regards, Alain. From john@asimere.com Fri Jun 27 15:02:38 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:02:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >John (MadDog) Probst asserted: > >[snip] > >>My view is that it is common bridge knowledge that >>in 3rd seat players open lighter than would be >>considered "normal" for 1st or 2nd seat action, > >[snip] > >Amend the phrase "in 3rd seat players open lighter" >to "in 3rd seat *most* players open lighter". The >expert author and Aussie champion, Tim Bourke, holds >the contrary bidding theory that 1st seat actions >and 3rd seat actions should be equivalent. > >For what it's worth, I am an acolyte of this Bourke >bidding style. Of course, whether my accolade is >relevant is a moot point. :-) > In that case Bourke will be opening lighter than "normal" in 1st. Ones first seat action defines what a fLOB is in third, surely. >Best wishes > >Richard > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 27 15:41:58 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <200306271441.KAA12884@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > (1) Alerted as Natural by S to E (N/S follow M. Lawerence here). N alerted > it as majors > to W. Is the above correct? It is the opposite of the usual screen direction. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 27 16:38:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:38:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030627173633.00aacca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:02 27/06/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > >John (MadDog) Probst asserted: > > > >[snip] > > > >>My view is that it is common bridge knowledge that > >>in 3rd seat players open lighter than would be > >>considered "normal" for 1st or 2nd seat action, > > > >[snip] > > > >Amend the phrase "in 3rd seat players open lighter" > >to "in 3rd seat *most* players open lighter". The > >expert author and Aussie champion, Tim Bourke, holds > >the contrary bidding theory that 1st seat actions > >and 3rd seat actions should be equivalent. > > > >For what it's worth, I am an acolyte of this Bourke > >bidding style. Of course, whether my accolade is > >relevant is a moot point. :-) > > > >In that case Bourke will be opening lighter than "normal" in 1st. Ones >first seat action defines what a fLOB is in third, surely. AG : looked at this thread with much interest. Just one question : I assume that "LOB" stands for "Light Opening Bid", but what does "f" mean ? (assuming it can be mentioned without triggering firewalls) From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Jun 27 16:38:37 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:38:37 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404659D@hotel.npl.co.uk> The laws require "evidence" not necessary written evidence, and certainly not proof. The auction on a similar hand may be sufficient. If there is evidence that 2D is natural (for instance, because a similar sequence has arisen in the same event), there has been a misbid. South has not illegally fielded the misbid, so the result would stand. West has been given an incorrect explanation of NS agreements but this does not appear to have damaged him. If there is not evidence that 2D is natural, which is likely as it is not normally to record that potentially artificial bids are natural, then the director will presume misexplanation. I don't think +3/-3 is automatically the only ruling. If East is told that North has the majors, will he bid differently? He might double or bid 3D. South might pass(redouble?) or double or just bid 3NT anyway. North might run to 2H/3H/4H, corrected to spades by South. EW might bid to 4D (one off?), or might not double 4S. Some weighted score involving 3S+1, 4S=, 4SX=, 4D-1, 4DX-1 may be appropriate perhaps +3/-3IMPs is easier. As Steve says, was the screen really from NE to SW? Robin -----Original Message----- From: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] Sent: 26 June 2003 23:33 To: blml Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships One almost Menton case appears below ... but before that a few words about Menton 1) The playing conditions were deplorable 2) This isn't the 1st time - apparently salsamajorie has had a similar 4 year record !! 3) The entrance fees considering the location and organisation were exorbitant 4) The turn around time in getting the next round going (swiss teams etc) was poor. Any competitor I talked to was generally unhappy with the organisational side of things. Personally abit of a breather to try and regain the litres of water lost were welcome. 5) Hand records were available on occasion BEFORE the round in question ended. 6) A petition signed by alot of the players complaining about the whole fiasco was organised and got an apology in the daily bulletin. IMO an apology is worthless without some future concrete action. 7) How could the organisers of such a major event have been so short sighted?? I personally will never go back to any event organised in Menton and will think twice about any EBL event organised in a hot weather country. To summarise - an absolute disgrace. Case North S T9754 H KT942 D 3 C 62 S A63 S Q8 H J8 H A765 D KT976 D AQJ C Q43 C JT75 South S KJ2 H Q3 D 8542 C AK98 Bidding E S W N 1C P 1D 2D(1) P 3NT Dbl 4H DBl(2) 4S Dbl all pass (1) Alerted as Natural by S to E (N/S follow M. Lawerence here). N alerted it as majors to W. (2) S alerted that N almost certainly has forgotten the system and meant 2D's as the majors Small spade lead, Q, K. Heart, small, T, A. 4S dbled making TD ruled that unless some evidence can be produced to support 2D's as natural it would be +3/-3 imps to E/W. Ok 3 cases (1) Evidence is supplied. Now I think a clearcut 4S dbled making result. (2) No evidence is supplied but a similar auction 2 rounds ago was alerted correctly as natural (1H P 1S 2H was the auction). The opps on that sequence + the hand records will verify this. What now ?? IMO once again 4S dbled making. (3) No Evidence : Regardless, it is quite clear that S acted in good faith on his understanding of their partnership agreement. It is also clear that after N's 4H bid the wheels have come off and N has forgotten the system (I'm sure arguments can be made for a 6/5 or 6/6 or 7/5 D/H hand etc but anyone with abit of sense will realize an error has occured and N is not bidding on looking at some distributional monster). E/W now start wacking. IMO poor defence and a very lucky lie of the cards allow N/S to make 4S's. E/W now look for recourse claiming damage. This whole scenario has a double shot ring about it. Comments ?? One other thing about this almost case struck me as odd. I doubt 99% of the players had written proof as to their agreement on 1C P 1D 2D. Surely N/S had the right to appeal and let the case be judged on what happened and not be tried directly due to a lack of written proof ?? If this were the case then far more complcated auctions would require written proof to validate a pairs interpretation of that sequence. Why did the TD imply that without written proof N/S had no case ?? K. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Jun 27 16:50:46 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:50:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404659F@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] Sent: 26 June 2003 23:33 To: blml Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships One other thing about this almost case struck me as odd. I doubt 99% of the players had written proof as to their agreement on 1C P 1D 2D. Surely N/S had the right to appeal and let the case be judged on what happened and not be tried directly due to a lack of written proof ?? If this were the case then far more complcated auctions would require written proof to validate a pairs interpretation of that sequence. Why did the TD imply that without written proof N/S had no case ?? K. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Were NS told they could not appeal? If they have evidence that 2D was natural that was not considered by the TD or was not given sufficient attention by the TD, then they should be allowed to present that evidence without the appeal being considered frivolous. The appeal committee might also decide that the damage was due to EW actions after they had the correct explanation of 2D so there is no adjustment. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Jun 27 18:32:16 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (D Raija) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:32:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships - 2D References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404659F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: 1C-P-1D-2D is natural and played as such by most players where I reside. Even the infamous SAYC (not that it applies in Europe and not that I play it) says that "when opponents have bid 2 suits, cue bid of one of their suits is natural" There are usually three ways to show unbid suits over 1C-1D. Double=takeout; 1NT=Sandwich for unbids (if u play Sandwich); or 2NT=unbids and distributional. Therefore the default assumption IMO could be "diamonds", lacking any proof otherwise. Kaima aka D R Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'Karel'" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] > Sent: 26 June 2003 23:33 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > One other thing about this almost case struck me as odd. I doubt 99% of > the players had written proof as to their agreement on 1C P 1D 2D. > Surely N/S had the right to appeal and let the case be judged on what > happened and not be tried directly due to a lack of written proof ?? If > this were the case then far more complcated auctions > would require written proof to validate a pairs interpretation of that > sequence. Why did the TD imply that without written proof N/S had no > case ?? > > > K. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Were NS told they could not appeal? > If they have evidence that 2D was natural that was not considered > by the TD or was not given sufficient attention by the TD, then > they should be allowed to present that evidence without the appeal > being considered frivolous. The appeal committee might also > decide that the damage was due to EW actions after they had the > correct explanation of 2D so there is no adjustment. > > Robin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 27 20:03:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships - 2D Message-ID: <200306271903.PAA13018@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "D Raija" > 1C-P-1D-2D is natural and played as such by most players where I reside. > Even the infamous SAYC [and other sound reasoning...] > Therefore the default assumption IMO could be "diamonds", lacking any proof > otherwise. This is fine as a "default assumption" if you need to decide what partner's bid means when you don't have an agreement. However, it is not fine for an MI ruling. In an MI case, the footnote to L75D2 tells us that the "default assumption" should be that the agreement matches the bidder's hand. Of course the default assumption can be overcome by evidence. When, as here, the opposite agreement is plausible or even common, the TD or AC may be willing to accept less evidence than would be required for an uncommon agreement. Here's another example: a player holds AKQJ Axx xxxx xx and opens 1S, claiming to play 5CM. The opponents claim to be damaged because the suit has only four cards. In North America, where nearly everyone plays 5cM, I would tend to accept that "5cM" is a correct explanation given only modest evidence. In the UK, it would probably be right to ask some further questions. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 27 21:36:14 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:36:14 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] ACBL rules OK Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030627163605.01fce350@pop.starpower.net> >Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:14:48 -0400 >To: Walt >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL rules OK > >At 12:31 AM 6/27/03, Walt wrote: > >While I agree with you, to the best of my knowledge the ACBL does not. > >>Some time ago (late 1980s? I'm writing from memory here) John Kieren >>published a booklet called something like "Big Club, Little Notrump >>or You Ought to Open an Average Hand". This is usually referred to as >>"The Kamikaze NT". Basic tenets of the system which the ACBL could >>not stomach (sounded like fun to me) were the 8-12 point NT and >>mandatory third seat openings if you held less than 8 HCP. (Partner >>had less than 8, I have less than 8, no way do we let 4th seat make >>the opening bid.) >> >>In response to this system the ACBL essentially outlawed the use of a >>NT opened with less than 10 HCP (no upward evaluation for 9 point >>NT's allowed). If you or your partner were known to ever have opened >>a 9 point NT in this partnership you were forbidden to use Stayman or >>any other conventional bids after a 10-12 (or whatever) NT opening. >>Also they ruled that a partnership agreement to open on less than 8 >>HCP was illegal. >> >>The details are fuzzy in my mind but this is what they did and I >>believe they still are very strict on these points. > >JFTR, the ACBL's (effective) banning of the sub-10-HCP 1NT was in >response to the popularity of EHAA in the 1970s, which was widely >played with a 1NT opening of either 8-11 or 9-12. It took a while, as >they tried other, more obviously illegal (or totally misguided), >strategies to rid themselves of EHAA first, finally settling on one >that Edgar Kaplan and the ACBLLC could stomach. IIRC, the current >decree may have been in effect before Mr. Kieren's book came out. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 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 Fri Jun 27 22:29:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:29:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships - 2D In-Reply-To: <200306271903.PAA13018@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <7FAEEC9E-A8E6-11D7-B8F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jun 27, 2003, at 15:03 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > In an MI case, the footnote to L75D2 tells us that the "default > assumption" should be that the agreement matches the bidder's > hand. I read it differently. It says "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This says to me that what the bidder has in his hand is irrelevant. You look for evidence that it was a mistaken bid. If you don't find any, or you decide that what you do find isn't good enough (whatever that means), then you rule mistaken explanation. > Of course the default assumption can be overcome by evidence. I suppose we would usually get to the same place then, depending on our respective evaluations of the evidence. :-) From henk@ripe.net Fri Jun 27 23:02:49 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:02:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Karel wrote: > One almost Menton case appears below ... but before that a few words about > Menton I didn't go to Menton but I think this is why we have the phrase "met de franse slag" in Dutch. This means something like "inaccurate and without attention to detail, like in France". 1982, Biaritz: Maas-Rebattu were winners of the open pairs for about an hour, until Martel-Stansby discovered that the computer operators had switched NS and EW in the wrong event. 1996, Lille: Half the first session of the open pairs had to be cancelled after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement. 2003, Menton. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Jun 28 02:35:52 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:35:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030627130650.00ab90a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: AG : two personal comments : a) you can't both demand that action be taken to avoid such problems in the future and state that, whatever is done in future tournaments, you will abstain. This is what we call in Belgium the "trade union syndrome" : "you must change this-and-this, and even if you do, we'll conduct a strike". This has in general as primary effect that the opposing side sees no reason to act. +++ Well history has an amazing way of repeating itself. This from talking to fellow competitors and the posts here is not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time that a european or even world event has been organised in a hap hazzard and in the case of Menton disgraceful manner. As the saying goes doing something stupid once is accidental, twice forgivable and three times moronic. I'd love to believe the organisers of future events will put on a better show - but I'll let other players pay 2000+ euro in fee's, flights and accomodation and IF things change then maybe I'll reconsider. b) France is not a hot weather country. The idea of holding the Championship in Menton, ie in the second hottest part of the country, may be questioned; However, you have to take into account that naver in the past (er, in the last 140 years or so) mid-june was that hot in Southern France. Of course yuo could complain that the organizing body was not able to change the weather, but it seems a little bit far-fetched. Ten days before, the weather was perfect in neighbouring Juan les Pins. +++ I'm not asking the organisers to predict the weather (though to be honest - it wouldn't take a genius to predict "hot - damn hot") ... but having decided to play in a greenhouse ... was it too much to organise some ventilation ?? I played against one guy from Venezguala who had to leave after 8 boards and who I thought was going to have a heart attack. I'd consider myself relatively fit but I'm 200% sure that a high percentage of my bottoms were due to just wanting to get the heck out of the building. Apart from that, my sources too have some complaints to issue. +++ Finally and wayyy more important for future events, did the organisers believe that this was going to make a positive impression on people and to attract those same people back next year !! I'm amazed they're still in business. K. From john@asimere.com Sat Jun 28 04:06:17 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 04:06:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030627173633.00aacca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030627173633.00aacca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030627173633.00aacca0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 15:02 27/06/2003 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article , >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >> > >> >John (MadDog) Probst asserted: >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >>My view is that it is common bridge knowledge that >> >>in 3rd seat players open lighter than would be >> >>considered "normal" for 1st or 2nd seat action, >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >Amend the phrase "in 3rd seat players open lighter" >> >to "in 3rd seat *most* players open lighter". The >> >expert author and Aussie champion, Tim Bourke, holds >> >the contrary bidding theory that 1st seat actions >> >and 3rd seat actions should be equivalent. >> > >> >For what it's worth, I am an acolyte of this Bourke >> >bidding style. Of course, whether my accolade is >> >relevant is a moot point. :-) >> > >> >>In that case Bourke will be opening lighter than "normal" in 1st. Ones >>first seat action defines what a fLOB is in third, surely. > >AG : looked at this thread with much interest. Just one question : >I assume that "LOB" stands for "Light Opening Bid", but what does "f" mean ? >(assuming it can be mentioned without triggering firewalls) that would indeed be the problem :) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jun 28 14:10:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights Message-ID: We are all I assume aware that L42b says, inter alia: 2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. But how far does this right extend? I am interested particularly in situations where declarer appears to be in imminent danger of breaching law 74. Examples are if declarer is falling asleep/staring at Wendy/lost in space or appears to be prolonging play unnecessarily when all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent, or starting to make a gratuitous/insulting comment. Thanks, Tim From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001f01c33d79$3dcb80f0$822d6651@annescomputer> Are you trying to get someone to agree with you that it's OK for dummy to tell declarer when he should claim? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 2:10 PM Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights > We are all I assume aware that L42b says, inter alia: > > 2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity > He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. > > But how far does this right extend? I am interested particularly in > situations where declarer appears to be in imminent danger of breaching > law 74. > > Examples are if declarer is falling asleep/staring at Wendy/lost in space > or appears to be prolonging play unnecessarily when all the tricks are > surely his for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent, or starting to > make a gratuitous/insulting comment. > > Thanks, > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jun 28 16:39:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <001f01c33d79$3dcb80f0$822d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: No Anne. Dummy certainly cannot do that. I am trying to find out what rights dummy has to try and prevent infractions by declarer. It is not dummy's place to tell declarer what to do. It is within dummy's rights to warn declarer against committing irregularities (but which ones). Tim From adam@tameware.com Sat Jun 28 17:07:21 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:07:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card Message-ID: "All is going smoothly until Hackett pulls out the stop card, indicating he is going to skip a level of bidding. Wildavsky waits 10 seconds and then shows his pass card. He does this because he knows the rules, and the rules say he has to wait 10 seconds. But Hackett thinks that Wildavsky waited too long, and he raises his hand to call the director." Another BLML posting? No, the New York Times Magazine. See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/magazine/29BRIDGE.html The author seemed fascinated with the concept of unauthorized information. I expect he'd have said more if he'd had more room. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From nancy@dressing.org Sat Jun 28 19:25:01 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:25:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card References: Message-ID: <001a01c33da2$97126fb0$6401a8c0@hare> Thanks, that was a great article! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:07 PM Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card > "All is going smoothly until Hackett pulls out the stop card, > indicating he is going to skip a level of bidding. Wildavsky waits 10 > seconds and then shows his pass card. He does this because he knows > the rules, and the rules say he has to wait 10 seconds. But Hackett > thinks that Wildavsky waited too long, and he raises his hand to call > the director." > > Another BLML posting? No, the New York Times Magazine. See > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/magazine/29BRIDGE.html > > The author seemed fascinated with the concept of unauthorized > information. I expect he'd have said more if he'd had more room. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From kjdie@jkdexe.com Sun Jun 29 00:19:15 2003 From: kjdie@jkdexe.com (kjdie@jkdexe.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:19:15 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Email marketing Message-ID:
Email Marketing Email more than 2,500,000+ TARGETED prospects EVERYDAY! That's over 75,000,000+ prospects per month (and growing!). Our Optin email safelists are 100% Optin and 100% legal to use. Your ad will reach only those prospects who have requested to be included in Optin safelists for people interested in new business opportunities, products and services.
 Welcome to my Email Marketing Page, if your thinking about sending email for advertising  email us yhzx599@vip.sina.com, I will help you figure our what kind of email campaign you need for your product, I send bulk email for you. I also sell a fax database for fax blasting,


