From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 28 20:10:11 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:10:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> Conditions in Menton were terrible. Whining about hot weather makes little sense (the organisation did so). Temperatures were rather high for the season but not unheard of. Anyway if the temperature would have been say 5 degrees Celsius less it would still be far from comfortable. To organize such an event in that building in Menton the end of June is asking for trouble if not 'criminal' neglect. You can put it another way. When organizing an outdoor event you need some backup plan in case of rain. Although even in Holland that chance is less than 10%. AG: > b) France is not a hot weather country ..... Come on Alain. France as a whole cannot be classified because it is too diverse. 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. Apart from that the whole organisation was a big mess. All things Kaima mentioned were correct. His complaint list was not complete and he put it in rather nice language. > +++ 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. They have a monopoly and some of them still think they are doing a fine job, which needs some minor adjustments. The only thing that make sense is not to show up anymore at this kind of fundraisers. The inscription fees were way over the top, this tournament was meant to turn a profit to cover deficits (and to cover other unclear 'EBL expenses'). To which extent these deficits were caused by mismanagement is everybody's guess since EBL finances are not public. But to give you some go at it. The gross take of this tournament should be around 3/4 of a million euros (just what the players put up). The building was donated by the town of Menton. There was a kickback of around 10% on the official hotels. The TD's were not exactly overpaid. Of course there are some real costs to run an event like this. Still the question remains where did the money go. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 3:35 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Menton European Championships > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 00:17:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:17:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: >>Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are >>subject to general considerations about shape and minor >>honours". Ed Reppert wrote: >Seems to me that's "general bridge knowledge" and need not be >explicitly disclosed. Richard Hills wrote: It is general bridge knowledge that many a player is Walter the Walrus, who never deviates from the sacred point count. Therefore, explicit disclosure requires that a player - who is not Walter the Walrus - explicitly discloses that they are not an aquatic mammal. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 00:51:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:51:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Polish club (offtopic bidding theory) Message-ID: In the thread Who framed Rueful Rabbit?, Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] >(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. Richard remembers: Jeff Rubens wrote a series of articles in the Bridge World in 1971, analysing slam bidding in the round-robin phase of the 1971 Bermuda Bowl. He grouped the players not into national teams, but into system teams: Traditionalist - Acol, old-fashioned Standard Scientist - Eastern Scientific and French modern Standard Big Club - Precision, Neopolitan Club Little Club - New South Wales, Roman Club Technically, Polish Club would fall into Rubens' taxonomy as a Little Club system, where 1C is forcing but not necessarily strong. Rubens assessed that the average quality and variance of the partnerships in each system team was of similar magnitude, with "weak links" evenly spread amongst the four system teams. The results of this system test were surprising - the Traditionalist team had a convincing (although not decisive) win. The Scientist and the Big Club teams also performed well in slam bidding, but the Little Club team were an overwhelmingly pathetic last. Rubens' final analysis was that, although the Little Club partnerships were well equipped with very accurate asking bids - helpful in slam bidding *when a fit and slammish values had been diagnosed* - the 1C bid on about 40% of all opening hands was too great a disadvantage for the Little Club systems. Best wishes Richard From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jul 1 01:41:23 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:41:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 11:17 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Yes, provided you add a general note "all point ranges are > >>subject to general considerations about shape and minor > >>honours". > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > >Seems to me that's "general bridge knowledge" and need not be > >explicitly disclosed. > > Richard Hills wrote: > > It is general bridge knowledge that many a player is Walter > the Walrus, who never deviates from the sacred point count. > > Therefore, explicit disclosure requires that a player - who is > not Walter the Walrus - explicitly discloses that they are not > an aquatic mammal. And equally that Walter discloses that he is Wayne > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jul 1 01:50:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:50:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0058B4.7020308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c33f6a$b958be70$0100a8c0@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.\ No way. If I say that I open 10-12hcp and I use my judgement to open a lower counting hand then I have merely said that I think that this particular is better bid as a hand in that stated range. I may or may not be correct in this judgement. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 01:45:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:45:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? Message-ID: Marv wrote: >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, [snip] Richard replies: While I admire Rubens' skills as an Editor, a bidding theorist, and a par contest creator - I do *not* accept his advice on current Law, and I do *not* accept his eccentric views on what Law "should" be in future. Nor do I accept, without evidence, what an unnamed ACBL official states used to be the opinion of Edgar Kaplan. Rather, I agree with Marv's original opinion - option (2) is the correct interpretation of current Law, and option (1) is a pons asinorum. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 02:05:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:05:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Aussie N.O.T. (was Menton) Message-ID: 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. Peter Gill replied: >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 ... Richard rebuts: The shambles in 2002 was *not* caused by the ABF - which fully complied with previously advertised conditions and regulations - but was rather caused by the internal shambolic arrangements of the losing finalist team. One member of the losing finalist team spat the dummy by voluntarily withdrawing from the team at the end of the qualifying stage. Another member of the losing finalists had voluntarily prebooked a flight to New Zealand on the day of the final. Peter Gill continued: >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 ... [snip] Richard rebuts: True, the ABF is not perfect. On that occasion, poor administration of seed numbers for pseudo-random computer deals saw some hands appear twice. But, unlike some other major events, the ABF learns from its mistakes due to the continuity of ABF administrators. Minutely detailed procedures are now adopted to prevent the recurrence of an identical deal. Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 1 02:07:29 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:07:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > 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. > Ooh! I haven't had one of those since I was at school. (and mostly they took em away the following day when I did something truly awful). Plus ca change ..... http://waxinspirations.theshoppe.com/images/large%20gold%20star.jpg >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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 1 02:20:14 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:20:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK Message-ID: <01db01c33f6e$ed1c1960$8a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> (1) David Burn correctly interprets the only sensible meaning of the Orange Book rule. (2) Manifestly, most players flout the rule because of ignorance or because their "judgement" supervenes over a mere local rule. (3) Some justify their infractions because of an imagined conflict between WBF and local rules; although legal experts keep pointing out that the local rules keep to the letter (if not the spirit) of WBF law by a cunning exploitation of devolved powers. (4) A handful of players masochistically handicap themselves by keeping to the letter of such rules. For example, we lose matches as a result of our naivity. IMO, the causes of such problems are.. (a) It is hard to express complex laws clearly. It is impossible to enforce subjective laws, equitably. (b) With so many local law-makers trying to plug percieved holes in the WBF laws, conflict, real or imagined, is inevitable. Conclusions, IMO... (A) The EBU LC should forthwith clarify what the rules are; then publicise them, educate TDs, and -- most importantly *enforce them*. The EBU should encourage its officials to show a good example. (B) The WBFLC should immediately make sure that its laws are simple and comprehensive enough to render most local variation illegal and spurious. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 26/06/2003 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 1 02:17:49 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:17:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? References: <001901c33f29$e3d67e80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004301c33f6e$98aaf900$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> David Stevenson writes: > 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. L16A's "may not choose" looks like an instruction to me. Evidently David goes along with (2), as I hope all BLMLers do. I think the word "could" in L16A and 73F1 governs the intent. Like "could have known" in L73F2, it permits a TD/AC to politely point out that L16A must be applied even if a barred action was one always intended by the player. "But I was always going to bid four spades, are you calling me a liar?" "We're not calling you a liar, we're only saying that the action you took *could* have been demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information, so it can't be allowed when there was a logical alternative." L73C says that a player in the possession of UI "must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." Which is to say that one must not use the UI to gain a good result that would not otherwise have been reached. The defenders of (1) will argue that not letting the UI affect what they intended to do regardless of the UI does not constitute "taking advantage" of the UI. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 1 02:38:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:38:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: >And equally that Walter discloses that he is This has gone on long enough. Everyone has vouchsafed their own "upgrading" and "downgrading" algorithms (though there are, for some reason, very many more of the former than the latter); everyone has had enough of a chance to boast that they know the Milton Work point count is not very good when it comes to assessing the trick-taking potential of a given combination of 13 cards. This happens about three times a year on rec.games.bridge, and twice a year on BLML. One of the reasons that DWS has rejoined us is that he is fed up with a certain thread on r.g.b in which it is argued by idiots that it is better for the game as a whole that they be allowed to exercise what they regard, with an enviable capacity for self-delusion, as their "judgement" than that some regulation in absolute terms should exist. I am fed up with it also, but for different reasons. Wiser heads than mine have decided that some regulation in absolute terms should exist, and there is an end of the matter; such a regulation (a) does and (b) legally can exist. It is not for us, a group of interpreters of the law, to say that some regulation X should or should not be law; we are not the WBFLC, nor yet the Laws Commission of any NBO. To Tim and Nigel and Probst any other layman who may have wandered in, I say this: you play bridge in a jurisdiction in which your partner is not permitted to expect that a 1S opening in third position may be based on either AKQJ xxx xxx xxx or AQ109xx J10xxx x x; if there is any evidence from the auction or from the play or from answers to questions legitimately asked by the opponents that your partner may so expect, then there is evidence that you are playing an illegal method. DWS kept refusing to say this on r.g.b; his performance in that regard was some way short of lamentable, but he is a good bridge player and as such he thinks (as I do) that most regulations of this kind are ridiculous. Ridiculous they may be, but they exist, and they do not contravene the laws, so the game in England (and elsewhere) is played in accordance with them. If there is any subscriber to BLML, including DWS, who has not been mortally offended by the foregoing, please let me know. I should hate any of you to feel left out. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 1 03:52:55 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:52:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c33f6a$b958be70$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <00f501c33f7b$df5ac120$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > No way. With that, at least, I agree. > If I say that I open 10-12hcp and I use my judgement to open a lower > counting hand then I have merely said that I think that this particular > is better bid as a hand in that stated range. No, you have not. You have, in effect, said: "I have a better idea of what constitutes 10-12 hcp than you do. I am imposing my own ideas on hand valuation, and not accepting yours. What you may tell me I can open with is of no concern to me; I am going to open this hand and claim that it falls within the criteria that you have laid down for me. Even though this is a nine count, I am going to defend to the death my right to pretend that it isn't." "Merely"? You are using this word in a sense with which I am not familiar. And it is time that certain insufferable individuals who, because they once took a trick with a ten or the fifth card in a suit, stopped pretending that the lawmakers are unaware of such phenomena. > I may or may not be correct in this judgement. Quite so. Since you have no idea of what you are doing, you can scarcely object if some authority removes from you the (in any case non-existent) "right" to do what you please. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 1 04:05:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:05:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 20:41 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > And equally that Walter discloses that he is Which he will not do. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 1 04:39:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:39:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <026601c33f82$67b02000$8a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn] To Tim and Nigel and Probst any other layman who may have wandered in.... [Nigel Guthrie] Thank you David. You rarely answer my questions and I really appreciate the honour. I am broadly supportive of most of your crusades. but I deplore your language. Nevertheless, I will list FDB among my valued credentials. Thanks & Regards, Nigel --- 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: 26/06/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 1 04:52:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:52:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c33f48$135d9080$b72e56d2@Desktop> <1057008129.3f00aa018f176@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <028b01c33f84$3e8f0860$8a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [rwilley heavily snipped] There are four basic avenues to address your problem: (1) Constructive engagement (2) Destructive engagement...Law suits (or the threats of law suits)... (3) Withdraw from the NCBO altogether... (4) ...ignore those laws that you don’t happen to like. [Nigel Guthrie] Bridge is a great game but it is only a *game* and it is more democratically run than most games. So of these options (1) is the most sensible. (3) is also reasonable and the route that some players have already taken. (2) & (4) are despicable and deplorable. --- 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: 26/06/2003 From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 1 05:26:25 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:26:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> References: <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Wayne wrote: > >>And equally that Walter discloses that he is > snip > >To Tim and Nigel and Probst any other layman who may have wandered in, I >say this: you play bridge in a jurisdiction in which your partner is not >permitted to expect that a 1S opening in third position may be based on >either AKQJ xxx xxx xxx or AQ109xx J10xxx x x; if there is any evidence >from the auction or from the play or from answers to questions >legitimately asked by the opponents that your partner may so expect, >then there is evidence that you are playing an illegal method. That is a clear statement of what one's agreement is and is not allowed to be. I have no problem with that at all. If I know that my partner is capable of breaking our agreements then I do not take such actions that may allow for this which would clearly be illegal but I also believe that my opponents are entitled to know my partner's proclivities. Is this a problem in a legal sense? In other words, I will make no call or play that will suggest that I'm aware partner may break our agreement. Should I tell opponents partner has a despicable but occasional habit? They are entitled to know, surely? > DWS kept >refusing to say this on r.g.b; his performance in that regard was some >way short of lamentable, but he is a good bridge player and as such he >thinks (as I do) that most regulations of this kind are ridiculous. >Ridiculous they may be, but they exist, and they do not contravene the >laws, so the game in England (and elsewhere) is played in accordance >with them. > >If there is any subscriber to BLML, including DWS, who has not been >mortally offended by the foregoing, please let me know. I should hate >any of you to feel left out. Not at all offended; delighted someone is actually answering the questions as put. cheers John > >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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 1 05:54:12 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:54:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <02a301c33f8c$d383afe0$8a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Hills wrote] It is general bridge knowledge that many a player is Walter the Walrus, who never deviates from the sacred point count. Therefore, explicit disclosure requires that a player - who is not Walter the Walrus - explicitly discloses they are not an aquatic mammal. [Nigel] My cup runneth over! This may be the nearest Richard will get to committing the blasphemy of agreeing with me! I still think poor Walter explains his agreements much more truthfully than most BLMLers say they do. In my view if you open 1NT on 11 HCP with 5332 shape and on 15 HCP with 4333 shape then 11-15 HCP is a far more honest HCP description than the usual 12-14 HCP prevarication. Some call it a "grey" description but it seems like a misdescription to me. We are all aware that HCP are not the only criteria for any bid. In your evaluation, you should take into account shape, texture, and so on. But these other criteria are *not HCP* and it is misleading to pretend that they are. OK. But is it also misleading to specify such a wide HCP range? No, providing it is accurate; and providing you do not withhold other requirements. Obviously, just because a hand is in the right point count range does not automatically qualify it as a 1NT opener -- or for any other bid. For instance, even the Walrus would not open 1NT with a 76 shape and 13 HCP. Anyway surely the lawmakers should give us some guidance as to whether the Walrus or the Secretary Bird are nearer the truth. My money is on the Walrus. Regards, Nigel --- 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: 26/06/2003 From adam@tameware.com Tue Jul 1 06:08:19 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 01:08:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:02 AM +0200 6/28/03, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >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. I included a long sidebar on the snafu in an article I wrote in Bridge Today magazine. I've just posted a copy on my site at http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/lille_open_pairs_final.html -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Tue Jul 1 06:18:56 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:18:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! In-Reply-To: <005001c33f5b$20d96dc0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> References: <$XuOU0EdN4++EwXJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00ad01c33ed2$8ce24840$dd41e150@endicott> <4t6gbcEXVHA$EwQ$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030701151614.02be0bc0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Interestingly enough, this mild and inoffensive post of DB scored two chilli peppers from Eudora. I am also one who has not been offended by a previous post on HCP by DB. cheers, Tony (Sydney) At 11:58 PM 30/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 06:53:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:53:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: Ed wrote: [snip] >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. Richard replies: Yes, during the 70's and 80's in Australia, other States complained about Canberra *always* holding the National Open Teams, and hogging the distribution of the Gold Master Points. Now every man and his maddog has the opportunity to win the gold points. Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, and New South Wales, now all hold secondary gold-pointed national championships at fixed times of the year. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 07:08:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:08:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is Bridge a kind of sport? Message-ID: Vitold wrote: [snip] >We are proud that bridge is (probably) second most popular >game on the Earth, but it is results of our ancestors from >the beginning of previous century: they constructed this >huge building. And up to nowadays we have used it, mostly >paying attention to sportish side of the game and step by >step spending heritage. We did not care that nothing is >made for ever. > >All of us (players, authority persons, journalists) paid >attention only to methods of improving bridge techniques >for getting best results at playing tables. At tournament >bookstore I noticed nice book - "Bols Bridge Tips". There >are lots of best annual articles about different part of >bridge (playing, bidding, defense) from tens years of the >previous century. And there were neither at least one >article nor prize devoted to/given for the best teaching, >best text-book, best club management, best tournament >organizer. [snip] In my approach to bridge, I do not treat it primarily as a sport, but rather as a pastime analogous to jigsaw puzzles. Sure, you can cheat when putting a jigsaw puzzle together, but what is the point? Similarly, performing a squeeze may win you a championship, but to me performing a squeeze is just as much fun when all that ensues is a competitively meaningless overtrick. When I captained a Team of Three recently, my team finished nowhere in the event, but they had more fun than the winning team did. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 1 07:23:16 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:23:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? References: Message-ID: <005b01c33f99$442c3580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > >To my surprise, there seems to be two strong opinions > >regarding UI in ACBL-land: > > > >(1) You should bid as you would have absent the UI, not > >letting it have any effect on your bidding. > > > >(2) You must not take an action to which the UI points, > >even if that was your intended action, if there is a > >logical alternative > > > >I thought that (2) was an accepted principle, with (1) > >a common error among players and TDs, but now I find > >that Jeff Reubens, editor of *The Bridge World*, thinks > >that (1) is mandatory and (2) is illegal. An ACBL > >official tells me that Edgar Kaplan was of the same > >opinion, > > [snip] > > Richard replies: > > While I admire Rubens' skills as an Editor, a bidding > theorist, and a par contest creator - I do *not* accept > his advice on current Law, and I do *not* accept his > eccentric views on what Law "should" be in future. > Jeff is an extreme advocate of the so-called (by me) "Equity Principle," which says that an irregularity should be handled in a manner that allows the game to proceed as if the irregularity had not occurred. Backtrack to the instant before the irregularity, remove it, and continue. This is not such a wild idea, since computer bridge comes close to achieving that goal by preventing revokes, LOOTs, etc., and most types of UI (but not MI). With irregularities impossible to prevent in face-to-face bridge, and with no crystal ball to divine what would have happened in the absence of an irregularity, the "Justice Principle" should apply in FTF bridge. You break a rule, you pay the consequences, and the NOS gets the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 1 07:34:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:34:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c33f6a$b958be70$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F012B84.7020602@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >> >>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.\ >> some have criticized my use of the word law here, when I should have said regulation. Go hang yourselves. > > No way. > > If I say that I open 10-12hcp and I use my judgement to open a lower > counting hand then I have merely said that I think that this particular > is better bid as a hand in that stated range. I may or may not be > correct in this judgement. > No Wayne, then you have merely said that you are playing a system which under that regulation is illegal. > Wayne > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jul 1 08:48:10 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:48:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: "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. not true > > This was discovered a round later. ???? I would have liked that to happen instead of what really happened. If you (Ron) are TD you better start studying movements again. With such mistake Larry Cohen wouldn't have to sit out 6 rounds. The directors came up with > a revised > movement to attempt to salvage the situation and didn't get it right. not true either. > > 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? I don't know were Larry refers to. The results for the final appeared very soon after each 4 boards being played. And the scoring in the qualification is done with travellers which means that we need more time than when using score slips and data input is less accurate. But horrendous problems? Given the value of the rest of your message I am not sure how to evaluate this remark. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jul 1 08:57:16 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:57:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wilkommen! Message-ID: > > > Interestingly enough, this mild and inoffensive post of DB > scored two chilli peppers from Eudora. > > I am also one who has not been offended by a previous > post on HCP by DB. > > cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) Let us be glad that you don't consider this to be an offense on its own. ton From henk@ripe.net Tue Jul 1 08:59:34 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:59:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Ed wrote: > > [snip] > > >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. > > Richard replies: > > Yes, during the 70's and 80's in Australia, other States > complained about Canberra *always* holding the National Open > Teams, and hogging the distribution of the Gold Master Points. I'm not familiar with airfares in Australia, but in Europe, this is an argument to vary locations for open events. Airfares between any 2 points in Europe vary a lot more than one expect from distance. For the conferences that my company organizes, we always seem to make half the people happy and the other half unhappy. By moving the location throughout Europe, this effect cancels out. The EBL could do something here too: if tournaments are held in/near popular vacation locations, one can often get cheap packages of a flight and hotel. These do require exactly a 7 day stay though, either Sunday to Sunday or Saturday to Saturday. If one would squeeze the event into 12 days, starting Monday am, finishing Friday night, players could take advantage of those packages and save themselves a lot of money. 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 11:24:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:24:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <4328B94E-AB39-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630171905.00abc7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701121602.00ace0e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:27 30/06/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 11:19 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>AG : unless you do it much more frequently than other pairs. >Do what? Make "general considerations about shape and minor honours"? (originally sent to Ed) AG : let them sway you. As some posters said it before, it all depends how frequently you will open, say a 15-17 NT with a 14-count. Everybody loves to do it sometimes. This means that moderately competent opponents should expect it to happen. But some do it much more frequently than others. Then you have to do something about it, which might be pre-alerting the fact that ranges are pretty fuzzy, or answering more completely ("15 to 17, could be a good 14"). The same is true of deviations from announced shape in 3rd hand : the opponents should expect you to open a NV weak 2-bid on KJ1098 and something on the side ; when about half of your Spanish 2-bids are offshape, you need to explain this. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 1 11:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: <001901c33f29$e3d67e80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > To my surprise, there seems to be two strong opinions regarding UI in > ACBL-land: > > (1) You should bid as you would have absent the UI, not letting it have > any effect on your bidding. > > (2) You must not take an action to which the UI points , even if that > was your intended action, if there is a logical alternative Surely the truth is somewhere between the two. If I my next call seems blindingly obvious/systemically required or if it is a call I planned to make when I chose my previous call (ie trying to look as if pushed) then I should clearly make that call in tempo. To do otherwise risks giving UI to partner/deceiving opponents/getting a better score than I would have done in the absence of the UI (of course the TD may judge that my choice was not obvious/planned and adjust). However if my next call was merely "what I think I would have done" this is not enough. In this latter situation I must go through the steps of a) working out in detail what pard holds b) working out what extra info the UI tells me about pard's hand c) working out what calls this suggests/contraindicates in the context d) working out whether my peers would potentially make these calls While some players may always manage a-d without breaking tempo I have to say that I am not one of them. I would also be extremely reluctant to rule a deceptive hesitation against players trying to solve such a problem at the table. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 1 11:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK In-Reply-To: <01db01c33f6e$ed1c1960$8a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > (3) Some justify their infractions because of > an imagined conflict between WBF and local rules; > although legal experts keep pointing out that the > local rules keep to the letter (if not the spirit) > of WBF law by a cunning exploitation of devolved > powers. On a purely philosophical note the spirit of the laws is much more=20 important than the letter. If a regulation is seen by experts as being=20 against said spirit then the conflict is indeed real rather than imagined. Of course there will be plenty of legal experts who believe that the=20 regulations don't even keep to the letter of the law. =20 The argument hinges on item 7 from the Paris minutes of WBFLC with regard= =20 to restrictions on the psyching of artificial opening bids. 7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has unrestricted=20 powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D.=20 Of course L40D contains the words:=20 The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play=20 conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership=20 understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's=20 initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more= =20 below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this=20 responsibility.=20 I believe many legal experts would interpret this as saying that ZOs may=20 *not* regulate understandings which allow opening at the one level within= =20 a king of average strength. The EBU OB says:=20 13.1.1 Minimum opening bids. =B7 The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HC= P;=20 except =B7 You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by=20 agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter. Many legal experts would say that the above is a regulation of a natural=20 opening bid within a king of average strength. Sorry Nigel, the conflict is far from imaginary.=20 Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 1 11:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > To Tim and Nigel and Probst any other layman who may have wandered in, I > say this: you play bridge in a jurisdiction in which your partner is not > permitted to expect that a 1S opening in third position may be based on > either AKQJ xxx xxx xxx or AQ109xx J10xxx x x; if there is any evidence > from the auction or from the play or from answers to questions > legitimately asked by the opponents that your partner may so expect, > then there is evidence that you are playing an illegal method. Is it not also necessary that one of us makes a conventional bid during the auction before the method can be deemed illegal? I ask because the the chances are that when one of us has failed to open in first seat he will not be making any conventional bids after a 3rd-in-hand 1S opening (we play -ve doubles only as far as 1S). Aside: John, I'm happy to drop the neg X after a third seat 1H opening and tighten up on 1m openers. We can put any hands that fail Ro19 but have slam interest opposite a passed partner in with our weak 2s. > DWS kept > refusing to say this on r.g.b; his performance in that regard was some > way short of lamentable, but he is a good bridge player and as such he > thinks (as I do) that most regulations of this kind are ridiculous. > Ridiculous they may be, but they exist, and they do not contravene the > laws, so the game in England (and elsewhere) is played in accordance > with them. > > If there is any subscriber to BLML, including DWS, who has not been > mortally offended by the foregoing, please let me know. I should hate > any of you to feel left out. So DWS has his opinion, you have yours. How do we discover which of you is "right". And if the regulation is indeed as "ridiculous" as everybody seems to think why do we not get it dropped from the OB? Tim From David Stevenson Tue Jul 1 02:32:14 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:32:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: References: <000701c33f1c$c4d7d860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Ed Reppert writes >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? Players are notoriously bad on tempo! You increase the amount of UI between partners if people look after their own tempo. -- 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 Tue Jul 1 02:30:33 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <9CDDA984-AB37-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000701c33eff$35d7bee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9CDDA984-AB37-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert writes >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? Very few. Actaually, I do not know of a single one caused by UI from the Stop Bidder. What you may have missed is that there is a problem with the North American method which this method addresses. If a player defines his own tempo over a stop bid, as per the North American regs, then his partner becomes very aware of this, and changes in tempo are very obvious to him, but not to the opponents. For example, if player A usually pauses for about seven seconds over a Skip Bid then when he pauses for twelve seconds his partner will know he has a problem but his opponents will not. However, if opponents control the tempo then this is no longer an issue. I think this is why several European NBOs prefer this method of tempo control. -- 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 Tue Jul 1 02:37:08 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:37:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky writes >"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. Very interesting, though with one great sadness: 'Some people get angry when the director is called on them.' It is no wonder that the game has problems when people believe a Director is called **"on"** another player. Of course a Director is called because of a situation. I really think we should encourage the Better Bridge in Britain rule [BBB was a short-lived organisation whose motives were good]: players who commit infractions should call the Director, not leave it to their opponents. As for the comments about North American rules v European rules, Jason learnt bridge in England where you stop for 10 seconds. My guess is that he did not believe it was ten seconds: as much of the rest of the thread points out we have fewer problems in Europe over the length of tempo because we control it differently. -- 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 gillp@bigpond.com Tue Jul 1 12:29:00 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:29:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <015e01c33fc3$fc8edea0$fa8e8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >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 never in the past (er, in the last 140 >years or so) mid-june was that hot in Southern France. I guess so, but note the following quote from page 46 of Barnet Shenkin's book 'Playing With The Bridge Legends': "The scene for the 1995 [European] championships was Menton, a small town in the south of France. In mid-June we encountered ninety degrees of heat, sumptuous food and of course, plenty of French vin. The setting was right and the hands were interesting." The last sentence suggests to me that the 1995 venue probably had air-conditioning. Peter Gill Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 13:03:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:03:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701140022.00acee20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:53 