Products

 World Email Lists

Country or area total emails total price average price free download sample order
America  175 Million Email Address $220 US free download Buy Now
Europe  236 Million Email Address $250 US free download Buy Now
Asia  228 Million Email Address $150 US free download Buy Now
China(PRC)  180 Million Email Address $220 US free download Buy Now
HongKong 3.25 Million Email Address $300 US 1 million / $150 free download Buy Now
TaiWan   2.25 Million Email Address $250 US 1 million / $150 free download Buy Now
Japan 127 Million Email Address $220 US free download Buy Now
Australia 6 Million Email Address $150 US free download Buy Now
Canda 110 Million Email Address $150 US free download Buy Now
Russia 68 Million Email Address $120 US free download Buy Now
England 3.2 Million Email Address $200 US free download Buy Now
German 120 Million Email Address $220 US free download Buy Now
France 78 Million Email Address $150 US free download Buy Now
India 12 Million Email Address $120 US free download Buy Now
other Country or Area 400 Million Email Address $220 US free download Buy Now
All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists total price   $500 US        Buy Now


order please click here go to our website


the silver star internet information Company in China
Tel:0086-0816-6623109
Fax:0086-0816-2210496
email:yhzx599@vip.sina.com  
Company address: MianYang City Sichuan Province in China
copyright@2002-2003   all reserved  

From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jun 29 12:10:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:10:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> The EBU Orange Book defines HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, thus... KTx KTx xx AJTxx has 11 HCP AKQ KQJ xxx xxxx has 15 HCP The first hand may be worth more than 11 HCP if you employ a different high card count that evaluates tens or a point count that gives a greater value to aces. It may be worth even more when you take into account additional measures like shape, texture and honour placement. Assessing the hand on HCP alone does not do it justice. But no amount of "judgement" alters the fact that it has *only 11 HCP*, according to the Orange Book. Suppose you play a weak notrump opener (although the arguments, below, apply to a other notrump ranges and the requirements for most other bids). Partner may well upgrade the first hand to be worth a 1NT opening but can you truthfully describe your agreement as "12-14 HCP" without qualification? IMO you should describe your understanding as "11-14" or better "12-14 but we upgrade good 11 counts". A similar argument might allow you to downgrade the second hand above but IMO your description should then be "11-15" or better "normally 12-14 but we upgrade good 11 counts and downgrade poor 15 counts". Of course, if your agreement really is "12-14 HCP" but partner has *psyched* then that is OK but quite different. We have all met opponents who advertise 12-14 HCP (unqualified) on their card and in their explanations; but, in practice, open all 4432 and 5332 eleven counts, non-vulnerable. They may also insist on a good 13-15 count when vulnerable. Is such economy with the truth legal? Is it just "Bridge Knowledge" and "Common Sense"? Do these fundamentals matter at all? May we use such judgement when counting HCP for the EBU "Rule of 19", defined below? The EBU Orange book defines Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) as... "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually for opening bids)." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jun 29 13:31:26 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:31:26 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: <000201c31ea1$d58ea850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00cb01c33e3a$5d08f800$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] My point is that any spectator must at any time be free to inform the Director (!) of any event that the spectator believes is an irregularity of any kind. [Nigel Guthrie] Any law to the contrary is indefensible except by those who take a sadistic pleasure in movements going wrong, misboarding, and cheats prospering. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From Schoderb@aol.com Fri Jun 27 23:40:36 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:40:36 EDT Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <42.3a13e7e3.2c2e21e4@aol.com> --part1_42.3a13e7e3.2c2e21e4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/27/2003 6:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net writes: > 1996, Lille: Half the first session of the open pairs had to be cancelled > after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement. > Sorry, Henk, you've got this one way wrong, I think. I believe you are referring to the first session of the Finals of the Open Pairs. I'm sure the responsible individual(s) for that disaster would be more than willing to explain it to you, but the TDs were not involved. I agree it should never have happened, and would not have, had the procedures and requests of the Chief TD been honored. When using this movement I insist that each pair have a guide card in their hands to check the boards and pairs they play each round --- unfortunately not the case in Lille. These guide cards are easily printed with the players names, positions, and round by round instructions by ACBLSCOR. I have used this "endless Howell" movement all over the world many times without trouble. Had this been done none of the immense fiasco would have occurred. Kojak --part1_42.3a13e7e3.2c2e21e4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/27/2003 6:09:18 PM Eastern Sta= ndard Time, henk@ripe.net writes:

1996, Lille: Half the first= session of the open pairs had to be cancelled
after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement.


Sorry, Henk, you've got this one way wrong, I think.  I believe you are= referring to the first session of the Finals of the Open Pairs.  I'm s= ure the responsible individual(s) for that disaster would be more than willi= ng to explain it to you, but the TDs were not involved.  I agree it sho= uld never have happened, and would not have, had the procedures and requests= of the Chief TD been honored. When using this movement I insist that each p= air have a guide card in their hands to check the boards and pairs they play= each round --- unfortunately not the case in Lille. These guide cards are e= asily printed with the players names, positions, and round by round instruct= ions by ACBLSCOR. I have used this "endless Howell" movement all over the wo= rld many times without trouble. Had this been done none of the immense fiasc= o would have occurred.

Kojak
--part1_42.3a13e7e3.2c2e21e4_boundary-- From henk@ripe.net Sun Jun 29 14:29:12 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:29:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <42.3a13e7e3.2c2e21e4@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/27/2003 6:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net > writes: > > > 1996, Lille: Half the first session of the open pairs had to be cancelled > > after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement. > > > > Sorry, Henk, you've got this one way wrong, I think. I believe you are > referring to the first session of the Finals of the Open Pairs. Yes. > I'm sure the responsible individual(s) for that disaster would be more > than willing to explain it to you, but the TDs were not involved. OK, it is years ago so perhaps I blamed the wrong person. Fact is that half the session had to be cancelled because some basic check wasn't made. > I agree it should never have happened, and would not have, had the > procedures and requests of the Chief TD been honored. [...] Had this > been done none of the immense fiasco would have occurred. I think that is the real problem: the chief TD developped procedures to make sure that everything runs smoothly, then junior person ignores his instructions and finally the CTD either forgets to check his work _or_ does not have the power to force the junior to do what he was told to do. In either case, there is something seriously wrong in the organization of the event. What would happen if I did this at work, is left as an exercise to the reader :-) Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jun 29 15:41:16 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:41:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <006c01c33e4d$c0cdc2e0$1583b6d4@LNV> Just back from terrible Menton, having forgotten terrible blml. One of the things TD's have to do is to ascertain facts. Lille was in 1998 and nothing in the first session was cancelled. What happened was that the computer produced the right movement which was translated manually in table cards, something I wasn't aware of. And then a mistake was made. And later I got some signals that at least one player and someone commentating in the vugraph noticed something strange in the movement early in the first session and informed the TD's, which was ignored. If that is true, TD's were involved indeed. I was responsible of course, but having only one body and no more than 18/19 working hours in a championship day I still don't feel guilty. ton > > > 1996, Lille: Half the first session of the open pairs had to be cancelled > > > after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement. > > > > > > > Sorry, Henk, you've got this one way wrong, I think. I believe you are > > referring to the first session of the Finals of the Open Pairs. > > Yes. > > > I'm sure the responsible individual(s) for that disaster would be more > > than willing to explain it to you, but the TDs were not involved. > > OK, it is years ago so perhaps I blamed the wrong person. Fact is that > half the session had to be cancelled because some basic check wasn't made. > > > > > I agree it should never have happened, and would not have, had the > > procedures and requests of the Chief TD been honored. [...] Had this > > been done none of the immense fiasco would have occurred. > > I think that is the real problem: the chief TD developped procedures to > make sure that everything runs smoothly, then junior person ignores his > instructions and finally the CTD either forgets to check his work _or_ > does not have the power to force the junior to do what he was told to do. > > In either case, there is something seriously wrong in the organization of > the event. What would happen if I did this at work, is left as an exercise > to the reader :-) > > Henk > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 29 18:49:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:49:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ......... > ..... I am trying to find out what rights dummy > has to try and prevent infractions by declarer. =20 > It is not dummy's place to tell declarer what to do. > It is within dummy's rights to warn declarer against > committing irregularities (but which ones). In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the declarer = is about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have = been completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a = penalty. Examples on play from wrong hand: Declarer stretches over to dummy for a card: Dummy may interrupt and = tell him to play from his own hand. Declarer opens his mouth apparently to ask for a card from dummy: The = same. Declarer says "Spade two": Dummy may no longer tell him that he was to = play from his own hand. (In my opinion the same applies when declarer has = only partly named a card from dummy, but this may be open for discussion). Declarer retracts a card from his own hand (or initiates retracting a = card) but does not proceed to a state where the card face can be visible to anyone: Dummy may tell him to play from dummy. If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table can = name the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play from dummy. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Sun Jun 29 19:25:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2Pp8PqBo8y$+EwfM@asimere.com> In article <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Tim West-Meads >......... >> ..... I am trying to find out what rights dummy >> has to try and prevent infractions by declarer. >> It is not dummy's place to tell declarer what to do. >> It is within dummy's rights to warn declarer against >> committing irregularities (but which ones). > >In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the declarer is >about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have been >completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a penalty. > >Examples on play from wrong hand: > >Declarer stretches over to dummy for a card: Dummy may interrupt and tell >him to play from his own hand. > >Declarer opens his mouth apparently to ask for a card from dummy: The same. > >Declarer says "Spade two": Dummy may no longer tell him that he was to play >from his own hand. (In my opinion the same applies when declarer has only >partly named a card from dummy, but this may be open for discussion). > >Declarer retracts a card from his own hand (or initiates retracting a card) >but does not proceed to a state where the card face can be visible to >anyone: Dummy may tell him to play from dummy. > >If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table can name >the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play from >dummy. I'm not so sure about this last case. Declarer can certainly be in a state where his card is visible to everyone and has not yet been played. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jun 29 20:07:21 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:07:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! References: <$XuOU0EdN4++EwXJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <018401c33e71$b3a70580$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Welcome back David Stevenson, I share few of your views but value your interesting and entertaining contributions. Best wishes, Nigel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 29 20:21:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:21:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <2Pp8PqBo8y$+EwfM@asimere.com> Message-ID: <001b01c33e73$9db56da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ......... > >In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the = declarer is > >about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have = been > >completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a > penalty. > > > >Examples on play from wrong hand: ....... > >If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table = can > name > >the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play = from > >dummy. >=20 > I'm not so sure about this last case. Declarer can certainly be in a > state where his card is visible to everyone and has not yet been = played. Law 45C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching = or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to = indicate that it has been played. If this is the case then dummy no longer is "preventing" the declarer = from playing from the wrong hand, he is calling attention to the fact that declarer has done so. Declarer may certainly expose a card for some purpose different from = playing it. When that is the case the card has not been played, but then also = his action should be in some way that cannot be understood as an intention = to play the card; and dummy's right to "prevent" declarer from playing from = the wrong hand becomes dubious to say the least. Regards Sven From henk@ripe.net Sun Jun 29 21:34:24 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:34:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <006c01c33e4d$c0cdc2e0$1583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: > One of the things TD's have to do is to ascertain facts. Lille was in 1998 > and nothing in the first session was cancelled. Cohen wrote that he sat out 6 of the 14 rounds in the first session, and they weren't the only pair. > [...] but having only one body and no more than 18/19 working hours in a > championship day Any organization that forces a key-official to put in 250 hours in 2 weeks, should think about its procedures. Appointing an assistant/backup or two for Ton seems like the first thing to do. Money shouldn't be an issue, just leave a few officials at home. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jun 29 22:31:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:31:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? Message-ID: Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. The bidding has gone: NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST 1C (1) Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and forcing, but not necessarily strong. You, West, hold: AJ52 3 KJ5432 92 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jun 29 23:27:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:27:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: Henk stereotyped: >I didn't go to Menton but I think this is why we have the phrase "met de >franse slag" in Dutch. This means something like "inaccurate and >without attention to detail, like in France". > >1982, Biaritz: Maas-Rebattu were winners of the open pairs for about >an hour, until Martel-Stansby discovered that the computer operators >had switched NS and EW in the wrong event. > >1996, Lille: Half the first session of the open pairs had to be cancelled >after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement. > >2003, Menton. Richard rebuts: This issue should not degenerate into an issue of Dutch versus French chauvinism. Otherwise some person, with an even longer memory than Henk, might unkindly mention the outrageous prices of hotel rooms at the Valkenburg Olympiad in 1980. Anyway, organisational problems at major bridge events are not the exclusive prerogative of Dutch and French bridge bureaucrats - there were also colossal problems at the Rhodes world championship. Instead, perhaps we should look at a constructive solution to future organisational problems of major bridge events. And there is a way whereby Australia has minimised the organisational problems of its major national championship - stability. The Aussie National Open Teams is *always* held in Canberra at the *same* time of the last week in January. The *same* administrators (even the same caddies) turn up year after year, making our N.O.T. run an order of magnitude smoother than Menton apparently did. If the European Open Bridge Championship was *always* held in Luxembourg at the *same* time of the last week in June, with the *same* administrative team, perhaps Menton muddles may minimise. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Jun 29 22:43:16 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:43:16 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > 1C(Polish)Pass Pass ? > > AJ52 > 3 > KJ5432 > 92 Well - what is my system? What calls did partner have available? In particular, does partner always pass with a strong hand? Pass isn't. If partner can be strong, pass REALLY isnt. 1D is. Some sort of 2-suited overcall might be, if you play those in balancing seat. (I play 2C=4S+5Red over a standard 1C; others might use Michaels despite being lopsided.) 1S would be a bit of a fringe bid, but I can imagine someone considering it seriously, especially if the spades were a bit stronger (AJTx). Double is sufficiently far-out that I think it's not. Obviously south is up to something. I wonder what. I am going to guess South has xx or xxx in each major, only 4 or maybe 5 bad clubs, afraid to sign off in them honestly opposite a flat 12-count, and therefore 4 or 5 diamonds that he can't escape in either. So, 22(54) or (32)44 and broke. At this vulnerability you really have to be scared stiff to try this stunt. I am sure our side has game, I just don't know which one. I hope partner does. I am impatient for the rest of the story ... I played Polish-type clubs for several years without ever dropping partner in 1C (and with hardly ever getting burned with two weak hands). GRB From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002901c33eaf$5a5b7d10$822d6651@annescomputer> 1D/2D/3D/1S/Dbl Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? > > Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > 1C (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > forcing, but not necessarily strong. > > You, West, hold: > > AJ52 > 3 > KJ5432 > 92 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002d01c33eaf$8fc001b0$822d6651@annescomputer> Maybe even 2C is systemic to show the pointed ones ! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? > > Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > 1C (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > forcing, but not necessarily strong. > > You, West, hold: > > AJ52 > 3 > KJ5432 > 92 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jun 30 07:18:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:18:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! References: <$XuOU0EdN4++EwXJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00ad01c33ed2$8ce24840$dd41e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wilkommen! > Thanks very much to you, Norman, and the four > others that I have read. > > I have promised myself that if I find anyone too > annoying I shall not answer them whatever. > Hopefully this will keep my own annoyance in > check, and thus I shall be less rude myself. > +=+ Glad to see your signature on the screen again. Don't worry, there has been plenty of rudeness and arrogance on blml during your semester. I think there is scope for universal restraint in avoiding the kind of language and name calling that contributes nothing to the debate, is unnecessary for the debate, and has no place in civilized exchanges amongst people of whom kindergarten behaviour may no longer be expected. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jun 30 07:01:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:01:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <006c01c33e4d$c0cdc2e0$1583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <00ac01c33ed2$8bb38c40$dd41e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" ; Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Just back from terrible Menton, having forgotten terrible blml. > > One of the things TD's have to do is to ascertain facts. Lille > was in 1998 and nothing in the first session was cancelled. > What happened was that the computer produced the right > movement which was translated manually in table cards, > something I wasn't aware of. And then a mistake was made. > And later I got some signals that at least one player and > someone commentating in the vugraph noticed something > strange in the movement early in the first session and > informed the TD's, which was ignored. If that is true, TD's > were involved indeed. I was responsible of course, but having > only one body and no more than 18/19 working hours in a > championship day I still don't feel guilty. > +=+ Gentlemen, It does not matter a damn who was 'guilty'. The organization as a whole suffers the odium and the organization as a whole should seek to rectify the system for the future. We are all of us servants of the players. Yes. Too much went wrong in Menton. I think Rona went over the top in repeating his abject apologies so many times, but I admire his shouldering of the responsibility. I am sure he will take strong action to put systems and people straight for the second Open in Tenerife, 2005. More heartening is the considerable number of people who told me on the last Sunday how much they had enjoyed the event in spite of its flaws, the torrid weather, and the unfortunate lack of air conditioning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 08:24:54 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:24:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? References: Message-ID: <001101c33ed8$b9995e40$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Hills] Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. The bidding has gone: NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST 1C (1) Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and forcing, but not necessarily strong. You, West, hold: AJ52 3 KJ5432 92 What are your logical alternatives? [Nigel Guthrie] Obviously your complete set of options depend on your agreements. Unless some of partner's very strong options start with a pass, however, a pass by you must be a logical alternative. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From jrmayne@mindspring.com Mon Jun 30 04:54:49 2003 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:54:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? References: Message-ID: <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > 1C (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > forcing, but not necessarily strong. > > You, West, hold: > > AJ52 > 3 > KJ5432 > 92 > > What are your logical alternatives? LA's? Several have suggested that pass is not an LA; I disagree. If partner has suggested bidding (as by a long hesitation), passing must be enforced. Passing could easily be right; obviously our defense is relevant, but even playing a defense where pass may encompass some strong hands, I think pass is an LA. --JRM > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jun 30 08:24:00 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:24:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: ton: > > One of the things TD's have to do is to ascertain facts. > Lille was in 1998 > > and nothing in the first session was cancelled. > Herman U: > Cohen wrote that he sat out 6 of the 14 rounds in the first > session, and > they weren't the only pair. We probably have different ideas about the meaning of the word cancelling. When I read that the first half of the first session had to be cancelled that means to me that all results were voided and the event had to restart or something. That didn't happen. No result was cancelled. Since the movement was wrong some pairs played opponents they should not have met yet. We decided, and that was not my choice, that pairs would not meet twice and this meant that later in the event some pairs got a bye. Most of those appeared in session 4 and 5. It seems unlikely to me that Cohen sat out 6 rounds (or even 2) in the first session. Interesting decision was what to give those pairs for the boards they couldn't play. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jun 30 08:27:50 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:27:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: Having seen Herman de W around for two weeks every He... gets that name. I meant Henk of course. ton From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 30 08:32:02 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:32:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: >>What should I have ruled supposing that I had >>decided that West's double was not an LA?? >6H making. > >West did not know for certain what East was thinking >about. But his hesitation suggested action was better >than inaction. > >In fact, a player of less than perfect ethics would >always double in such a situation if he had any extras >as a two-way shot: partner can leave it in or progress >as suitable. > >-- >David Stevenson Richard ruminates: David's analysis is unquestionably correct if *both* sides have a real chance of making slam. However, in my opinion, a whiff of "if it hesitates, shoot it" prevents David's ruling from being applicable in *all* competitive slam auctions. For example, if the situation is that the EW side has *zero* chance of making slam, and East and/or West are wondering whether a sacrifice against the slam bid by NS is a phantom sacrifice, then I must beg to differ with David's ruling. Basically, even if a penalty double is illegally suggested by UI, there is no damage if the penalty double is a penalty double of a cold contract and a sacrifice is contraindicated. No damage, no adjusted score - final sentence of Law 16A2: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score *if* he considers that an infraction of law has *resulted in damage*." Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 30 08:04:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:04:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> Nigel, your questions are quite valid. But you must distinguish three things. First of all, there is your partnership agreements. If you decide to employ some other kind, you are quite welcome to do so. That's up to you and your partner. Secondly, there is the question of full disclosure. To me, that means that you shoudl roughly translate your point ranges. You should give both a complete explanation, when asked, and provide a rough equivalent. Thirdly, there is the case of systems policy. If you play your NT-range as 17-23 NGP, and you translate this as "roughly 12-14 HCP, with some 11 and 15 possible", then you have done your duty under 2. But if the systems policy prohibits systems where 10-counts are opened 1NT, then no amount of argueing that a particular 10HCP hand is worth 17 NGP will change the fact that you cannot open that one. In fact, you are, by opening that hand, admitting that your 17-23 range is in fact illegal. And that is why I would not accept the same from anyone. Other players also use "different counting methods", and they are allowed to do so. But not when it drops themselves into illegal territory. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > The EBU Orange Book defines HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, > thus... > > KTx KTx xx AJTxx has 11 HCP > AKQ KQJ xxx xxxx has 15 HCP > > The first hand may be worth more than 11 HCP if you > employ > a different high card count that evaluates tens or a > point > count that gives a greater value to aces. > > It may be worth even more when you take into account > additional measures like shape, texture and honour > placement. > > Assessing the hand on HCP alone does not do it justice. > > But no amount of "judgement" alters the fact that it > has > *only 11 HCP*, according to the Orange Book. > > Suppose you play a weak notrump opener (although the > arguments, below, apply to a other notrump ranges and > the > requirements for most other bids). > > Partner may well upgrade the first hand to be worth a > 1NT > opening but can you truthfully describe your agreement > as "12-14 HCP" without qualification? > > IMO you should describe your understanding as "11-14" > or > better "12-14 but we upgrade good 11 counts". > > A similar argument might allow you to downgrade the > second > hand above but IMO your description should then be > "11-15" > or better "normally 12-14 but we upgrade good 11 counts > and > downgrade poor 15 counts". > > Of course, if your agreement really is "12-14 HCP" but > partner has *psyched* then that is OK but quite > different. > > We have all met opponents who advertise 12-14 HCP > (unqualified) on their card and in their explanations; > but, in practice, open all 4432 and 5332 eleven counts, > non-vulnerable. They may also insist on a good 13-15 > count when vulnerable. > > Is such economy with the truth legal? > Is it just "Bridge Knowledge" and "Common Sense"? > Do these fundamentals matter at all? > May we use such judgement when counting HCP for the EBU > "Rule of 19", defined below? > > The EBU Orange book defines Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, > 22, 23, 25) as... > > "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by > adding > the HCPs to the sum of the number of cards in the two > longest suits. It is used for defining what agreements > are > permitted for bidding on hands (usually for opening > bids)." > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: > 10/06/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jun 30 02:00:45 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:00:45 EDT Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <97.3af6bc26.2c30e5bd@aol.com> --part1_97.3af6bc26.2c30e5bd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/29/2003 9:31:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net writes: > I think that is the real problem: the chief TD developped procedures to > make sure that everything runs smoothly, then junior person ignores his > instructions and finally the CTD either forgets to check his work _or_ > does not have the power to force the junior to do what he was told to do. > > In either case, there is something seriously wrong in the organization of > the event. What would happen if I did this at work, is left as an exercise > to the reader :-) > > Henk > > I think you've hit the "nut" of what happened there and is evident elsewhere. The reprinting of the guide cards because they weren't as "nice" as someone wanted them to be was without the knowledge of the CTD. The mistake was not caught by the person(s) doing the reprinting. The CTD's decision that all players would have copies of the movement were pooh-poohed as unnecessary, and ignored. And the rumor that a very low ranking TD was advised at the end of the first round that there seemed to be a problem was never able to be established. No TD or Player would admit to that. However, the existence of that rumor was able to obfuscate, deny, and render worthless the CTDs actions to prevent this from happening or to establish better procedures for the future, and gave cover to those who felt they needed it at the time. Mr. Kooijman's long hours of work are deplorable, unnecesary, and acquisitive of other's responsibilities and authority, but it needs to be ascertained that this is not the result of insufficient personnel, poorly directed duties, persons who "know better," and/or lack of confidence by some officials that those with Law assigned duties and responsibilities might be able to build a better mousetrap without national identity. He has worked very hard to fill gaps created by others. I think it is high time for a complete review, revision, and a much needed meeting to re-establish the proper methodology, responsibilities, authorities, and procedures to run major and worldwide tournaments. We have drifted too far and have had too much bias, nationality, and personal agendas involved to begin to approximate the services we owe the PLAYERS. Without the players all officialdom, perks, and good intentions will quickly become worhtless. To continue to "explain" screw ups, make excuses, and push the limits of what the players will accept is not going to hack it. And this includes ALL Zones of the WBF. As a 1920-30's singer Vaughn Monroe used to croon "...my time is your time...." to work with everyone interested in the future of world organized bridge, but it comes with the caveat -- you might not like what I have to say, but I have no personal agenda and am a non-national when it comes to this fabulous game. I care too much for the almost 40 years of my life in bridge to allow it to waste away from neglect and mismanagement. Kojak --part1_97.3af6bc26.2c30e5bd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/29/2003 9:31:24 AM Eastern Sta= ndard Time, henk@ripe.net writes:

I think that is the real pr= oblem:  the chief TD developped procedures to
make sure that everything runs smoothly, then junior person ignores his
instructions and finally the CTD either forgets to check his work _or_
does not have the power to force the junior to do what he was told to do.
In either case, there is something seriously wrong in the organization of the event. What would happen if I did this at work, is left as an exercise to the reader :-)

Henk



I think you've hit the "nut" of what happened there and is evident elsewhere= .  The reprinting of the guide cards because they weren't as "nice" as=20= someone wanted them to be was without the knowledge of the CTD.  The mi= stake was not caught by the person(s) doing the reprinting.  The CTD's=20= decision that all players would have copies of the movement were pooh-poohed= as unnecessary, and ignored.  And the rumor that a very low ranking TD= was advised at the end of the first round that there seemed to be a problem= was never able to be established.  No TD or Player would admit to that= . However, the existence of that rumor was able to obfuscate, deny, and rend= er worthless the CTDs actions to prevent this from happening or to establish= better procedures for the future, and gave cover to those who felt they nee= ded it at the time. Mr. Kooijman's long hours of work are deplorable, unnece= sary, and acquisitive of other's responsibilities and authority, but it need= s to be ascertained that this is not the result of insufficient personnel, p= oorly directed duties, persons who "know better," and/or lack of confidence=20= by some officials that those with Law assigned duties and responsibilities&n= bsp; might be able to build a better mousetrap without national identity. He= has worked very hard to fill gaps created by others.

I think it is high time for a complete review, revision, and a much needed m= eeting to re-establish the proper methodology, responsibilities, authorities= , and procedures to run major and worldwide tournaments.  We have drift= ed too far and have had too much bias, nationality, and personal agendas inv= olved to begin to approximate the services we owe the PLAYERS. Without the p= layers all officialdom, perks, and good intentions  will quickly become=   worhtless.

To continue to "explain" screw ups, make excuses, and push the limits of wha= t the players will accept is not going to hack it. And this includes ALL Zon= es of the WBF.


As a 1920-30's singer Vaughn Monroe used to croon "...my time is your time..= .." to work with everyone interested in the future of world organized bridge= , but it comes with the caveat -- you might not like what I have to say, but= I have no personal agenda and am a non-national when it comes to this fabul= ous game. I care too much for the almost 40 years of my life in bridge to al= low it to waste away from neglect and mismanagement.

Kojak
--part1_97.3af6bc26.2c30e5bd_boundary-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 08:59:59 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:59:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: References: <001f01c33d79$3dcb80f0$822d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630095011.00a3dba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:39 28/06/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >No Anne. > >Dummy certainly cannot do that. I am trying to find out what rights dummy >has to try and prevent infractions by declarer. It is not dummy's place >to tell declarer what to do. It is within dummy's rights to warn declarer >against committing irregularities (but which ones). AG : I would at least consider those : - asking declarer to hurry up (if one may not, I've infringed the law umpteen times) ; - preventing declarer, who puts his cards on the table to have a sip, from putting them open-faced -which could be considered a claim ; - calling the TD (ie if attention has been drawn by somebody over an irregularity, dummy may call on one's own initiative - if declarer doesn't do so, he infringes L9) ; - avoiding actions or non-actions that may create trouble, like letting the travelling score slip unfold, letting a card fall on the floor, or letting a card from a previous board lie on the table ; - avoiding illegal plays from dummy, like not following suit or pulling a card before dummy's RHO has played ; - answering questions from the TD or one's delegate about eg scores previously entered. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 09:08:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:08:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <001b01c33e73$9db56da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <2Pp8PqBo8y$+EwfM@asimere.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630100525.00ab3320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:21 29/06/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst >......... > > >In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the declarer is > > >about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have been > > >completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a > > penalty. > > > > > >Examples on play from wrong hand: >....... > > >If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table can > > name > > >the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play from > > >dummy. > > > > I'm not so sure about this last case. Declarer can certainly be in a > > state where his card is visible to everyone and has not yet been played. > >Law 45C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or >nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate >that it has been played. AG : there might well be some amount of time when declarer is waving a card face up, but it has not yet reached the table. If dummy is quick enough ... I know a player who is slightly impaired ; his cards are often visible before they are "played", as he can't do the "prfect" movement with the back of the card facing the players for the whole time of the movement, which takes quite a time. From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Jun 30 08:48:08 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:48:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <007201c33edb$f5e08d80$6c8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Richard Hills wrote: >The Aussie National Open Teams is *always* held in >Canberra at the *same* time of the last week in January. >The *same* administrators (even the same caddies) turn >up year after year, making our N.O.T. run an order of >magnitude smoother than Menton apparently did. > >If the European Open Bridge Championship was *always* >held in Luxembourg at the *same* time of the last week in >June, with the *same* administrative team, perhaps Menton >muddles may minimise. I wouldn't regard our N.O.T as a shining light for the world to copy ... in 2002 our N.O.T Finals ended in a shambles halfway through the Final ... a couple of years earlier the N.O.T. collapsed in a mess on the Saturday with all the players waiting around for a couple of hours during session time ... a few years earlier there was a disaster when a non-air-conditioned superheated playing area was used for part of the Canberra event ... in 2003 the Australian N.O.T.'s table numbers dropped to less than double the size of Menton with the event becoming only the second biggest week of bridge in Australia ... no, I wouldn't use that as an example of how to do it. Peter Gill Australia. > >Best wishes > >Richard > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 09:23:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:23:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630100931.00ab5c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:31 30/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. >The bidding has gone: > >NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST >1C (1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > forcing, but not necessarily strong. AG : the version of Polish club that is played by some pairs in the outskirts of Brussels includes a 1C opening which could be : - natural - weak NT - any 19-21 It is termed forcing, but I suppose partner may pass on xx -xx - xxx - xxxxxx. And if it happened, I could believe the player who claimed this has never happened. >You, West, hold: > >AJ52 >3 >KJ5432 >92 > >What are your logical alternatives? AG : if you're asking whether one might reopen after partner asked many questions, my answer is Yes. According to my team captain, one should be very wary of reopening over 1C, BTA this is not the classical case, and the same player advocates bidding aggressively on 64 hands. The alternatives seem reduced to 1D, a natural 2D if 1D is artificial (playing eg Garozzo reopenings) and any bid you have at your disposal to show primary Diamonds and secondary spades (eg Astro cue-bid). I have a vague feeling that partner indeed manifested too much interest on the deal, and then RHO decided to pass because a) he hoped the strong hand had passed and I couldn't reopen (correct) or b) he intended to deprive me of the possibility of reopening, based on partner's mannerism. This is sharp and it failed. Summing up : yes, I would allow a reopening bid after UI. But not a double. Best regards, Alain. From henk@ripe.net Mon Jun 30 09:03:44 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:03:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard, > Otherwise some person, with an even longer memory than Henk, might > unkindly mention the outrageous prices of hotel rooms at the Valkenburg > Olympiad in 1980. Well, my room in Valkenburg 1980 was the cheapest room that I ever had in my life: 4 free nights, including all meals :-) OK, so I stayed with the parents of friend living nearby. Seriously though: yes, something did go wrong with the prices of hotel rooms in Valkenburg. However, when the same NCBO organized the same event 20 years later, 10 miles away from the 1980 site, the problem was addressed beforehand and everybody seemed happy. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 30 05:40:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:40:33 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field Message-ID: [Sven Pran] My point is that any spectator must at any time be free to inform the Director (!) of any event that the spectator believes is an irregularity of any kind. [Nigel Guthrie] Any law to the contrary is indefensible except by those who take a sadistic pleasure in movements going wrong, misboarding, and cheats prospering. [Richard Hills] Nigel's position is inconsistent - why should an anonymous player be penalised for infracting Law 15, but Zia (who has plenty of kibitzers) be rescued by his kibitzers from any possible Zia infraction of Law 15? As for the prospering of cheats, I am more and more inclined to wish that the 2005 Laws should officially recognise the Recorder position. If this suggestion is adopted by the WBF LC, I would further suggest that the responsibility for enforcing the Laws as agents of the Sponsoring Organisation be divided. Under my wish-list, the Recorder would be the exclusive delegate of the Sponsoring Organistion for enforcing the following Laws: Law 72B2, Law 73B2, Law 74C5 and Law 74C8 My wish-list would permit players *and kibitzers* to report infractions of the four above-listed Laws to the Recorder. Meanwhile, the Director would normally be the exclusive delegate of the Sponsoring Organisation for the residue of the Laws, but the Director could use Law 81C9 to voluntarily refer a matter to the Recorder. Best wishes Richard From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Jun 30 09:03:20 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:03:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <007b01c33ede$157d4960$6c8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Ton Kooijman wrote: >Just back from terrible Menton, having forgotten terrible blml. Good news Ton - BLML isn't so terrible now, with David Stevenson back, and even an indication that Kojak is still paying attention to it - I think it is much better than it was a few months ago. >One of the things TD's have to do is to ascertain facts. >Lille was in 1998 and nothing in the first session was >cancelled. which from my personal point of view was a great pity. After two or three rounds there were progress scores provided (good stuff, thanks to the organisers) with Gill-Courtney 78th out of 78 on about 8 matchpoints, with the 77th pair being on about 1,700 matchpoints!! Shortly afterwards we heard an announcement about a problem with the movement. After a minimal delay, play proceeded but we never sat out a single round and (alas for us) all our scores counted including our sequence of bottoms at the start of the event. From our biased point of view we were disappointed that the problem was not significant enough to have our early boards cancelled. Lille had lots of good features I thought. Sure there were some negatives and they got a lot of attention, but overall I had a great time there and enjoyed the experience a lot. My Aussie friend just back from Europe including Menton did not enjoy Menton. Having heard her comments last night, I would like to know: Does anyone know whether the World Championships in Monte Carlo have air-conditioned playing areas? And will the World Junior Teams in Saint Cloud (near Paris) in August (summer) have air-conditioned premises? If, not, as long as we know in advance (I'm not quite kidding here), we can bring our own fans and ice from Australia. :) Peter Gill Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 09:35:52 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:35:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630103041.00ac0cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:27 30/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This issue should not degenerate into an issue of Dutch versus French >chauvinism. Otherwise some person, with an even longer memory than >Henk, might unkindly mention the outrageous prices of hotel rooms at >the Valkenburg Olympiad in 1980. Anyway, organisational problems at >major bridge events are not the exclusive prerogative of Dutch and >French bridge bureaucrats - there were also colossal problems at the >Rhodes world championship. > >Instead, perhaps we should look at a constructive solution to future >organisational problems of major bridge events. And there is a way >whereby Australia has minimised the organisational problems of its >major national championship - stability. > >The Aussie National Open Teams is *always* held in Canberra at the >*same* time of the last week in January. The *same* administrators >(even the same caddies) turn up year after year, making our N.O.T. >run an order of magnitude smoother than Menton apparently did. AG : according to some previous posts, one order of magnitude better wouldn't be enough (only 39.9% of the errors ?). A citizen of a nation which is proud to put Alpha Centauri on its flag shouldn't be afraid of overdoing it. >If the European Open Bridge Championship was *always* held in >Luxembourg at the *same* time of the last week in June, with the >*same* administrative team, perhaps Menton muddles may minimise. AG : if this was done, the complaints about room prices could be as loud as in Valkenburg. Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jun 30 09:24:01 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:24:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: > > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >Just back from terrible Menton, having forgotten terrible blml. > > Good news Ton - BLML isn't so terrible now, with David > Stevenson back, and even an indication that Kojak is still > paying attention to it - I think it is much better than it was > a few months ago. > > >One of the things TD's have to do is to ascertain facts. > >Lille was in 1998 and nothing in the first session was > >cancelled. > > which from my personal point of view was a great pity. > After two or three rounds there were progress scores > provided (good stuff, thanks to the organisers) with > Gill-Courtney 78th out of 78 on about 8 matchpoints, Don't exaggerate. Apart from Albuquerque where 'we' just ignored the conditions of contest, we play these finals with 72 pairs. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 09:50:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:50:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630103757.00ac2a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:10 28/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >To organize such an event in that building in Menton >the end of June is asking for trouble if not 'criminal' neglect. AG : this seems excessive to me. There isn't much difference between june=20 6th and june 18th (except in history, of course). And in Juan-les-Pins,=20 although the playing place was poorly protected against the sun, although=20 this period of the year had seldom been that hot, playing conditions were=20 not terrible, albeit slightly uncomfortable. >AG: > > b) France is not a hot weather country ..... > >Come on Alain. France as a whole cannot be classified because it is too >diverse. AG : yes, that's what I meant. The initial poster said that one should not= =20 organize such events in hot countries. I only replied that it was too=20 simplistic, because as you mention it, France isn't one. The Riviera can=20 prove rather hot. Perhaps the Championships were given to a nation, who thereafter decided=20 where to hold them ? In this case, only the French organizers were at=20 fault, not the European Federation. >If you organise something in Lille in June you don't take this kind >of temperatures into account. But Menton is definitely hot weather country >by Northern European standards. AG : please note that last Friday, the temperature was about 32=B0C in= Lille,=20 35 in M=FCnchen and 38 in Vienna. One may never know. The 2004 French-speaking Duplicate Scrabble Championships will be held in=20 early August in Marrakech. Another interesting idea :-( Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jun 30 09:38:19 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:38:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: > > At 08:27 30/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >This issue should not degenerate into an issue of Dutch versus French > >chauvinism. Oh goodness, what kind of suggestion is this? No intention at all to make this a French Dutch battle. Otherwise some person, with an even longer memory than > >Henk, might unkindly mention the outrageous prices of hotel rooms at > >the Valkenburg Olympiad in 1980. Not true either. My memory is good enough to remember what happened. The prices weren't outrageous, the conduct of the Dutch Federation was. Hotels were booked via the Dutch federation and they had an agreement with the hotels to increase these prices. So the bridgeplayers, instead of a discount had to pay more than when they had booked themselves. The prices still were quite reasonable, but the procedure was complete unacceptable and caused anger. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 10:03:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:03:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630105153.00ac5be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:10 29/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >We have all met opponents who advertise 12-14 HCP >(unqualified) on their card and in their explanations; >but, in practice, open all 4432 and 5332 eleven counts, >non-vulnerable. They may also insist on a good 13-15 >count when vulnerable. > >Is such economy with the truth legal? AG : *this* economy is not legal, because when Vul partner will play you for 13-15 while he announces 12-14. Playing plain 12-14 and upgrading from time to time K10x - K10x - xx - AJ10xx or xx - KJ10x - A1098 - QJ10 to 12 doesn't seem immoral, illegal nor fattening *if* partner will always bid as if you always have 12-14. When you open a substantial part of correct-shape 11-counts 1NT (it may be asked which part ; I'd say about 5% but YMMV) *then* you have to state it ; but the hand you mentioned is just too exceptional to "create an agreement". BTW, very few people would complain if you did open 1NT. They know, too, that this hand is worth about 13... and they would open it, too. The problem is, contrary to other bids, you have to state a specific range for 1NT openings. Because the point count is a bad tool, the problem is not caused by making the "economy" of mentioning a hugely-reevaluated 11-count, but by the obligation of using the Work Point Count. Assuming it's the truth, you are allowed to tell the TD that your idea of opening this hand 1NT was an oddity which happens very seldom ; the problem is that, in the US, you could be penalized for doing it just once. *Thatr* is the error. Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jun 30 09:45:23 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:45:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: > Perhaps the Championships were given to a nation, who > thereafter decided > where to hold them ? In this case, only the French organizers were at > fault, not the European Federation. No, it didn't happen that way. The EBL was aware of the playing conditions well in advance and feels responsible. And we were unlucky, that region still has extreme hot weather to day, north Italy 40 degrees. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 10:26:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:26:36 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630112540.00ab37a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:40 30/06/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >[Sven Pran] >My point is that any spectator must at any time >be free to inform the Director (!) of any event >that the spectator believes is an irregularity of >any kind. > >[Nigel Guthrie] >Any law to the contrary is indefensible except by >those who take a sadistic pleasure in movements >going wrong, misboarding, and cheats prospering. > >[Richard Hills] >Nigel's position is inconsistent - why should an >anonymous player be penalised for infracting Law >15, but Zia (who has plenty of kibitzers) be >rescued by his kibitzers from any possible Zia >infraction of Law 15? > >As for the prospering of cheats, I am more and >more inclined to wish that the 2005 Laws should >officially recognise the Recorder position. If >this suggestion is adopted by the WBF LC, I would >further suggest that the responsibility for >enforcing the Laws as agents of the Sponsoring >Organisation be divided. > >Under my wish-list, the Recorder would be the >exclusive delegate of the Sponsoring Organistion >for enforcing the following Laws: > >Law 72B2, Law 73B2, Law 74C5 and Law 74C8 AG : please add 73D2. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 10:23:04 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:23:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field References: Message-ID: <007e01c33ee9$385c9700$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Hills] Nigel's position is inconsistent - why should an anonymous player be penalised for infracting Law 15, but Zia (who has plenty of kibitzers) be rescued by his kibitzers from any possible Zia infraction of Law 15? [Nigel Guthrie] That is an excellent example, Richard. In practice, of course, it would be near impossible to prevent Zia's kibitzers from pointing out an attempt to play the wrong board. My suggestion, however, is that the alert kibitzer tells the *TD* not *Zia*. How the TD handles such information is another matter, entirely. In my legal ignorance, I would thank the kibitzer and prevent the movement being wrecked and everybody's enjoyment being spoilt. (:If the offending board were on the table, about to be played, I might try to penalize Zia and Co, as well, if legal --- but now I admit I am completely out of my depth :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 10:44:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:44:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <007b01c33ede$157d4960$6c8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630114321.00ab9640@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:03 30/06/2003 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Does anyone know whether the World Championships >in Monte Carlo have air-conditioned playing areas? > >And will the World Junior Teams in Saint Cloud (near Paris) >in August (summer) have air-conditioned premises? > >If, not, as long as we know in advance (I'm not quite kidding >here), we can bring our own fans AG : you mean, kibitzers ? :-) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 10:37:13 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:37:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008e01c33eeb$34c0e7c0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman] But if the systems policy prohibits systems where 10-counts are opened 1NT, then no amount of arguing that a particular 10HCP hand is worth 17 NGP will change the fact that you cannot open that one. [Nigel] Herman, now you are addressing one of the two areas, in which I would like clarification. Given the EBU's definitions below, may legally I use my judgement to upgrade certain kinds of hand e.g. AQ109xx J10xxx x x to be "Rule of 19" and hence worth an opening bid. > The EBU Orange Book defines HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 > The EBU Orange book defines Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, > 22, 23, 25) as... > "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by > adding the HCPs to the sum of the number of cards in > the two longest suits. It is used for defining what > agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually > for opening bids)." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From ljtrent@adelphia.net Mon Jun 30 10:33:43 2003 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:33:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: any chance you could post the article? I refuse to sign up for another --- well ---- whatever L. >> >>"All is going smoothly until Hackett pulls out the stop card, >>indicating he is going to skip a level of bidding. >>Wildavsky waits 10 >>seconds and then shows his pass card. He does this because he knows >>the rules, and the rules say he has to wait 10 seconds. But Hackett >>thinks that Wildavsky waited too long, and he raises his >>hand to call >>the director." >> >>Another BLML posting? No, the New York Times Magazine. See >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/magazine/29BRIDGE.html >> --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 10:38:16 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:38:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <009a01c33eeb$5c97e140$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman] But if the systems policy prohibits systems where 10-counts are opened 1NT, then no amount of arguing that a particular 10HCP hand is worth 17 NGP will change the fact that you cannot open that one. [Nigel] Herman, now you are addressing one of the two areas, in which I would like clarification. Given the EBU's definitions below, may legally I use my judgement to upgrade certain kinds of hand e.g. AQ109xx J10xxx x x to be "Rule of 19" and hence worth an opening bid. > The EBU Orange Book defines HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 > The EBU Orange book defines Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, > 22, 23, 25) as... > "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by > adding the HCPs to the sum of the number of cards in > the two longest suits. It is used for defining what > agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually > for opening bids)." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 30 10:41:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:41:26 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field In-Reply-To: <007e01c33ee9$385c9700$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000501c33eeb$c6cf0ac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I feel "guilty" of being the one originally stating that any spectator should have the right to inform the Director of any possible = irregularity to which he became aware.=20 This is still my opinion, but it should be obvious that such information must in case be given to the director alone, and not in any way be made available to the affected table (or for that sake to any other = participant in the field). The later developments on this thread has surprised me; it never = occurred to me that my opinion could be taken in any other way than for the Director alone to be informed of a possible error and then leaving it to him how = he would use such information.=20 Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 30. juni 2003 11:23 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Obligation to the rest of the field >=20 > [Richard Hills] > Nigel's position is inconsistent - why should an > anonymous player be penalised for infracting Law > 15, but Zia (who has plenty of kibitzers) be > rescued by his kibitzers from any possible Zia > infraction of Law 15? >=20 > [Nigel Guthrie] > That is an excellent example, Richard. In practice, > of course, it would be near impossible to prevent > Zia's kibitzers from pointing out an attempt to play > the wrong board. My suggestion, however, is that > the alert kibitzer tells the *TD* not *Zia*. >=20 > How the TD handles such information is another > matter, entirely. >=20 > In my legal ignorance, I would thank the kibitzer > and prevent the movement being wrecked and > everybody's enjoyment being spoilt. >=20 > (:If the offending board were on the table, about > to be played, I might try to penalize Zia and Co, > as well, if legal --- but now I admit I am > completely out of my depth :) >=20 >=20 > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: > 25/06/2003 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 30 10:42:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:42:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630114321.00ab9640@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c33eeb$fbc11e80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 30. juni 2003 11:44 > To: Peter Gill; BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > At 18:03 30/06/2003 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > > > >Does anyone know whether the World Championships > >in Monte Carlo have air-conditioned playing areas? > > > >And will the World Junior Teams in Saint Cloud (near Paris) > >in August (summer) have air-conditioned premises? > > > >If, not, as long as we know in advance (I'm not quite kidding > >here), we can bring our own fans > > AG : you mean, kibitzers ? :-) No, he probably asks for 220V outlets being available near each table 8-) Regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jun 30 10:43:40 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:43:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <4447490.1056966220913.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> > Given the EBU's > definitions below, may legally I use my judgement to > upgrade certain kinds of hand e.g. AQ109xx J10xxx x x > to be "Rule of 19" and hence worth an opening bid. No, of course not. Any more than I may use my judgement to decide that 8763 843 843 872 is worth an opening bid. My judgement may tell me that 87 combinations are particularly powerful on offence, and the 84 tenace has also in the past proved a valuable holding. Hence, I consider that this hand is worth 4 points for eaach 87, 2 for each 84, plus 7 for the cards in the two longest suits. Now, in your judgement, this may not be so, and the hand not worth an opening of any kind. But who is to say that your judgement is better than mine? Or that your judgement, rather than mine, should be substituted for a regulation? David Burn London, England From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Mon Jun 30 10:53:37 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:53:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630114321.00ab9640@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00bf01c33eed$7ab29100$d7e2f9c1@olivier> > At 18:03 30/06/2003 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > > > >Does anyone know whether the World Championships > >in Monte Carlo have air-conditioned playing areas? Is Monte-Carlo in novembre? If so, you don't need air-conditioned usually ... but probably there is ... > > > >And will the World Junior Teams in Saint Cloud (near Paris) > >in August (summer) have air-conditioned premises? yes, there is air-conditioned in St-Cloud, no problem and to answer another remark, I heard that Menton, although located in France was organised by the Italian Federation, not the French Federation Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > >If, not, as long as we know in advance (I'm not quite kidding > >here), we can bring our own fans > > AG : you mean, kibitzers ? :-) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 11:05:22 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:05:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman] ...You translate this as "roughly 12-14 HCP, with some 11 and 15 possible", then you have done your duty..." [Nigel] In the past, I have used fastidious descriptions such as you suggest; but many people, including some TDs say that while such descriptions may be OK, they are "overkill" -- and far more than opponents have a right to expect. Is a simple "12-14" an adequate description of my 1N bid, if I open 4432 and 5332 eleven counts and 4333 15 counts? And must I inform opponents if I upgrade or downgrade a point or two according to vulnerability? Or is this all a matter of general bridge knowledge? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Mon Jun 30 11:57:07 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:57:07 +0400 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> References: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F001783.4090506@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) The greatest sorry for extremaly long post - but I was silent too long=20 also and the problem seems to me important. Once More about =93Is Bridge a Kind of Sport?=94 The arguments, made by my friend Mark on this question in Daily Bulletin=20 during last European Championship, really may be helpful for founding=20 opinion =96 but was there right place for them in edition for participant= s=20 solely?? Moreover =96 it looks like we are praising ourself for our=20 sportsmanships in such a difficult, thoughtful etc. kind of sport=85 We=20 are sugnificently above average human being, aren=92t we? For me appearin= g=20 of such article in Championship=92s Bulletin is rather alarming: because=20 it shows that it was we who needs in similar prove=85? By the way there is another point of view =96 and I dare to represent it.= =20 Bridge is first of all a kind of interhuman relationship. Bridge table=20 is a point where human beings are trying and teaching: - to co-operate, - to resolve technical problems, - to born and find the solution of psyhological (the most emotional for=20 humans!) conflicts etc. And after the play at the table is over =96 there starts another great=20 part of bridge: discussions and conversations with partner, opponents,=20 another players. These discussions are also an integral parts of the=20 game, even no less important for players than playing, and it proves=20 opinion about significance of interhuman relationship in bridge. Even for becoming average player future bridger quickly understands that=20 if he wants to enjoy the game =96 he should to give enjoyment so to=20 partner as to opponents, otherwise he may be expulsed from bridge=20 society. For my opinion =96 exactly it is the greatest message of bridge.= =20 Remark: word =93should=94 should be interpreted here and then only in=20 accordance with Scope of Laws? We are proud that bridge is (probably) second most popular game on the=20 Earth, but it is results of our ancestors from the beginning of previous=20 century: they constructed this huge building. And up to nowadays we have=20 used it, mostly paying attention to sportish side of the game and step=20 by step spending heritage. We did not care that nothing is made for=20 ever. All of us (players, authority persons, journalists) paid attention=20 only to methods of improving bridge techniques for getting best results=20 at playing tables. At tournament bookstore I noticed nice book =96 =93Bo= ls=20 Bridge Tips=94. There are lots of best annual articles about different=20 part of bridge (playing, bidding, defense) from tens years of the=20 previous century. And there were neither at least one article nor prize=20 devoted to/given for the best teaching, best text-book, best club=20 management, best tournament organizer. And now we have what we was able=20 to earn=85 For my modest opinion our real problem is how long will our bridge=20 organizations be still alive. I guess that just now we (in Europe) have=20 met the problem that had been appeared in ACBL tens years ago: the=20 problem of average age of bridge players. I guess that our president Jose Damiani made huge job to receive=20 recognition bridge by IOC as kind of sport. I do not believe that they=20 will include bridge neither to summer nor to winter games. Several years=20 before ago the problem was discussed at our bridge circles =96 and we=20 agreed that the only possibility was to remind them that ancient Games=20 included some intellectual programs (poetry, declamation etc.) and try=20 to organize under authority of IOC third part of Games =96 intellectual. = I=20 am quite pleased that our President is trying to resolve the problem in=20 similar way. It may include bridge, chess, go, draughts, backgammon etc.=20 Nevertheless I doubt even in such a perspective: sportish show is a kind=20 of business, intellectual sports are extremely less interesting for=20 kibitzers than physical because ANY kibitzer of physical sport easily=20 CAN receive portion of emotion as he UNDERSTANDS happening. Spectators=20 rule the show? Nevertheless I=92d like to underline that due already made recognition we= =20 may try to have a government support and strengthen efforts for bridge=20 teaching program and propaganda in schools and colleges. As a result of=20 last twenty-thirty years all of us reached some social positions =96 and=20 it was us who may convert these positions for widening the area of=20 bridge: if every of us (our authorities included) teaches one young=20 person per year we will surely survive. And I guess that EBL and NBOs=20 (after years of almost pure sportish activity) should elaborate several=20 teaching programs (with main aim that after first lesson at least 70%=20 pupils will return to second lesson =96 French Dodeka still may be good=20 system for such a program) and strongly support local clubs in their=20 teaching. I guess that only bridge clubs are real foundation of NBO. It=20 is great task for us. And who can do it for us but us?? As I mentioned European Championship at the beginning of the article=20 then I=92d like to throw my two pennies on its problem. My really sincere= =20 thanks to organizers of the Championship, the idea to provide all=20 European Championships as one continuing tournament was great. The=20 tournament was estimated extremely positively so by EBL President m-r=20 Rona as in numerous articles in above mentioned Bulletin. But I=92d like=20 to underline negative features of realization of this concept (from my=20 personal point of view): 1. I think that due to amalgamation of several contests in one=20 tournament overall expanses should be lowered (at least =96 due to common= =20 preparation period and the very preparation work) and also it should=20 provide to lowering entry fees. Nevertheless, in spite of EBL=20 President=92s estimation and conviction (they were made in his EBL Genera= l=20 Assembly report) =96 entry fees were too high, their total amount was=20 about 625.000,00 euros. 2. The playing conditions did not correspond with these fees: playing=20 area (Palace) was large but without any air-conditioning, it became game=20 proceeding extremely uncomfortable. After all, one may ad hoc organize=20 at least ventilation=85 Moreover =96 it=92s a pity, there were no conveni= ent=20 places at all (with or without smoking) for conversations and=20 discussions during very long breaks between rounds (especially during=20 swiss contest). I have already underlined above that such conversations=20 were huge part of our game=85 I know at least several players that arrive= d=20 to this tournament and DID NOT take part in it or left it soon =96 becaus= e=20 of poor conditions. 3. It seems to me that (taking into account everything said above and=20 not small income in almost all restaurants and hotels of this town=20 during rather significant period) leasing of this Palace should not be=20 too expensive=85 4. Thanks to sponsor =96 Lavazza - for its efforts to make playing more=20 comfortable by means of their free hot coffee and tee service. And=20 almost in every playing room there was free water =96 though it quickly=20 became warm. But at these hot days bars with cold drinks would be nice=20 supplements =96 for money, of course. Without such bars playing was reall= y=20 difficult thing. Might it be that our EBL authority had found their way=20 to prove that bridge was kind of sport? I do not blame organizers with=20 unusual hotness =96 but I think that it was possible to react quickly on=20 this hotness and establish bars with cold drinks at playing area. Or at=20 least =96 to establish ice-automatic-machines near free water devices.=20 Such doing was not too difficult in comparison with what had already=20 done for the Championship=85President Rona said that there worked at=20 Championship one hundred professionals =96 and what? O.K., I know, nine=20 women cannot born a child in a month=85 After all, there should be one=20 pregnant among them. Is it the same problem? By the way =96 bottles in devices for drinking happened to become empty i= n=20 several minutes after finishing round and none from that one hundred=20 professionals changed them during current breaks. 5. At least during mixed contests there was security at the enter to the=20 Palace. And they did not permit persons without Championship=92s badge to= =20 enter. What was its aim? Was it made because of terrorist=92s threat to=20 bomb us out? I saw as players without badges (forgot them=85) should=20 return to their stay-places =96 and then were late for the contest. But=20 this security did not fulfil the aim because in about 6 afternoon there=20 were no security personal at the enter (on Tuesday they were absent at=20 the very morning). And when I asked one of them about it =96 he simple=20 shouted at me. So: my opinion is that it was no more than=20 kinder-garden=92s game of adult organizers. And it made our playing area=20 looks like ghetto =96 when we had not too much spectators at all and=20 extremely needed (and still need) them for propaganda aim=85 6. There was absent information connection between different groups of=20 one hundred professionals: for example, registration for mixed pairs was=20 over two hours before the contest, but start of the contest was delayed=20 for 40 minutes because TDs met with surprise =96 a lot of empty position.= =20 For resolving the problem they should order to change positions to many=20 pairs =96 and even to stop bridge actions (bidding, play) at tables No.=20 13-14. Probably =96 these boards were cancelled for these pairs=85 I gues= s=20 that the only reason was that nobody from registration group informed=20 TDs about these empty positions. 7. I did not see myself but I was said that it happened that hand=20 records had been available BEFORE current session was over. 8. For my opinion breaks between rounds (especially =96 in teams) were to= o=20 large. Rounds had been planned in advance as 2 hours period and=20 continued in fact 2,5 hours. What could participants do during that=20 time, especially - in these conditions? These breaks ate possible free=20 time that participants could use at sea-beach (though organizers=20 supposed Menton=92s location as additional positive feature of the=20 Championship). 9. From 25 June till 29 June (Bulletins 11-15) EBL Executive Committee 5=20 times published its thanks to players for their participant in the=20 Championship. At this text there were mentioned some problems and=20 supposed that the main problem became unexpected heat. EC asked players=20 to send their thoughts and complaints AFTER they would return to their=20 home. In Bulletin 14 (28 June) EBL President published his Apologies.=20 And once more it was underlined in this Apologies that the only reason=20 of all inconvenience was heat=85 Pity, I do not believe them at all =96 for two reasons: - At the beginning of the Championship President Rona assured us that=20 enter fees were not too high, that quality of management and service was=20 at highest level, etc. As I tried to prove there were a lot of=20 organization lacks, heat only emphasized them. There was no word at=20 Apologies about it. Heat was called the only guilty=85 You know, at time=20 of U.S.S.R there was anecdote: =94Who are 5 main enemies of Soviet=20 agriculture? - U.S.A. and four seasons=85=94 - Why one should wait until he return to home? Why complaints should be=20 sent via e-mail only and cannot be published in Daily Bulletin? Who is=20 afraid of making these complaints known to bridge society? The very=20 short version of this article was given to the Bulletin staff on=20 Tuesday, 17 June =96 and has never been published. I guessed =96 for=20 different, pure technical reasons (Who would doubt?=85). As I know there= =20 was organized and signed by many participants a petition =96 it was not=20 published in the Bulletin. Who is serving whom? My opinion is that the Championship was not=20 organized for players =96 despite its nice concept. Best wishes, Vitold Brushtunov, Russia From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 30 12:33:11 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:33:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 05:07 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > "All is going smoothly until Hackett pulls out the stop card, > indicating he is going to skip a level of bidding. Wildavsky waits 10 > seconds and then shows his pass card. He does this because he knows > the rules, and the rules say he has to wait 10 seconds. But Hackett > thinks that Wildavsky waited too long, and he raises his hand to call > the director." > > Another BLML posting? No, the New York Times Magazine. See > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/magazine/29BRIDGE.html > > The author seemed fascinated with the concept of unauthorized > information. I expect he'd have said more if he'd had more room. I'm rather surprised Adam that, if you've been quoted correctly in the article, you seem to suggest that insufficient pausing for a Stop Card procedure is a European practice in contrast to American practice. I have had the impression from what I've read here and on rec.games.bridge that virtually the opposite situation exists: that while the regulations are effectively the same, there is a general attempt to follow them in Europe while they are widely flouted in N America, at least at rank-and-file level. Have I been misinformed? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 30 13:00:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:00:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c33eff$35d7bee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ....... > I'm rather surprised Adam that, if you've been quoted correctly in the > article, you seem to suggest that insufficient pausing for a Stop Card > procedure is a European practice in contrast to American practice. > > I have had the impression from what I've read here and on > rec.games.bridge that virtually the opposite situation exists: that > while the regulations are effectively the same, there is a general > attempt to follow them in Europe while they are widely flouted in N > America, at least at rank-and-file level. Have I been misinformed? I cannot vouch for the rest of Europe, but here in Norway we have a very straight forward regulation: A player about to make a skip bid indicates so by showing his Stop card or saying the word "Stop". His LHO must now not make any call until the Stop card is retracted or (if "Stop" was spoken) until the word "Continue" (or something else to the same effect) is said. If the Stop card is retracted (or a verbal permission to continue given) before 10 seconds have elapsed the LHO in question may make his own call immediately, however he still has his right to a full 10 seconds pause for thought before making his own call. Once both 10 seconds have elapsed and the Stop card has been retracted any further delay is considered a hesitation that may convey UI to his partner. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 30 13:57:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:57:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030630084638.026eecd0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:05 AM 6/30/03, Nigel wrote: >In the past, I have used fastidious descriptions >such as you suggest; but many people, including some >TDs say that while such descriptions may be OK, they >are "overkill" -- and far more than opponents have a >right to expect. The key word is "may". One must use one's common sense. >Is a simple "12-14" an adequate description of my 1N >bid, if I open 4432 and 5332 eleven counts and 4333 >15 counts? It depends. If you open half your 4432 and 5332 11-counts (or your 4333 15-counts) with 1NT it is not, whereas if you do it on fewer than 10% of them it is. There isn't a sharp line somewhere between them; it's something of a judgment call. >And must I inform opponents if I upgrade or downgrade >a point or two according to vulnerability? Similarly. >Or is this all a matter of general bridge knowledge? "General bridge knowledge" includes knowing that opponents may deviate from their announced ranges once in a while on particularly exceptional hands. Opponents that deviate more often than that must disclose their "real" range. When I see "11+-14", I tend to assume that my opponents will open 25-75% of their 11-counts. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 30 14:05:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> <3F001783.4090506@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: <3F0035AE.3050305@skynet.be> Hello Vitold, a few comments from one behind the scenes. vitold wrote: > Hi all:) > The greatest sorry for extremaly long post - but I was silent too long > also and the problem seems to me important. > > 1. I think that due to amalgamation of several contests in one > tournament overall expanses should be lowered (at least - due to common > preparation period and the very preparation work) and also it should > provide to lowering entry fees. Nevertheless, in spite of EBL > President's estimation and conviction (they were made in his EBL General > Assembly report) - entry fees were too high, their total amount was > about 625.000,00 euros. The EBL has worked for four years at a loss - mainly due to loss of sponsorship. This tournament made certain the EBL would not go bankrupt. I surely hope the cost-cutting is over. > 2. The playing conditions did not correspond with these fees: playing > area (Palace) was large but without any air-conditioning, it became game > proceeding extremely uncomfortable. After all, one may ad hoc organize I only wonder what the comment would have been if the temperature had been 25 in stead of 33 - I'm sure many would have loved the open windows and the sea breeze - sadly impossible with airco. Also the smoking area on the balcony would have been off-limits. The TDs were not harsh on occasional smokers - but they would have been in a fully closed building. > at least ventilation... Moreover - it's a pity, there were no convenient > places at all (with or without smoking) for conversations and > discussions during very long breaks between rounds (especially during > swiss contest). That's true - the Palais was used to full capacity for playing tables. > I have already underlined above that such conversations > were huge part of our game... I know at least several players that arrived > to this tournament and DID NOT take part in it or left it soon - because > of poor conditions. > 3. It seems to me that (taking into account everything said above and > not small income in almost all restaurants and hotels of this town > during rather significant period) leasing of this Palace should not be > too expensive... I have heard that it was indeed free of charge. Airco costs more money!!! > 4. Thanks to sponsor - Lavazza - for its efforts to make playing more > comfortable by means of their free hot coffee and tee service. And > almost in every playing room there was free water - though it quickly > became warm. But at these hot days bars with cold drinks would be nice > supplements - for money, of course. Without such bars playing was really > difficult thing. Might it be that our EBL authority had found their way > to prove that bridge was kind of sport? I do not blame organizers with > unusual hotness - but I think that it was possible to react quickly on > this hotness and establish bars with cold drinks at playing area. Or at > least - to establish ice-automatic-machines near free water devices. > Such doing was not too difficult in comparison with what had already > done for the Championship...President Rona said that there worked at > Championship one hundred professionals - and what? O.K., I know, nine > women cannot born a child in a month... After all, there should be one > pregnant among them. Is it the same problem? > By the way - bottles in devices for drinking happened to become empty in > several minutes after finishing round and none from that one hundred > professionals changed them during current breaks. Even I helped in changing some of them - and so did some players. But it was a problem, sure. > 5. At least during mixed contests there was security at the enter to the > Palace. And they did not permit persons without Championship's badge to > enter. What was its aim? Was it made because of terrorist's threat to > bomb us out? I saw as players without badges (forgot them...) should > return to their stay-places - and then were late for the contest. But > this security did not fulfil the aim because in about 6 afternoon there > were no security personal at the enter (on Tuesday they were absent at > the very morning). And when I asked one of them about it - he simple > shouted at me. So: my opinion is that it was no more than > kinder-garden's game of adult organizers. And it made our playing area > looks like ghetto - when we had not too much spectators at all and > extremely needed (and still need) them for propaganda aim... > 6. There was absent information connection between different groups of > one hundred professionals: for example, registration for mixed pairs was > over two hours before the contest, but start of the contest was delayed > for 40 minutes because TDs met with surprise - a lot of empty position. > For resolving the problem they should order to change positions to many > pairs - and even to stop bridge actions (bidding, play) at tables No. > 13-14. Probably - these boards were cancelled for these pairs... I guess > that the only reason was that nobody from registration group informed > TDs about these empty positions. Need I remind you that the places had been attributed based on pre-registry? It's not easy to spot empty spaces then, and impossible to get new starting positions to the replaced pairs. As it is, a delay between the scheduled starting time and the start of play of 20 minutes is acceptable in my opinion, especially since it is almost impossible to have bridge players at the table at the scheduled starting time, let alone 20 minuts before. > 7. I did not see myself but I was said that it happened that hand > records had been available BEFORE current session was over. Don't believe it. hand records were put down by Ton Kooijman himself. > 8. For my opinion breaks between rounds (especially - in teams) were too > large. Rounds had been planned in advance as 2 hours period and > continued in fact 2,5 hours. What could participants do during that > time, especially - in these conditions? These breaks ate possible free > time that participants could use at sea-beach (though organizers > supposed Menton's location as additional positive feature of the > Championship). The main problem with the Swiss seatings was that players were extremely lazy in bringing in results. Starting positions were out within 5 minutes of the last result being in. > 9. From 25 June till 29 June (Bulletins 11-15) EBL Executive Committee 5 > times published its thanks to players for their participant in the > Championship. At this text there were mentioned some problems and > supposed that the main problem became unexpected heat. EC asked players > to send their thoughts and complaints AFTER they would return to their > home. In Bulletin 14 (28 June) EBL President published his Apologies. > And once more it was underlined in this Apologies that the only reason > of all inconvenience was heat... > Pity, I do not believe them at all - for two reasons: > - At the beginning of the Championship President Rona assured us that > enter fees were not too high, that quality of management and service was > at highest level, etc. As I tried to prove there were a lot of > organization lacks, heat only emphasized them. There was no word at > Apologies about it. Heat was called the only guilty... You know, at time > of U.S.S.R there was anecdote: "Who are 5 main enemies of Soviet > agriculture? - U.S.A. and four seasons..." > - Why one should wait until he return to home? Why complaints should be > sent via e-mail only and cannot be published in Daily Bulletin? Who is > afraid of making these complaints known to bridge society? The very > short version of this article was given to the Bulletin staff on > Tuesday, 17 June - and has never been published. I guessed - for > different, pure technical reasons (Who would doubt?...). As I know there > was organized and signed by many participants a petition - it was not > published in the Bulletin. > Who is serving whom? My opinion is that the Championship was not > organized for players - despite its nice concept. > What is served by you telling other bridge players about it? And what is stopping you? What is important is that the EBL hears your complaints. And then does something with them. I'm pretty sure they will. I'm not trying to exonerate the EBL, but I do wish to let you know that a lot of hard work was put into the championships by a lot of benevolant people. And that mistakes were made. Don't forget that this was the first event of this kind, and the largest ever in Europe. (123.647 board being played - more than double from that in Malta). > Best wishes, > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 14:27:48 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:27:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <000701c33eff$35d7bee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630144900.00ac5d20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:00 30/06/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Gordon Rainsford >....... > > I'm rather surprised Adam that, if you've been quoted correctly in the > > article, you seem to suggest that insufficient pausing for a Stop Card > > procedure is a European practice in contrast to American practice. > > > > I have had the impression from what I've read here and on > > rec.games.bridge that virtually the opposite situation exists: that > > while the regulations are effectively the same, there is a general > > attempt to follow them in Europe while they are widely flouted in N > > America, at least at rank-and-file level. Have I been misinformed? > >I cannot vouch for the rest of Europe, but here in Norway we have a very >straight forward regulation: > >A player about to make a skip bid indicates so by showing his Stop card or >saying the word "Stop". > >His LHO must now not make any call until the Stop card is retracted or (if >"Stop" was spoken) until the word "Continue" (or something else to the same >effect) is said. AG : I think this regulation is not as good as the "classical" one (ie, 10 you just put the card on the board or say stop ; in the former case, you take the card back after the opponent chose his bid ; he has to take ca 10 seconds). The amount of time that a player takes before pulling back the card may give away his expectation that the opponent will overcall or not, creating UI. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 14:34:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:34:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030630084638.026eecd0@pop.starpower.net> References: <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630152854.00ac5890@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:57 30/06/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:05 AM 6/30/03, Nigel wrote: > >>In the past, I have used fastidious descriptions >>such as you suggest; but many people, including some >>TDs say that while such descriptions may be OK, they >>are "overkill" -- and far more than opponents have a >>right to expect. > >The key word is "may". One must use one's common sense. > >>Is a simple "12-14" an adequate description of my 1N >>bid, if I open 4432 and 5332 eleven counts and 4333 >>15 counts? > >It depends. If you open half your 4432 and 5332 11-counts (or your 4333 >15-counts) with 1NT it is not, whereas if you do it on fewer than 10% of >them it is. There isn't a sharp line somewhere between them; it's >something of a judgment call. AG : indeed. Eric's judgment is that 10% is right. Mine was that 5% is a maximum. No problem. I just conducted a calculation : if you open all balanced 12-14 counts 1NT, and 5% of your 11 counts, about 2% of your 1NT openings will be made on 11 counts (slightly more in 3rd-4th hand). This seems about OK. If you want to re-calculate this, please note that 11 counts are more frequent by nearly a half than 14 counts. >>And must I inform opponents if I upgrade or downgrade >>a point or two according to vulnerability? > >Similarly. > >>Or is this all a matter of general bridge knowledge? > >"General bridge knowledge" includes knowing that opponents may deviate >from their announced ranges once in a while on particularly exceptional >hands. Opponents that deviate more often than that must disclose their >"real" range. > >When I see "11+-14", I tend to assume that my opponents will open 25-75% >of their 11-counts. AG : I use 11+-14 with Nicole, and the figure is about 30%. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 30 14:15:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:15:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <008801c33eeb$255574e0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F0037D7.7070804@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman] > But if the systems policy prohibits systems where > 10-counts are opened 1NT, then no amount of arguing > that > a particular 10HCP hand is worth 17 NGP will change the > fact that you cannot open that one. > > [Nigel] > Herman, now you are addressing one of the two areas, > in which I would like clarification. Given the EBU's > definitions below, may legally I use my judgement to > upgrade certain kinds of hand e.g. AQ109xx J10xxx x x > to be "Rule of 19" and hence worth an opening bid. > > No, according to me, you may not. If you tell me that in your counting method this is an opening bid, then your system does not satisfy the regulations. If you tell me that you "re-evalute" your hand because of the 10s and singletons, then you are saying just the same, and your system agains does not satisfy the regulations. And if you tell me that you psyched 1Sp on this hand, I don't believe you and I still rule against you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 30 14:17:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:17:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F00387D.7000208@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman] > ...You translate this as "roughly 12-14 HCP, > with some 11 and 15 possible", then you have > done your duty..." > > [Nigel] > > In the past, I have used fastidious descriptions > such as you suggest; but many people, including some > TDs say that while such descriptions may be OK, they > are "overkill" -- and far more than opponents have a > right to expect. > Is is something they are entitled to, but which indeed they don't usually need. > Is a simple "12-14" an adequate description of my 1N > bid, if I open 4432 and 5332 eleven counts and 4333 > 15 counts? > Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are subject to general considerations about shape and minor honours". > And must I inform opponents if I upgrade or downgrade > a point or two according to vulnerability? > Yes, that you must! > Or is this all a matter of general bridge knowledge? > At certain levels it is certainly general bridge knowledge that most players use gray counting. But some do it more than average, and they should put that on their CC. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 14:47:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:47:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <3F0035AE.3050305@skynet.be> References: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> <3F001783.4090506@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630154138.00ac5620@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:05 30/06/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >>8. For my opinion breaks between rounds (especially - in teams) were too= =20 >>large. Rounds had been planned in advance as 2 hours period and continued= =20 >>in fact 2,5 hours. What could participants do during that time,=20 >>especially - in these conditions? These breaks ate possible free time=20 >>that participants could use at sea-beach (though organizers supposed=20 >>Menton's location as additional positive feature of the Championship). > > >The main problem with the Swiss seatings was that players were extremely=20 >lazy in bringing in results. AG : what about the word 'delay' in L90A ? And another remark : the EBL realized that it wasn't a good idea to set the= =20 championships in a place where weather could be too hot at this time of the= =20 year. Consequently, they chose Tenerife for 2005 :-=A7 >I'm not trying to exonerate the EBL, but I do wish to let you know that a= =20 >lot of hard work was put into the championships by a lot of benevolant=20 >people. And that mistakes were made. Don't forget that this was the first= =20 >event of this kind, and the largest ever in Europe. AG : perhaps it's time to remember Vitold of a well-known Russian saying := =20 "the first pancake is always botched". From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 14:54:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:54:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F00387D.7000208@skynet.be> References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630155041.00a494e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:17 30/06/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >At certain levels it is certainly general bridge knowledge that most >players use gray counting. AG : indeed. The problem is, some regulations (like the one we discuss, that one about mini-notrumps) disallow "gray counting". In fact, they disallow using one's judgment. No wonder that players who are proud of theirs (that is, all of them) consider such regulations as evil. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jun 30 14:52:20 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:52:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: Vitold: > > > 7. I did not see myself but I was said that it happened that hand > > records had been available BEFORE current session was over. Herman: > Don't believe it. hand records were put down by Ton Kooijman himself. Every issue discussed here has some merit but needs more background to understand what really happened and why. We played in an open playing area with no real partition between the space for tables and corridors and the corridors were small. Players ready and not leaving the building had to stay a couple of meters from the playing tables, talking, laughing etc. This made it necessary to provide them the hand records as soon as possible, asking them to leave thereafter. Still those handrecords were only available a couple of minutes before the scheduled end of a session. We changed the person putting them down several times, starting with the main office doing it, then asking the TD's to do it and at last I did it myself, when things became quite complicated and handrecords had to be given free at three different moments within 15 minutes. A complication is that security asks for different sets played in different events while the players and the daily bulletin prefer the same boards played everywhere. As an example the final women/seniors and the final open (pairs). They played the same boards, but not the same number and 3 boards in a round opposite 2 boards in a round. Ladies and seniors were ready when open still played and got their hand records, without the boards still in play in the open some minutes after finishing. That is how we solved it, satisfactory in my opinion. ton > > 8. For my opinion breaks between rounds (especially - in > teams) were too > > large. Rounds had been planned in advance as 2 hours period and > > continued in fact 2,5 hours. I don't recognize this as a description of the events played in Menton. The only rounds taking 2 hours were the KO teams and pauses didn't take that long there. In the swiss teams a round took 1,5 hour and pauses in the mixed teams were too long, but as Herman says, partly caused by results brought in late. ton Let me be clear, I am not positive about Menton. The conditions of the climate were below an acceptable level and many other problems were a result of that. Sometimes big waterbottles were empty before the crew had made a complete round. ton What could participants do during that > > time, especially - in these conditions? These breaks ate > possible free > > time that participants could use at sea-beach (though organizers > > supposed Menton's location as additional positive feature of the > > Championship). > > > The main problem with the Swiss seatings was that players were > extremely lazy in bringing in results. Starting positions were out > within 5 minutes of the last result being in. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 15:10:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:10:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <9E3CFF92-AB04-11D7-8558-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 29, 2003, at 23:54 US/Eastern, John R. Mayne wrote: > LA's? Several have suggested that pass is not an LA; I disagree. If > partner has suggested bidding (as by a long hesitation), passing must > be enforced. Passing could easily be right; obviously our defense is > relevant, but even playing a defense where pass may encompass some > strong hands, I think pass is an LA. Ah. I see your point, I think. Pass is an LA, you argue, because it could easily be right. Well, perhaps so. But I originally read your second sentence to mean "pass is an LA because we can't allow a bid". That can't be right. Rather, *if* pass is an LA, then we can't allow a bid. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 15:17:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:17:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: OOPS. Meant to sent this to the list, but sent it to Herman. Sorry, Herman. On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 03:04 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > In fact, you are, by opening that hand, admitting that your 17-23 > range is in fact illegal. Pfui. > And that is why I would not accept the same from anyone. Other players > also use "different counting methods", and they are allowed to do so. > But not when it drops themselves into illegal territory. That last is true. Folks, some of us sensibly keep interesting threads around for a while. We don't *need* a complete copy of the entire previous thread in every reply. Nor do we want it. 'Nuf said. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 15:33:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:33:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630103757.00ac2a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 04:50 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Perhaps the Championships were given to a nation, who thereafter > decided where to hold them ? In this case, only the French organizers > were at fault, not the European Federation. Are we assigning blame, or trying to figure out how to avoid the problem in future? This brings up a point in response to another post. Somebody suggested picking one spot, and always holding the event in that spot. I believe the suggestion was Luxembourg. A good idea, I think, except that while I don't know a whole lot (ie, nothing :) about the politics of the EBL, I doubt it's possible to implement it, unless perhaps there are enough events around so that "everybody" gets one. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 15:44:14 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:44:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.1.0.14.0.20030630155041.00a494e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003301c33f16$19e9f7e0$0a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> I posed two questions. I take it that the official answer is you must abide by HCP restrictions in the EBU Orange Book. You may not upgrade or downgrade a hand by taking factors into account. I agree that other interpretations would be hard to enforce. The answer to the second question surprised me. It is OK to announce a 12-14 as your notrump range even if you upgrade 11 counts and downgrade 15 counts. One last question about so-called "grey" ranges. Opponents' CC specifies 1NT as "12-14 HCP". At love-all, opponents bid 1NT-3NT. You work out a defence that will defeat the contract if opener has 11 HCP but concedes overtricks otherwise. You ask dummy to confirm declarer's point-range. You are told "12-14 HCP" again. You play safe and 3NT makes. It turns out that declarer has 11 HCP 1086 K42 K9 AJ753 Your original plan would have defeated the contract. Can you expect any redress from the TD? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From David Stevenson Mon Jun 30 15:18:26 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:18:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >Tim West-Meads >......... >> ..... I am trying to find out what rights dummy >> has to try and prevent infractions by declarer. >> It is not dummy's place to tell declarer what to do. >> It is within dummy's rights to warn declarer against >> committing irregularities (but which ones). > >In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the declarer is >about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have been >completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a penalty. > >Examples on play from wrong hand: The infraction has occurred when the card is played, not before. so, until it is played, dummy may "prevent" the irregularity. >Declarer stretches over to dummy for a card: Dummy may interrupt and tell >him to play from his own hand. > >Declarer opens his mouth apparently to ask for a card from dummy: The same. > >Declarer says "Spade two": Dummy may no longer tell him that he was to play >from his own hand. (In my opinion the same applies when declarer has only >partly named a card from dummy, but this may be open for discussion). A partly named card has not been played. So if declarer says "Spade" dummy may interrupt him and stop him playing from dummy. >Declarer retracts a card from his own hand (or initiates retracting a card) >but does not proceed to a state where the card face can be visible to >anyone: Dummy may tell him to play from dummy. > >If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table can name >the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play from >dummy. A card being visible has not yet been played. So if it is not held touching or near the table then dummy may still stop him committing the irregularity. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Jun 30 15:27:07 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:27:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9vhBrWD7iEA$EwAe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> writes > >Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. >The bidding has gone: > >NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST >1C (1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > forcing, but not necessarily strong. > >You, West, hold: > >AJ52 >3 >KJ5432 >92 > >What are your logical alternatives? 1D, 2D, pass. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Jun 30 15:20:34 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:20:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <001b01c33e73$9db56da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <2Pp8PqBo8y$+EwfM@asimere.com> <001b01c33e73$9db56da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >......... >> >In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the declarer is >> >about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have been >> >completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a >> penalty. >> > >> >Examples on play from wrong hand: >....... >> >If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table can >> name >> >the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play from >> >dummy. >> >> I'm not so sure about this last case. Declarer can certainly be in a >> state where his card is visible to everyone and has not yet been played. > >Law 45C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or >nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate >that it has been played. Exactly: so it is not played when it becomes visible, but when it is held in such a position: before it is held in such a position dummy may prevent the irregularity. >If this is the case then dummy no longer is "preventing" the declarer from >playing from the wrong hand, he is calling attention to the fact that >declarer has done so. > >Declarer may certainly expose a card for some purpose different from playing >it. When that is the case the card has not been played, but then also his >action should be in some way that cannot be understood as an intention to >play the card; and dummy's right to "prevent" declarer from playing from the >wrong hand becomes dubious to say the least. No. It is a question of timing: until it is held as described in the Law it is not played. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 15:45:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:45:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F00387D.7000208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7B6E7E06-AB09-11D7-8558-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:17 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are subject to > general considerations about shape and minor honours". Seems to me that's "general bridge knowledge" and need not be explicitly disclosed. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 16:07:27 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:07:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: <9E3CFF92-AB04-11D7-8558-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630165630.00abdbb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:10 30/06/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Sunday, Jun 29, 2003, at 23:54 US/Eastern, John R. Mayne wrote: > >>LA's? Several have suggested that pass is not an LA; I disagree. If=20 >>partner has suggested bidding (as by a long hesitation), passing must be= =20 >>enforced. Passing could easily be right; obviously our defense is=20 >>relevant, but even playing a defense where pass may encompass some strong= =20 >>hands, I think pass is an LA. > >Ah. I see your point, I think. Pass is an LA, you argue, because it could= =20 >easily be right. AG : IBTD. Passing could be the right thing to do facing a 15-17 1NT=20 opening, holding a flat 10-count. Sometimes, 26-point games do fail. However, it is not a LA, because nobody would consider it seriously. Imagine that a pass over this 1C opening meant 0-9 or 16+ HCP (why not ?).= =20 It *could* be right to pass, in reopening, with a shapely 15-count, because= =20 the probability that partner has a very weak hand does exist. It *could* be= =20 right to reopen a flat 4-count because the probability that partner has the= =20 latter is high. However, everybody would reopen a shapely 15-count (unless, perhaps, if=20 short in spades), and most would pass a flat 4-count. Therefore, pass is=20 not a LA in the 1st case, while it is (and then some !) in the second. There just remains to determine on which side of the boundary said hand is,= =20 and if it is close, to decide against the defending side ; unless we've=20 serious reasons to think that responder used the tempo to step out of his=20 system to try and disallow n=B04 to bid. Since there was no infraction up to= =20 there, L72A4 is Off. Why not conduct a poll ? "Do you consider passing with this hand ? Why ?".= =20 Isn't that the definition of a LA ? Anyway, "could it be the right decision= =20 ?" is not. Best regards, Alain. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 15:48:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:48:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630155041.00a494e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:54 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : indeed. The problem is, some regulations (like the one we > discuss, that one about mini-notrumps) disallow "gray counting". In > fact, they disallow using one's judgment. > No wonder that players who are proud of theirs (that is, all of them) > consider such regulations as evil. Bridge is a game of judgment. Regulations which don't allow judgment where it is appropriate to use judgment are not in the spirit, at the very least, of the game. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 16:18:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003301c33f16$19e9f7e0$0a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.1.0.14.0.20030630155041.00a494e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630171240.00ab7060@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:44 30/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >One last question about so-called "grey" ranges. >Opponents' CC specifies 1NT as "12-14 HCP". At >love-all, opponents bid 1NT-3NT. You work out a >defence that will defeat the contract if opener >has 11 HCP but concedes overtricks otherwise. >You ask dummy to confirm declarer's point-range. >You are told "12-14 HCP" again. You play safe and >3NT makes. It turns out that declarer has 11 HCP >1086 K42 K9 AJ753 >Your original plan would have defeated the >contract. Can you expect any redress from the TD? AG : I think that is a classical case of "not protecting yourself". If it=20 is of such importance to you to know whether opener could possibly have=20 upgraded a 11-count, you should ask "do you occasionally upgrade hands or=20 are you quite strict about ranges ?". This doesn't seem to be an outrageous= =20 question, if you really need to know it. If I was dummy, I would have to=20 answer "yes, we play somewhat fuzzy ranges" (facing some partners ; facing= =20 Nicole, I would already have said "11=BD-14"). Of course, partner could=20 *still* have a 13-count ! Since the abovementioned hand isn't as strong as the one mentioned before,= =20 I wouldn't buy the claim of "this is an exceptional upgrading". People who= =20 do upgrade this one upgrade many. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 16:19:46 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <7B6E7E06-AB09-11D7-8558-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3F00387D.7000208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630171905.00abc7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:45 30/06/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:17 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are subject to >>general considerations about shape and minor honours". > >Seems to me that's "general bridge knowledge" and need not be explicitly >disclosed. AG : unless you do it much more frequently than other pairs. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 30 15:51:55 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: from "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" at Jun 28, 2003 12:02:49 AM Message-ID: <200306301451.h5UEpu707814@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes: > > 1996, Lille: Half the first session of the open pairs had to be cancelled > after a TD failed to make a fairly basic check of the movement. > As I recall it, movement guides at the table had been switched by workers. This was discovered a round later. The directors came up with a revised movement to attempt to salvage the situation and didn't get it right. Kojak's suggestion is a very good one. Simple and rates to solve the problem almost all the time. Larry Cohen also mentioned horrendous problems getting the scores at Lille. Is this still a problem/ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 30 16:07:45 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <7B6E7E06-AB09-11D7-8558-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> from "Ed Reppert" at Jun 30, 2003 10:45:24 AM Message-ID: <200306301507.h5UF7jB07879@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:17 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are subject to > > general considerations about shape and minor honours". > > Seems to me that's "general bridge knowledge" and need not be > explicitly disclosed. I can't find my copy of the 1987 Bermuda Bowl but I'm pretty sure there was a ruling against Flint/Sheehan (playing IIRC against Martel/Stansby) that says otherwise. Flint/Sheehan had inverted the meaning of pass and 1C in an otherwise simple system. Their convention card described pass as 12+. Passed with a nice 11 count (IE showed 12+). When the hand was played out, a particular card was "known" to be in the passer's hand (required to bring it up to 12 HCP). Here's where the details get fuzzy. As I recall, the Americans called the director and the director ruled in their favor. Best I can tell, Britain didn't appeal. (I know a couple of appeals were dropped after they became moot. This may have been one of them.) Can somebody with a 1987 Bermuda Bowl book confirm? -- Ron Johnson From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 30 16:32:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:32:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630144900.00ac5d20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c33f1c$c4d7d860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner ........... > AG : I think this regulation is not as good as the "classical" one = (ie, 10 > you just put the card on the board or say stop ; in the former case, = you > take the card back after the opponent chose his bid ; he has to take = ca 10 > seconds). > The amount of time that a player takes before pulling back the card = may > give away his expectation that the opponent will overcall or not, = creating > UI. We are not so concerned about "protecting" the party that creates a = possibly surprising situation for their opponents as we are of protecting those opponents who have been brought into a situation where they may easily require some time to decide their next call. Of course the player who makes his skip bid can create UI to his partner = by retracting his stop card "too quickly". If that question is raised it = will have to be judged separately.=20 But we feel that our regulation adequately protects the "innocent" party = at the table who is given ample time to decide the next call and who = normally never should risk being accused for UI because they have spent too few = or too many seconds before calling. Regulating the duration of their pause = is principally the responsibility of the skip bidder. Sven =20 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 30 16:32:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:32:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.1.0.14.0.20030630155041.00a494e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c33f16$19e9f7e0$0a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F005823.4070400@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I posed two questions. > > I take it that the official answer is you must > abide by HCP restrictions in the EBU Orange > Book. You may not upgrade or downgrade a hand > by taking factors into account. I agree that > other interpretations would be hard to enforce. > indeed - enforceability is the main reason. > The answer to the second question surprised me. > It is OK to announce a 12-14 as your notrump range > even if you upgrade 11 counts and downgrade 15 > counts. > Yes it is OK, as long as you have compensating values. And as long as 11 counts are not illegal. > One last question about so-called "grey" ranges. > Opponents' CC specifies 1NT as "12-14 HCP". At > love-all, opponents bid 1NT-3NT. You work out a > defence that will defeat the contract if opener > has 11 HCP but concedes overtricks otherwise. > You ask dummy to confirm declarer's point-range. > You are told "12-14 HCP" again. You play safe and > 3NT makes. It turns out that declarer has 11 HCP > 1086 K42 K9 AJ753 > Your original plan would have defeated the > contract. Can you expect any redress from the TD? > No, because you have not asked the right question, the second time. You should have asked "under what circumstances, and how frequently, does he open on 11 HCP?". You just might receive the answer "whenever he has a five card suit, third in hand, non-vul". I know that the answer should trigger a full response, but as we all know, full responses are often not needed. Of course if my question is the one you asked (or even implied) and the answer is a firm "12-14", you may well get redress. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jun 30 16:35:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:35:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F0058B4.7020308@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:54 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : indeed. The problem is, some regulations (like the one we >> discuss, that one about mini-notrumps) disallow "gray counting". In >> fact, they disallow using one's judgment. >> No wonder that players who are proud of theirs (that is, all of them) >> consider such regulations as evil. > > > Bridge is a game of judgment. Regulations which don't allow judgment > where it is appropriate to use judgment are not in the spirit, at the > very least, of the game. > Bridge is also a game of law. If a law states that you cannot play a system in which you open a hand of 9HCP then that is the law. if you open some 9HCP and state that you have used judgment, then you are saying that this is your system, and that system is illegal. I know the regulation which relies solely on HCP is inferior in a bridge sense but far more enforceable than some others. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Mon Jun 30 17:08:14 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:08:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: References: <2Pp8PqBo8y$+EwfM@asimere.com> <001b01c33e73$9db56da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >Sven Pran writes >>John (MadDog) Probst >>......... >>> >In short: There must be a definite reason to believe that the declarer is >>> >about to commit an irregularity, but this irregularity must not have been >>> >completed (partly or in full) to a state where it is subject to a >>> penalty. >>> > >>> >Examples on play from wrong hand: >>....... >>> >If declarer has proceeded sufficiently so that anybody at the table can >>> name >>> >the card he is about to play: Dummy may no longer tell him to play from >>> >dummy. >>> >>> I'm not so sure about this last case. Declarer can certainly be in a >>> state where his card is visible to everyone and has not yet been played. >> >>Law 45C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or >>nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate >>that it has been played. > > Exactly: so it is not played when it becomes visible, but when it is >held in such a position: before it is held in such a position dummy may >prevent the irregularity. > snip > > No. It is a question of timing: until it is held as described in the >Law it is not played. > OMG, DWS agrees with me. Cracks open 2nd bottle of Glenwhateveritis. -- 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 mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jun 30 17:09:40 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:09:40 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? Message-ID: <002501c33f22$03341a10$3d682452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mamos" To: Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? > Sorry to be a bore but I need more information > > I think we need to consider the possible reasons that might lie behind this > auction > - and certainly we need to know EW's methods > > One explanation is that with strong hands EW systemically pass originally - > hoping for example with 18-20 bal to reopen with double of 1NT - South has > noticed this and with a very poor hand has tried to create a swing - given > this method as a player I would not pass - but if partner has asked > questions I would certainly pass and regard any action as a disgrace - it is > not a legal action to ask questions and then Pass if a strong option is > included in Pass and as a player I would expect my partner to understand > this - seems to me to be very very clear case for TD action > > One possible explanation of this sequence is that South has had some sort of > brainstorm when producing the Pass card - perhaps mistaking his partners > call -- thinking I'll pass 1NT and then passing this round or even a > mechanical error everyone of us has done this at sometime NS could be cold > for game or slam - In these situations Pass by West might be the best > action and so Pass is in my view always a logical alternative > > So please Richard -- tell us the methods tell us the UI and I'll try to rule > :)) > > mike > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? > > > > > > Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. > > The bidding has gone: > > > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > > 1C (1) Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > > forcing, but not necessarily strong. > > > > You, West, hold: > > > > AJ52 > > 3 > > KJ5432 > > 92 > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jun 30 17:18:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? References: <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030630165630.00abdbb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c33f23$4da26740$8a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Alain Gottcheiner] Why not conduct a poll ? "Do you consider passing with this hand ? Why ?". Isn't that the definition of a LA ? Anyway, "could it be the right decision ?" is not. [Nigel Guthrie] Unless partner's pass over opener's unlimited 1C opener is forcing, I would seriously consider passing in 4th seat. I'm afraid Alain is right, however. In practice, I suppose I would bid 1D or 2C. Last Tuesday, at Reading Bridge-Club, with a similar hand I regretted protecting in 4th seat over a first seat Acol 1C opener, when it woke opponents up to the fact that they could make seven notrumps :( :( :( [The ultimate Biltcliffe coup -- the eponymous originator of the coup is a member of Reading Bridge Club] But wait! Richard Hills *never* protects, so pass must be an LA :) :) :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003 From john@asimere.com Mon Jun 30 17:24:49 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:24:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <004d01c33e2f$1fe08a20$529c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3EFFE10E.4030606@skynet.be> <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <00a801c33eef$23e93de0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[Herman] >...You translate this as "roughly 12-14 HCP, >with some 11 and 15 possible", then you have >done your duty..." > >[Nigel] > >In the past, I have used fastidious descriptions >such as you suggest; but many people, including some >TDs say that while such descriptions may be OK, they >are "overkill" -- and far more than opponents have a >right to expect. > >Is a simple "12-14" an adequate description of my 1N >bid, if I open 4432 and 5332 eleven counts and 4333 >15 counts? > >And must I inform opponents if I upgrade or downgrade >a point or two according to vulnerability? Yes, I think an "ATV" would be appropriate. > >Or is this all a matter of general bridge knowledge? As Tim pointed out here recently. We have 10.5-13 app. (1/2), 15-17 app. (3/4) on our cc. I think this would cover all your points (except the vul issue), and suggests to opponents that we use whatever Tim considers to be judgement to decide where our hand lies on the NT ladder. regards John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Jun 30 17:30:50 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:30:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com> References: <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com> Message-ID: In article <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com>, John R. Mayne writes > > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. >> The bidding has gone: >> >> NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST >> 1C (1) Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and >> forcing, but not necessarily strong. >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> AJ52 >> 3 >> KJ5432 >> 92 >> >> What are your logical alternatives? > > >LA's? Several have suggested that pass is not an LA; I disagree. If >partner has suggested bidding (as by a long hesitation), passing must be >enforced. Passing could easily be right; obviously our defense is >relevant, but even playing a defense where pass may encompass some >strong hands, I think pass is an LA. Holding the spade suit I don't think pass is a LA. So saying I'll turn the hand into a crap shoot and pass. > >--JRM > > >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Mon Jun 30 17:42:27 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:42:27 +0400 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <3F0035AE.3050305@skynet.be> References: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> <3F001783.4090506@elnet.msk.ru> <3F0035AE.3050305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3F006873.4040105@elnet.msk.ru> Hello Herman, hi all:) Herman wrote: > > The EBL has worked for four years at a loss - mainly due to loss of > sponsorship. This tournament made certain the EBL would not go bankrupt. > I surely hope the cost-cutting is over. Thx for your explanation - I suspected something similar. It would be quite O.K. if it had been announced this way! But EBL President confirmed that entry fees were for the best management and service. And there weren't neither one nor second (the best I meant). Me and a most players would take part in the Championship any way - but I do not like to be a doll. If truth had been announced - all the participants due their participation would defend their organization. Otherwise - organization had been deceived its members... > > > I only wonder what the comment would have been if the temperature had > been 25 in stead of 33 - I'm sure many would have loved the open windows > and the sea breeze - sadly impossible with airco. Also the smoking area > on the balcony would have been off-limits. The TDs were not harsh on > occasional smokers - but they would have been in a fully closed building. > My guess is that 25 instead 32 would be change nothing. 20 - might be better. And I suppose that 25-28 is normal temperature there at that month... > > Need I remind you that the places had been attributed based on > pre-registry? It's not easy to spot empty spaces then, and impossible to > get new starting positions to the replaced pairs. As it is, a delay > between the scheduled starting time and the start of play of 20 minutes > is acceptable in my opinion, especially since it is almost impossible to > have bridge players at the table at the scheduled starting time, let > alone 20 minuts before. > And that is excactly what I said: it was known 2 hours before start that there had been great difference between pre-registry list and factual situation. And NOBODY from registry-team brought this information to TD-team. I guess that such possibility was not even foreseen by organizers. Another pair of shose is "impossible to have players etc.". 1. What about Regulation? 2. I was at that room - players were late no more than 8-10 minutes. 3. The Chairman of Soviet Writers' Union complainted to Stalin that all of them were anti-communists. Stalin's reply was: "Where will I take from another Soviet writers? Work with these!" > > The main problem with the Swiss seatings was that players were extremely > lazy in bringing in results. Starting positions were out within 5 > minutes of the last result being in. > Sorry Herman - but it happened when round-robin part of teams took place. When sitting positions were known for 5 rounds:) > > > > What is served by you telling other bridge players about it? And what is > stopping you? What is important is that the EBL hears your complaints. > And then does something with them. I'm pretty sure they will. > The problem is: one should prove that EBL hears our complaints. And the most known proof is to make them public. > I'm not trying to exonerate the EBL, but I do wish to let you know that > a lot of hard work was put into the championships by a lot of benevolant > people. And that mistakes were made. Don't forget that this was the > first event of this kind, and the largest ever in Europe. > OK - I know positive features of the last Championship. Didn't you see my thanks to organizers? Best wishes Vitold From anna@ecats.co.uk Mon Jun 30 17:50:44 2003 From: anna@ecats.co.uk (Anna Gudge) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:50:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] World Championships in Monaco Message-ID: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC481113@bruce.ecats.co.uk> I have seen a query here about whether the venue for the World Championships in Monaco is air conditioned. I came to Menton for two days and went to Monaco to look at the site - and can assure you that yes, it is air conditioned. The heat in November will be far less intense in any case, but the playing rooms are good, and I think will be excellent for the bridge. And the hotels looked lovely as well - I am very much looking forward to it! Many of you will, I am sure, remember it from the European Mixed Championships there in 1996 ... Anna Gudge England From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 30 17:53:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > 1C (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and > forcing, but not necessarily strong. > > You, West, hold: > > AJ52 > 3 > KJ5432 > 92 > > What are your logical alternatives? How much respect do I have for South? If South is decent player and has chosen to pass a forcing opening then a pass by me is suicidal. If South is a semi-trained monkey then bidding may well be wrong - although even then bidding is unlikely to get me into trouble. If I choose to bid 1D I look forward to an appeal where South is forced to assert that I should have no respect for his judgement:) Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 30 17:53:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK (offtopic bidding theory) In-Reply-To: <004f01c33c47$fd6c65b0$822d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: Anne wrote: > If this doesn't ratify the wisdom of such NAs as EBU, in protecting > level 3/4 type (Club) players from such theorists, while allowing the > perpetrators full reign in EBL and WBF events, I don't know what does. Which seems to imply that the future of bridge is best served by ensuring that club players are kept in the dark about improvements in bidding theory. Very strange. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jun 30 18:06:00 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:06:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? References: Message-ID: <001901c33f29$e3d67e80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> To my surprise, there seems to be two strong opinions regarding UI in ACBL-land: (1) You should bid as you would have absent the UI, not letting it have any effect on your bidding. (2) You must not take an action to which the UI points , even if that was your intended action, if there is a logical alternative I thought that (2) was an accepted principle, with (1) a common error among players and TDs, but now I find that Jeff Reubens, editor of *The Bridge World*, thinks that (1) is mandatory and (2) is illegal. An ACBL official tells me that Edgar Kaplan was of the same opinion, that a player should go ahead with an intended action and let the TD/AC decide on an adjusted score if they think L16A was violated, resulting in damage. Both opinions make sense, as "suggested" has two possible meanings: "pointed to" (i.e., directly) and "brought to mind" (i.e., indirectly). One problem with (1) is that an adjusted score may be a result worse ("most unfavorable result that was likely") than what could have been achieved by following (2). Does BLML have a consensus opinion? Which TD instruction, (1) or (2), should be given a player who has received UI? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 30 18:49:17 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Jun 30, 2003 05:30:50 PM Message-ID: <200306301749.h5UHnH508099@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: In article <3EFFB489.9080601@mindspring.com>, John R. Mayne writes > > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps, dealer North, vulnerable East-West. >> The bidding has gone: >> >> NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST >> 1C (1) Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) Alerted, Polish Club. Artificial and >> forcing, but not necessarily strong. >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> AJ52 >> 3 >> KJ5432 >> 92 >> >> What are your logical alternatives? > > >LA's? Several have suggested that pass is not an LA; I disagree. I'll go further. If you play the style of defense advocated by Chip Martel, pass is madatory. About the only hand type that passes is flat garbage (that and a mountain). While nobody plays the full Martel/Stansby system but those two (Martel has refused to go into great detail about their methods -- he seems to feel Polish club is unsound and that it's in his best interests to have as many people playing it as possible), the overall treatment (extremely agressive initial actions -- trading on the fact that the 1C call is so wide-ranging) is fairly common. From David Stevenson Mon Jun 30 18:37:27 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:37:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: <00ad01c33ed2$8ce24840$dd41e150@endicott> References: <$XuOU0EdN4++EwXJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00ad01c33ed2$8ce24840$dd41e150@endicott> Message-ID: <4t6gbcEXVHA$EwQ$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ Glad to see your signature on the screen again. > Don't worry, there has been plenty of rudeness >and arrogance on blml during your semester. I think >there is scope for universal restraint in avoiding the >kind of language and name calling that contributes >nothing to the debate, is unnecessary for the debate, >and has no place in civilized exchanges amongst >people of whom kindergarten behaviour may no >longer be expected. Interestingly enough, my friends seem to be making sure I am not paranoid by making it clear that others are attacked. On three separate occasions, people have sent me copies of BLML posts, all of which seem to be personal attacks on three very able posters. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Jun 30 18:41:19 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:41:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <4447490.1056966220913.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <4447490.1056966220913.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <4twg7qE$YHA$EwwJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> writes >> Given the EBU's >> definitions below, may legally I use my judgement to >> upgrade certain kinds of hand e.g. AQ109xx J10xxx x x >> to be "Rule of 19" and hence worth an opening bid. > >No, of course not. Any more than I may use my judgement to decide that 8763 843 >843 872 is worth an opening bid. My judgement may tell me that 87 combinations >are particularly powerful on offence, and the 84 tenace has also in the past >proved a valuable holding. Hence, I consider that this hand is worth 4 points >for eaach 87, 2 for each 84, plus 7 for the cards in the two longest suits. > >Now, in your judgement, this may not be so, and the hand not worth an opening of >any kind. But who is to say that your judgement is better than mine? Or that >your judgement, rather than mine, should be substituted for a regulation? Suppose the hand is one that most people's judgement would agree fits in as an opening bid - which I think the example one does. Then it would be reasonable to open it, would it not? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 21:15:37 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <000701c33eff$35d7bee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9CDDA984-AB37-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 08:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I cannot vouch for the rest of Europe, but here in Norway we have a > very > straight forward regulation: > > A player about to make a skip bid indicates so by showing his Stop > card or > saying the word "Stop". > > His LHO must now not make any call until the Stop card is retracted or > (if > "Stop" was spoken) until the word "Continue" (or something else to the > same > effect) is said. > > If the Stop card is retracted (or a verbal permission to continue > given) > before 10 seconds have elapsed the LHO in question may make his own > call > immediately, however he still has his right to a full 10 seconds pause > for > thought before making his own call. > > Once both 10 seconds have elapsed and the Stop card has been retracted > any > further delay is considered a hesitation that may convey UI to his > partner. Let's see if I have this straight. The purpose of the procedure (at least the part about the 10 second pause) is to require the bidder to conceal from his partner whether he has a problem deciding what to do with his hand. Yet if the skip bidder gives permission to continue at eight seconds, and his LHO is still thinking, he is allowed to think for two *more* seconds without any consideration that so doing might convey UI? Conversely, if permission is given after say, three seconds, and LHO passes immediately, *this* does not, by the regulation, convey any UI? Granted that by the wording of the regulation one could argue that if the skip bidder allows a continuation before ten seconds are up, it's his own damn fault, this just seems somehow wrong to me. For one thing, it's incumbent on skip bidder's opponents not to convey UI if that is possible, and certainly not to use it if it is conveyed. Yet here you have a regulation which seems to give carte blanche, in effect, to opponents to use UI. Have there been no problems with it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 21:25:17 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:25:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630165630.00abdbb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 11:07 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:10 30/06/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Sunday, Jun 29, 2003, at 23:54 US/Eastern, John R. Mayne wrote: >> >>> LA's? Several have suggested that pass is not an LA; I disagree. If >>> partner has suggested bidding (as by a long hesitation), passing >>> must be enforced. Passing could easily be right; obviously our >>> defense is relevant, but even playing a defense where pass may >>> encompass some strong hands, I think pass is an LA. >> >> Ah. I see your point, I think. Pass is an LA, you argue, because it >> could easily be right. > > AG : IBTD. Passing could be the right thing to do facing a 15-17 1NT > opening, holding a flat 10-count. Sometimes, 26-point games do fail. > However, it is not a LA, because nobody would consider it seriously. Are you addressing my point, or John's? I think it must be John's, because your post seems to have nothing to do with mine. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 21:33:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:33:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F005823.4070400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <27DB432B-AB3A-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 11:32 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I know that the answer should trigger a full response, but as we all > know, full responses are often not needed. Not needed, perhaps, but still required. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jun 30 21:42:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0058B4.7020308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c33f48$135d9080$b72e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 3:35 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > Bridge is a game of judgment. Regulations which don't allow > judgment > > where it is appropriate to use judgment are not in the > spirit, at the > > very least, of the game. > > > > > Bridge is also a game of law. If a law states that you cannot play a > system in which you open a hand of 9HCP then that is the law. if you > open some 9HCP and state that you have used judgment, then you are > saying that this is your system, and that system is illegal. I know > the regulation which relies solely on HCP is inferior in a bridge > sense but far more enforceable than some others. The law is "a King or more below average strength". This is my NO view on that law: "the argument of regulating an A and K below average strength is one that has been debated for a considerable time. When this law was drafted it was NEVER intended to constrain NCBOs. The WBF have made it clear that it is for NCBOs and Zones to regulate systems within their jurisdiction."For the NZCBA Laws & Regulations Sub Committee Whilst this attitude persists the laws will continue to be broken not by the players but by the regulators. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jun 30 21:42:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c33f48$1a849e80$b72e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 2:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:54 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : indeed. The problem is, some regulations (like the one we > > discuss, that one about mini-notrumps) disallow "gray counting". In > > fact, they disallow using one's judgment. > > No wonder that players who are proud of theirs (that is, > all of them) > > consider such regulations as evil. > > Bridge is a game of judgment. Regulations which don't allow judgment > where it is appropriate to use judgment are not in the spirit, at the > very least, of the game. > Bridge most certainly is a game of judgement. I think it is bad form for a regulation to restrict that judgement. HCP are merely an aid to judgement. Any regulation based on HCP (or 'Rule of ??') are necessarily poor regulations IMO. Players need to be entitled to exercise good or poor judgement. The laws elsewhere acknowledge that judgement (and style) should not be restricted. "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." L40E1 I think it is at least against the spirit of the game to restrict any player's judgement, good or bad, mainstream or lunatic fringe. Wayne PS I just occurred to me that if the system is 10-12 1NT and we both play that same system but one player uses his non-restricted judgement to open most or all 9 counts and some 8 counts then that is sanction by L40E1. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jun 30 21:42:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F005823.4070400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c33f48$1e326440$b72e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 3:33 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > I posed two questions. > > > > I take it that the official answer is you must > > abide by HCP restrictions in the EBU Orange > > Book. You may not upgrade or downgrade a hand > > by taking factors into account. I agree that > > other interpretations would be hard to enforce. > > > > > indeed - enforceability is the main reason. > > > > The answer to the second question surprised me. > > It is OK to announce a 12-14 as your notrump range > > even if you upgrade 11 counts and downgrade 15 > > counts. > > > > > Yes it is OK, as long as you have compensating values. > > And as long as 11 counts are not illegal. There is no way for 11 counts to be illegal. An 11 count is not 'a King or more below average'. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jun 30 21:42:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630171905.00abc7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c33f48$21c37a40$b72e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 3:20 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > At 10:45 30/06/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > >On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 09:17 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are > subject to > >>general considerations about shape and minor honours". > > > >Seems to me that's "general bridge knowledge" and need not > be explicitly > >disclosed. > > AG : unless you do it much more frequently than other pairs. I disagree. The general bridge knowledge is that all players are entitled to use there own judgement and that that judgement varies from player to player. Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jun 30 21:42:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630171240.00ab7060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> When explaining the significance of partner=92s call or play in reply to an opponent=92s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all = special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 3:19 a.m. > To: Nigel Guthrie; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP >=20 >=20 > At 15:44 30/06/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >=20 >=20 > >One last question about so-called "grey" ranges. > >Opponents' CC specifies 1NT as "12-14 HCP". At > >love-all, opponents bid 1NT-3NT. You work out a > >defence that will defeat the contract if opener > >has 11 HCP but concedes overtricks otherwise. > >You ask dummy to confirm declarer's point-range. > >You are told "12-14 HCP" again. You play safe and > >3NT makes. It turns out that declarer has 11 HCP > >1086 K42 K9 AJ753 > >Your original plan would have defeated the > >contract. Can you expect any redress from the TD? >=20 > AG : I think that is a classical case of "not protecting=20 > yourself".=20 I think that is a classical case of not giving a full L75C explanation. "When explaining the significance of partner=92s call or play in reply = to an opponent=92s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all = special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience."=20 Particularly since the regulators (in EBU Orange book) have defined rigidly hcp. > If it=20 > is of such importance to you to know whether opener could=20 > possibly have=20 > upgraded a 11-count, you should ask "do you occasionally=20 > upgrade hands or=20 > are you quite strict about ranges ?". This doesn't seem to be=20 > an outrageous=20 > question, if you really need to know it. If I was dummy, I=20 > would have to=20 > answer "yes, we play somewhat fuzzy ranges" (facing some=20 > partners ; facing=20 > Nicole, I would already have said "11=BD-14"). This is not a valid explanation by definition of the EBU Orange book, as there is no such thing as a 1/2 point. Wayne > Of course, partner could=20 > *still* have a 13-count ! > Since the abovementioned hand isn't as strong as the one=20 > mentioned before,=20 > I wouldn't buy the claim of "this is an exceptional=20 > upgrading". People who=20 > do upgrade this one upgrade many. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Alain. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 21:38:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:38:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <000701c33f1c$c4d7d860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 11:32 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > But we feel that our regulation adequately protects the "innocent" > party at > the table who is given ample time to decide the next call and who > normally > never should risk being accused for UI because they have spent too few > or > too many seconds before calling. Regulating the duration of their > pause is > principally the responsibility of the skip bidder. > Ah. Perhaps you will disagree, but this feels to me like "skip bidder has introduced an unusual situation with which his opponents should not be expected to be able to easily cope, therefore it is skip bidder's responsibility to correct the (potential) problem". This leads me to "skip bids are not normal bridge", which is nonsense, of course. Why is it not the responsibility of every player to ensure that his *own* calls are in proper tempo? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 21:42:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:42:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0058B4.7020308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54E6F5A2-AB3B-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 11:35 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Bridge is also a game of law. If a law states that you cannot play a > system in which you open a hand of 9HCP then that is the law. if you > open some 9HCP and state that you have used judgment, then you are > saying that this is your system, and that system is illegal. I know > the regulation which relies solely on HCP is inferior in a bridge > sense but far more enforceable than some others. No law says that. A regulation may say that, but that raises the question whether a regulation which relies on an admittedly flawed measure of strength is legal. I think a good argument could be made that it is not. You say "it's more enforceable than others", making that, I guess, a justification for the regulation, legal or not. I don't buy it. Expedience is *not* the touchstone, legality is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 30 22:00:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:00:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000401c33f48$1a849e80$b72e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 16:42 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I just occurred to me that if the system is 10-12 1NT and we both > play that same system but one player uses his non-restricted judgement > to open most or all 9 counts and some 8 counts then that is sanction by > L40E1. > We're on the same page on this one, Wayne. Except... as others have pointed out, the first sentence of Law 40D gives sponsoring organizations an *unlimited* right to regulate conventions. So while the ACBL cannot legally prevent a player from opening 1NT on a 9 count when his agreement is "10-12", it can certainly prevent his partnership from playing conventional responses to a "9-12" 1NT. The is at what point the exercise of judgment which the ACBL cannot restrict becomes an agreement which they can restrict. I think that most of us here agree that having opened 1NT on a 9 count one time, or even two or three times, in say a year (or a lifetime) a partnership has not reached that point, but it seems the ACBL disagrees. If they're wrong, how do we players correct them? Personally, I begin to wonder if perhaps the lack of restriction in Law 40D isn't going a bit too far. From rwilley@mit.edu Mon Jun 30 22:22:09 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:22:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000001c33f48$135d9080$b72e56d2@Desktop> References: <000001c33f48$135d9080$b72e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <1057008129.3f00aa018f176@webmail.mit.edu> It has been made very clear in the past that the WBF is unwilling to cons= train=20 NCBOs. I wish that it were otherwise, but such is life. Accordingly, if you have a serious problem with the behavior of your NCBO= ,=20 there are four basic avenues to address your problem: (1) Constructive engagement with your NCBO. By expending lots of=20 time/money/effort you can attempt to make sure that your voice gets heard= above=20 the din. This type of action takes a long time to work, but its probably= best=20 for your Karma and is certainly the =93mature=94 thing to do. (2) Destructive engagement with your NCBO. Sticks are often much more co= st=20 effective than carrots. Many NCBO are in very precarious financial situa= tion. =20 Law suits (or the threats of law suits) are virtually guaranteed to make = an=20 NCBO take notice. Grab the NCBO by the balls and start to squeeze. =20 (3) Withdraw from the NCBO altogether. Find an alternative venue outside= of=20 the purview of the local NCBO in which to play bridge. (4) Continue to participate in organized bridge but ignore those laws tha= t you=20 don=92t happen to like. If the NCBO can break the laws, you can too. So= what if=20 the conditions of contest don=92t allow you to open 1NT holding =20 KT9 =20 AT987 =20 QT9 =20 xx =20 Feel free to do so, and use whatever conventions you feel like. What=92s= the=20 worst that might happen? You=92ll lose a few Master Points. Arguing about these issues on BLML can be a fun way to vent, but it isn=92= t going=20 to accomplish much to solve your basic problem. From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 30 22:46:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:46:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <9CDDA984-AB37-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c33f51$140b1f80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ............=20 > Let's see if I have this straight. The purpose of the procedure (at > least the part about the 10 second pause) is to require the bidder to > conceal from his partner whether he has a problem deciding what to do > with his hand. Yet if the skip bidder gives permission to continue at > eight seconds, and his LHO is still thinking, he is allowed to think > for two *more* seconds without any consideration that so doing might > convey UI? Conversely, if permission is given after say, three = seconds, > and LHO passes immediately, *this* does not, by the regulation, convey > any UI? >=20 > Granted that by the wording of the regulation one could argue that if > the skip bidder allows a continuation before ten seconds are up, it's > his own damn fault, this just seems somehow wrong to me. For one = thing, > it's incumbent on skip bidder's opponents not to convey UI if that is > possible, and certainly not to use it if it is conveyed. Yet here you > have a regulation which seems to give carte blanche, in effect, to > opponents to use UI. Have there been no problems with it? As far as I can see you have got it perfect. The skip bidder's LHO quite likely has something to consider, he is = granted the right to a ten second pause for thought but he is not burdened with = the duty himself to take care of the timing as he has other things to = consider. The skip bidder bears the responsibility for providing his LHO with an adequate pause and for the timing as he has completed his skip bid and = now has nothing else to take care of (until his next call). Primarily the skip bidder will inform his LHO when the allotted delay = period has expired, but if the skip bidder is too fast his LHO may still use = the full ten seconds with no fear of alleged UI. (I have never heard of 8 seconds actually being "too fast", but it happens that the skip bidder expects his LHO to have nothing to consider and gives the continue = signal almost immediately. In such cases the LHO is protected from any = allegation of UI due to hesitation). And NO, to my knowledge we have had absolutely no problem directly or indirectly caused by this regulation.=20 In practice the skip bidder will produce his "stop" message; his LHO = will consider what his call will be and make this call on the continue signal from the skip bidder. Usually nobody can ever tell whether he was really considering anything or just politely awaiting the continue signal from = the skip bidder.=20 Regards Sven From henk@amsterdamned.org Mon Jun 30 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 30 23:05:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 00:05:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c33f53$b7863fd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ......... > Ah. Perhaps you will disagree, but this feels to me like "skip bidder > has introduced an unusual situation with which his opponents should = not > be expected to be able to easily cope, therefore it is skip bidder's > responsibility to correct the (potential) problem". This leads me to > "skip bids are not normal bridge", which is nonsense, of course. Why = is > it not the responsibility of every player to ensure that his *own* > calls are in proper tempo? Sure, "Skip bids are not normal bridge" etc. is indeed nonsense. Our regulation on the use of stop is based upon the assumption that = while any player should have his auction planned so that calls can be made = without much variation in tempo as long as no skip bids are introduced, this no longer holds true following skip bids and particularly not following preempts. The player that is caught in an unexpected situation by a skip bid ahead = of him must be allowed extra time to consider what his next call shall be. = I understand this to be a common feature of all regulations that exist on = the use of "stop". What seems to be where our regulation differs from many others is that = we place the responsibility for the timing of this extra pause for thought = on the player who caused the situation by his skip bid and not on the = player who really needs to spend this extra time for considering his call = rather than for making sure that he delays his call for ten seconds - not more = - not less. If I have had to concentrate upon my next call after a skip bid I do not know whether I have been thinking for three, six or nine seconds when I = have finally decided what my call will be, I just know that I am at last = ready to call. So who should bear the responsibility for my delay to be (more or less) exactly ten seconds? Our regulation makes sense to me; the others do not if I have understood them correct. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 30 23:18:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:18:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? Message-ID: What really happened: NORTH T873 QT92 T AKQ6 Rueful Richard EAST AJ52 KQ 3 J654 KJ5432 Q87 92 T853 SOUTH 964 AK87 A96 J74 NORTH EAST SOUTH R.R. 1C (1) Pass Pass (2) 1D (3) (1) Not alerted, because South did not notice North's opening bid. (2) 12-count too grotty to "open" the bidding on. (3) Oops. Bad news: NS now found their heart fit. Good news: NS still stopped in a partial. Bad news: -170 instead of -140 cost one imp and consequently one VP. Worse news: The TD ruled that even without the MI, passing 1C was not a LA. Worst news: The majority of blml agreed with the TD's ruling. Best news: My team still convincingly won last Sunday's swiss. A gold star to those blmlers who thought that the pass of a forcing bid suggested that a wheel had come off for NS, and sensibly refused to give NS another chance. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jun 30 23:58:31 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:58:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! References: <$XuOU0EdN4++EwXJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00ad01c33ed2$8ce24840$dd41e150@endicott> <4t6gbcEXVHA$EwQ$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <005001c33f5b$20d96dc0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> DWS wrote: > Interestingly enough, my friends seem to be making sure I am not > paranoid by making it clear that others are attacked. On three separate > occasions, people have sent me copies of BLML posts, all of which seem > to be personal attacks on three very able posters. "Seem to be" is right. They are not. As I may have said before, if X says that an opinion expressed by Y is the work of a gibbering idiot, this does not imply that X believes Y to be a gibbering idiot. It just means that X believes this particular opinion of Y's to be seriously wrong. But life is too short for "with the greatest respect" and "whereas I do not believe that you personally are an imbecile, I think that your last post will serve as the work of an imbecile until an actual imbecile comes along". Talk about the pews and steeples, and the cash that goes therewith... Welcome back, en tout cas. David Burn London, England From David Stevenson Mon Jun 30 22:47:56 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:47:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: <001901c33f29$e3d67e80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001901c33f29$e3d67e80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French writes >To my surprise, there seems to be two strong opinions regarding UI in >ACBL-land: > >(1) You should bid as you would have absent the UI, not letting it have >any effect on your bidding. > >(2) You must not take an action to which the UI points , even if that was >your intended action, if there is a logical alternative > >I thought that (2) was an accepted principle, with (1) a common error >among players and TDs, but now I find that Jeff Reubens, editor of *The >Bridge World*, thinks that (1) is mandatory and (2) is illegal. An ACBL >official tells me that Edgar Kaplan was of the same opinion, that a player >should go ahead with an intended action and let the TD/AC decide on an >adjusted score if they think L16A was violated, resulting in damage. > >Both opinions make sense, as "suggested" has two possible meanings: >"pointed to" (i.e., directly) and "brought to mind" (i.e., indirectly). It is difficult to see how (1) fits in with Law 73C. That Law is he one that tells players what to do: Laws 16A and 73F merely detail the effects if they do not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jun 30 16:44:51 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:44:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <2516979.1056987891685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_23682_2005589.1056987891683 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ed wrote: >I can't find my copy of the 1987 Bermuda Bowl but I'm pretty sure there was a ruling against Flint/Sheehan (playing IIRC against Martel/Stansby) that says otherwise. Martel and Stansby do not play for Sweden. The ruling was given in the semi-final between Britain and Sweden; Flint-Sheehan's opponents were Sundelin and Flodqvist. >Here's where the details get fuzzy. You mean that failure to distinguish between the United States and Sweden is not? >As I recall, the Americans called the director and the director ruled in their favor. Best I can tell, Britain didn't appeal. What actually happened was this: Flint opened 1C showing a pass, Flodqvist passed (also showing a pass), and Sheehan "responded" 1H, described as "an opening bid". Sheehan had a ten count with some shape, but he was (effectively) in third seat. The "responses" to 1C apart from 1D were described as "opening bid values", and the phrase "12 hcp" did indeed appear on the convention card. Sweden then bid to 4S and went down by playing the "third-hand opener" for a 12-count, which was what his card said he had. The Swedes called the director, who ruled in their favour (giving Sweden a flat board instead of a 10 IMP loss). Britain did appeal. The appeals committee restored the table result, but fined Britain 5 IMPs for having an incorrectly completed convention card. On the second morning of the match, when the result of this appeal became known, the score was adjusted accordingly. Moreover, Sweden were fined 3 IMPs for slow play during the previous day. On seeing that Britain had a lead of 10 IMPs, I remarked on Vugraph that Britain were "2 IMPs better, 3 IMPs faster and 5 IMPs more appealing" than Sweden. > Can somebody with a 1987 Bermuda Bowl book confirm? I don't have one of those. But I was the British coach in Ocho Rios at the time. Will that do? David Burn London, England ------=_Part_23682_2005589.1056987891683-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jun 30 16:55:14 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:14 EDT Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: --part1_f.149ba270.2c31b762_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/30/2003 11:02:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > Larry Cohen also mentioned horrendous problems getting the scores at > Lille. Is this still a problem/ > I cant say for Menton, of course, but yes it certainly was in Montreal. The refusal to use ACBLSCOR and pickup slips is the main reason. Kojak --part1_f.149ba270.2c31b762_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/30/2003 11:02:20 AM Eastern St= andard Time, johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes:

Larry Cohen also mentioned=20= horrendous problems getting the scores at
Lille. Is this still a problem/


I cant say for Menton, of course, but yes it certainly was in Montreal. = ; The refusal to use ACBLSCOR  and pickup slips is the main reason.

Kojak
--part1_f.149ba270.2c31b762_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jun 30 18:09:45 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:09:45 EDT Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <11f.23684a89.2c31c8d9@aol.com> --part1_11f.23684a89.2c31c8d9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/30/2003 9:36:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be writes: > AG : what about the word 'delay' in L90A ? > Yeah, how about that? What is so difficult to establish that at a given time after the start of a match the results must be turned in, or the teams involved are subject to penalty? How many matches were truncated because of slow play? How many penalties do you think it would take to get the player's eager cooperation? The whole subject of wasted time needs non-biased, non-nationalistic, non-half way measures to assist the players in getting what they are paying for -- a well organized, well run, tournament with evident and enforced fairness to all participants. No one is more aware of, or objects more to, haphazard treatment than the players. It is certainly true that too hot, too cold, too crowded, too wet, too dry all tend to exacerbate weaknesses, but I'm mostly wondering when we are going to learn from our mistakes. Just a small example: I've never seen the preregistration for large open international events work anywhere in the world without creating major problems. It makes me sick to remember Miami in the 80's where we heaped disaster on disaster by using lists that in no way closely resembled actual participants. -- AND WE HAVEN'T LEARNED A THING SINCE THEN, HAVE WE? The BB and VC excepted, it has been proven over time that registration without the money at the same time doesn't work. The ACBL has demonstrated repeatedly the ability to run large tournaments (and please believe me, over 1000 tables in play AT THE SAME TIME IN AN EVENT is large) with play starting no later than 15 minutes after the announced starting time. The jingoistic statements about cultural differences, "we've always done it this way," "it won'r work," etc., don't hold water. All race cars are for racing, but you have no chance in a Formula One race with a standard production model sedan. And, before I get angry responses, I'm not preaching that the EBL, ACBL, or any Zone shouldn't do whatever they want to and suffer the consequences. If organized bridge declines instead of grows it's not hard to find the culprits. My concern for almost half a century has been that the WBF should be the shining example, picking the best methodology from where ever it originates, applying the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge in their entirety, avoiding the disease of tribalism from entering into its technical workings, and yes, proclaiming and supporting, in the Olympic spirit, the national pride OF THE PLAYERS at the prize giving ceremonies. Kojak --part1_11f.23684a89.2c31c8d9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/30/2003 9:36:02 AM Eastern Sta= ndard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be writes:

AG : what about the word 'd= elay' in L90A ?


Yeah, how about that?  What is so difficult to establish that at a give= n time after the start of a match the results must be turned in, or the team= s involved are subject to penalty? How many matches were truncated because o= f slow play?   How many penalties do you think it would take to ge= t the player's eager cooperation?

The whole subject of wasted time needs non-biased, non-nationalistic, non-ha= lf way measures to assist the players in getting what they are paying for --= a well organized, well run, tournament with evident and enforced fairness t= o all participants.  No one is more aware of, or objects more to, hapha= zard  treatment than the players.  It is certainly true that too h= ot, too cold, too crowded, too wet, too dry all tend to exacerbate weaknesse= s, but I'm mostly wondering when we are going to learn from our mistakes. Ju= st a small example:  I've never seen the preregistration for large open= international events work anywhere in the world without creating major prob= lems. It makes me sick to remember Miami in the 80's where we heaped disaste= r on disaster by using lists that in no way closely resembled actual partici= pants. -- AND WE HAVEN'T LEARNED A THING SINCE THEN, HAVE WE?
The  BB and VC excepted, it has been proven over time that registration= without the money at the same time doesn't work.  The ACBL has demonst= rated repeatedly the ability to run large tournaments (and please believe me= , over 1000 tables in play AT THE SAME TIME IN AN EVENT is large) with play=20= starting no later than 15 minutes  after the announced starting time.&n= bsp; The jingoistic statements about cultural differences, "we've always don= e it this way," "it won'r work," etc., don't hold water.  All race cars= are for racing, but you have no chance in a Formula One race with a standar= d production model sedan.

And, before I get angry responses, I'm not preaching that the EBL, ACBL, or=20= any Zone shouldn't do whatever they want to and suffer the consequences.=20= If organized bridge declines instead of grows it's not hard to find the=20= culprits.  My concern for almost half a century has been that th= e WBF should be the shining example, picking the best methodology from where= ever it originates, applying the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge in their= entirety, avoiding the disease of tribalism from entering into its technica= l workings, and yes, proclaiming and supporting, in the Olympic spirit, the=20= national pride OF THE PLAYERS at the prize giving ceremonies.

Kojak
--part1_11f.23684a89.2c31c8d9_boundary--