30/06/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >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:) AG : you mean that pass isn't a LA when the opponent seems to dearly hope that the bidding die at 1C ? This is a very interesting argument. I wonder whether it might be extended : "Yes, my partner took some tempo over 4H. Then RHO said to me in offended tones that I may not act any more (which is not true and he has no right to say). I have AI that he doesn't want me to double ; ergo I double." Would this hold in front of an AC ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 13:16:46 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:16:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030630171240.00ab7060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701141456.00abf360@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:42 1/07/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > facing > > 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. AG : granted. However, everybody will understand what it means and it=20 adequately conveys the description of our agreement. Isn't that what is=20 required by the laws ? BTW, many books about bidding theory (including several in US) use half-poin= ts. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 1 13:03:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:03:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <015e01c33fc3$fc8edea0$fa8e8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <3F01789D.3070801@skynet.be> Peter Gill wrote: > > I guess so, but note the following quote from page 46 of > Barnet Shenkin's book 'Playing With The Bridge Legends': > > "The scene for the 1995 [European] championships was > Menton, a small town in the south of France. In mid-June > we encountered ninety degrees of heat, sumptuous food > and of course, plenty of French vin. The setting was right > and the hands were interesting." > > The last sentence suggests to me that the 1995 venue > probably had air-conditioning. > No it did not, and it was 1993. > Peter Gill > Australia. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jul 1 13:33:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:33:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: <004301c33f6e$98aaf900$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001901c33f29$e3d67e80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701142937.028d3ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:17 30/06/2003 -0700, Marvin French wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > > > 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. > >L16A's "may not choose" looks like an instruction to me. > >Evidently David goes along with (2), as I hope all BLMLers do. > >I think the word "could" in L16A and 73F1 governs the intent. Like "could >have known" in L73F2, it permits a TD/AC to politely point out that L16A >must be applied even if a barred action was one always intended by the >player. > >"But I was always going to bid four spades, are you calling me a liar?" > >"We're not calling you a liar, we're only saying that the action you took >*could* have been demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information, >so it can't be allowed when there was a logical alternative." > >L73C says that a player in the possession of UI "must carefully avoid >taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." > >Which is to say that one must not use the UI to gain a good result that >would not otherwise have been reached. The defenders of (1) will argue >that not letting the UI affect what they intended to do regardless of the >UI does not constitute "taking advantage" of the UI. AG : as long as self-delusion will exist, only (2) is reasonable. Very few people lie when they say "I would always have done this" ; a substantial part delude themselves into thinking it in all good faith. The "could" word and backward-bending principle only mean that this could be the case in this particular deal and that one should avoid its effect. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 13:40:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:40:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00f501c33f7b$df5ac120$51a427d9@pbncomputer> References: <000901c33f6a$b958be70$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701143545.028d32b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:52 1/07/2003 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Wayne wrote: > > > No way. > >With that, at least, I agree. > > > If I say that I open 10-12hcp and I use my judgement to open a lower > > counting hand then I have merely said that I think that this >particular > > is better bid as a hand in that stated range. > >No, you have not. You have, in effect, said: "I have a better idea of >what constitutes 10-12 hcp than you do. I am imposing my own ideas on >hand valuation, and not accepting yours. AG : that's the crux of the matter. Rule of # and HCP regulations say two things at a time : a) we don't want you to open hands that can't be considered a reasonable opening bid using reasonable valuation methods. b) we firmly believe that *our* assessment of what constitutes reasonable valuation methods (HCP, or whatever) is the one and only, and that no player may pretend to know better than us. Isn't part b) just a little bit conceited ? Best regards, Alain. From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Jul 1 13:22:45 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:22:45 -0300 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... References: <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <08c401c33fcb$7cca9cb0$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> NS vulnerable West holds: x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx The bidding with east as dealer 1d - 1s - 2h - p 3d - 4c - p - 4s p* - p - 5d - x p - p - p * = 4 minutes hesitation(!) Result: +550 East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that for this particular west there would have been an LA to 5d and that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. Tks for your comments. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 1 13:42:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:42:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c33f6a$b958be70$0100a8c0@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030701143545.028d32b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F01819E.40004@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> No, you have not. You have, in effect, said: "I have a better idea of >> what constitutes 10-12 hcp than you do. I am imposing my own ideas on >> hand valuation, and not accepting yours. > > > AG : that's the crux of the matter. > Rule of # and HCP regulations say two things at a time : > > a) we don't want you to open hands that can't be considered a reasonable > opening bid using reasonable valuation methods. > b) we firmly believe that *our* assessment of what constitutes > reasonable valuation methods (HCP, or whatever) is the one and only, and > that no player may pretend to know better than us. > > Isn't part b) just a little bit conceited ? > Yes it is, but that's not what the regulators say. In fact they say : b) we realize that our assessment is crude, but at least it's easy to comprehend. Also, we have lowered the bar in such manner that you are still allowed to open on some hands that we may think too weak (do you really open all rule-of-18 hands, Alain?), just so as to have you complain a little less. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 14:09:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:09:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... In-Reply-To: <08c401c33fcb$7cca9cb0$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701150409.028da3f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:22 1/07/2003 -0300, Luis Argerich wrote: >NS vulnerable >West holds: >x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx > >The bidding with east as dealer > >1d - 1s - 2h - p >3d - 4c - p - 4s >p* - p - 5d - x >p - p - p >* = 4 minutes hesitation(!) > >Result: +550 >East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx > >I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? AG : there is. Assuming that 2H was forcing, west has already saif he holds 10+ HCP and 5+ hearts. Pass is an LA. Surely double is, with partner probably short in hearts and holding a club control. Partner's hand might be Kxx - x - AKxxxx - Jxx. But after the tempo it is no more. >My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that for this >particular west there would have been an LA to 5d and >that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. AG : not really. It's quite common that you pass a bid in a suit you hold (or semi-hold) and then bid at a higher level over some other suit. Example : AQxxx AJ9xx x xx 1S pass 1NT pass 2D 2H I would accept the 2H bid even if partner tempoed over 1NT. Best regards, Alain. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jul 1 14:03:13 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:03:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465A5@hotel.npl.co.uk> I think pass is a LA. If had passed over 4C, I expect I would pass. I assume 2H was forcing and 3D did not show extras (no "Good/Bad" 2NT for East), and I assume that the passes by EW were not forcing. I think it is very relevant that this particular West passed over 4C. He didn't think he was making 5D on the last round, now he thinks 5D is right: it may be right but not enough to exclude pass. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Luis Argerich [mailto:luis@fuegolabs.com] Sent: 01 July 2003 13:23 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... NS vulnerable West holds: x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx The bidding with east as dealer 1d - 1s - 2h - p 3d - 4c - p - 4s p* - p - 5d - x p - p - p * = 4 minutes hesitation(!) Result: +550 East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that for this particular west there would have been an LA to 5d and that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. Tks for your comments. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jul 1 14:28:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:28:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F01819E.40004@skynet.be> References: <000901c33f6a$b958be70$0100a8c0@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030701143545.028d32b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701151119.028d1800@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:42 1/07/2003 +0200, you wrote: >In fact they say : > >b) we realize that our assessment is crude, but at least it's easy to >comprehend. Also, we have lowered the bar in such manner that you are >still allowed to open on some hands that we may think too weak (do you >really open all rule-of-18 hands, Alain?) AG : no, I don't. I pass some Rule-of-20 hands, and wish I could open some Rule-of-17. But only those where I'm at odds with this way of assessing a hand's strength. I don't as much claim that the rule is absurd as I do that the combination of rules we are given is absurd : a) 1NT opening to show balanced 9-11 including 4+ clubs : disallowed. 2C opening to show balanced 9-11 including 4+ clubs : allowed, not even a BSC b) opening 1S on Jxxxx - xxx - xxx - xx : allowed doing so on AKQxx - xxx - xxx - xx : disallowed c) using a 1NT opening to mean "I have a strong hand" : allowed at level D using a 1H opening to the same purpose : not allowed IIRC etc. In 1984, the suggestion that a weak 2-bid with fewer than 5 HCP be disallowed in the US was met with sarcasm and a complement ridiculizing the establishment of R19 in the Netherlands. I still agree with the Bridge World editorialist of these times. I would feel much more at ease if we used the "King below" as a guide, asked players to state their ranges in easy-to-understand terms and compelled them to stick to their rules ... not ours. If a pair's evaluation method for unbakanced hands is "playing tricks" and they need at least 6 of them to open (which isn't that weak), they will be allowed to open 1S on QJ10987 - QJ10xx - x - x but not on QJxxxx - Jxxxx - J - J Sticking to the rule of 18 means you valuate those two hands the same. No wonder some players want to disagree. I would like to open *some* R17 hands. Not all of them. But I may not. The main absurdity of the laws is that you aren't allowed to open 1S (presumably because it hinders the opponents' bidding) but are allowed to open 2S (or an Antwerpian 2C, or a Polish 2D at level F), whose nuisance value is much higher. Best wishes, Alain. From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Jul 1 14:30:04 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:30:04 -0300 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465A5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <097201c33fd4$e9907140$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Wow, I'm very surprised, this happened at a local club and I held the South cards (a black two suiter), I called the director after my final pass to reserve rights, EW agreed there was a very long hestiation, West said it was 5 mins and East added "And I asked a lot of questions too"... East had asked what 4c was and my pd told him it should be a very good two suiter being Vul vrs Not after asking he went to the tank again and emerged with a green card. The director ordered the play to proceed. After the board was played I called the director again. He asked if I wanted to protest the board. Question: Do I have to? Or the reported hesitation is enough to requiere a ruling? I said I thought that pass maybe a LA since it was obvious that west didn't want to compete over 4c and I could have just played 4c had my pd held 3c and 2s and not 2c and 3s. East was not bidding again after 1d and 3d and I'd have played 4c circunstances did force my pd to correct to 4s and then after east's trance west has a lot of UI. The director went for an "evaluation" of the 5d bid. The director asked 3 players what they would bid (without the hesitation), the three players said they would bid 5d, 2 of them didn't like the pass over 4c. So the director ruled the result to stand and I thanked him for the ruling and for asking some players before ruling. Happy ending. I posted this here because I still believed that West's pass over 4c was evidence of pass being a LA to that particular player. I'm surprised to find that 2 people already said that pass Was indeed a LA. Do you have some comments or recommendations for the director that can be useful to improve his rulings? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'Luis Argerich'" ; Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Not a LA but... > I think pass is a LA. > If had passed over 4C, I expect I would pass. > > I assume 2H was forcing and 3D did not show extras (no "Good/Bad" > 2NT for East), and I assume that the passes by EW were not forcing. > > I think it is very relevant that this particular West passed over > 4C. He didn't think he was making 5D on the last round, now he > thinks 5D is right: it may be right but not enough to exclude pass. > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luis Argerich [mailto:luis@fuegolabs.com] > Sent: 01 July 2003 13:23 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... > > > NS vulnerable > West holds: > x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx > > The bidding with east as dealer > > 1d - 1s - 2h - p > 3d - 4c - p - 4s > p* - p - 5d - x > p - p - p > * = 4 minutes hesitation(!) > > Result: +550 > East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx > > I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? > My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that for this > particular west there would have been an LA to 5d and > that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. > > Tks for your comments. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 15:00:48 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:00:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... In-Reply-To: <097201c33fd4$e9907140$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465A5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701155334.0290fe00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:30 1/07/2003 -0300, you wrote: >I posted this here because I still believed that West's pass over 4c was >evidence of pass being a LA to that particular player. I'm surprised to find >that 2 people already said that pass Was indeed a LA. Do you have some >comments or recommendations for the director that can be useful to improve >his rulings? AG : a) not asking players what they would have done, but rather what are all the bids they would have considered, since this is the genuine test for LA ; b) carefully selecting panels (I'm fairly confident that some players would have doubled) ; c) notifying players their right to appeal - so that you would have been able to present strong arguments - certainly saying that East's hand could be far worse, eg witsecondary spade honors, would be one to be analyzed. I still don't think the pass over 4C changes anything : a player might be happy to let them play in 4C, and then wish to defend in 5D. If West's hand was about x - KQJxx - Jxxxx - Qx, he would have just done so, and I would have allowed the 5D bid. Best wishes, Alain. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 1 15:35:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:35:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <2516979.1056987891685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <40951966-ABD1-11D7-A80A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 11:44 US/Eastern, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Ed wrote: [snip stuff about Martel/Stansby in 1987 Bermuda Bowl] I did? Huh. Must be getting senile. I don't remember writing any of that. I thought someone else wrote it. From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 16:00:10 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (D Raija) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:00:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... References: <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> <08c401c33fcb$7cca9cb0$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Hi all blml'ers Pass IMO is not an alternative at all. Partner opened, West hand has 11HCP, it is clearly *our hand*. When the opponents are on the 4-level and when it is *our hand*, we either dbl the opponents or bid on to game or slam. When opener passed 4S, that pass is forcing, and asking the West hand to make an intelligent decision based on the fact that opener has shown good long diamonds and did NOT want to put on the brakes. Assumed that the pass is forcing West has following options: - Cannot pass, partner is forcing West to take other action - Cannot double holding singleton in their trump - What is left? I see no other option for West than to bid 5D Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luis Argerich" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 5:22 AM Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... > NS vulnerable > West holds: > x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx > > The bidding with east as dealer > > 1d - 1s - 2h - p > 3d - 4c - p - 4s > p* - p - 5d - x > p - p - p > * = 4 minutes hesitation(!) > > Result: +550 > East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx > > I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? > My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that for this > particular west there would have been an LA to 5d and > that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. > > Tks for your comments. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 16:22:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:22:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701171419.028d4250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:18 1/07/2003 +1000, you wrote: >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) > >The TD ruled that even without the MI, passing 1C was not a LA. AG : I eventually got the response from Jean-Fran=E7ois Jourdain, a Belgian= =20 TD and firm exponent of the principle "don't Biltcliffe them, especially=20 over 1C". Like others, he assumes that South has only clubs ("un champ de tr=E8fles" = =3D=20 "a field of clover"). He says he will indeed reopen, albeit he considered passing, and only=20 because he's got spades. ("where are the hearts" is less of a worry). Well, if that man does reopen over 1C, it may be argued that there is no LA= =20 to this. Best regards, Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 1 16:20:18 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU rules OK References: Message-ID: <002b01c33fe4$4911c2e0$5b9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] Sorry Nigel, the conflict is far from imaginary. [Nigel Guthrie] Tim, I am impressed with your views and the fair-minded way that you express them. As I understand it, however, restricting conventions is a legitimate way of enforcing local aberrations from WBF laws. Through ignorance of the rules or because they agree with your interpretation, almost all players regularly open rule of 17/18 hands in 3rd seat, in EBU, level 3 events. Nevertheless, IMO, even if you disagree with a law you should abide by it. As a result, I expect to get many more bottoms and lose many more matches by keeping to the official interpretation. Eventually, however, I hope that the EBULC either change their rules or clarify, publicise and enforce them. A first step may be to ensure that TDs understand and comply with them. An example that the WBFLC could well emulate. Rather than spend more time on futile soap-boxing, on this and other issues, I intend to go read-only for the remainder of 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 1 16:32:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? Message-ID: <200307011532.LAA26713@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Well, if that man does reopen over 1C, it may be argued that there is no LA > to this. I haven't been following this discussion, but wasn't it a MI case? What do LA's have to do with anything? The question would seem to be whether it is "at all probable" or "likely" not to reopen (L12C2). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 1 16:38:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:38:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? Message-ID: <200307011538.LAA27047@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > d) working out whether my peers would potentially make these calls > While some players may always manage a-d without breaking tempo I have to > say that I am not one of them. I would also be extremely reluctant to > rule a deceptive hesitation against players trying to solve such a problem > at the table. Shouldn't "extremely reluctant" be "never?" It seems to me that a UI problem is a "demonstrable bridge reason" within the meaning of L73F2. Does anyone disagree? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 1 16:45:38 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Aussie N.O.T. (was Menton) Message-ID: <200307011545.LAA27447@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Minutely detailed procedures are now > adopted to prevent the recurrence of an identical deal. While the goal is, of course, laudable, this is not the most effective approach. Why not use "Big Deal" or a similar program, where identical deals are prevented by technical means? Or is that what you meant, and the "detailed procedures" are merely how to specify the input to Big Deal and how to label the resulting hand records? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 1 18:23:41 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:23:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card References: <000701c33eff$35d7bee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9CDDA984-AB37-11D7-9602-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003601c33ff5$865bb3c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > > If a player defines his own tempo over a stop bid, as per the North > American regs, then his partner becomes very aware of this, and changes > in tempo are very obvious to him, but not to the opponents. For > example, if player A usually pauses for about seven seconds over a Skip > Bid then when he pauses for twelve seconds his partner will know he has > a problem but his opponents will not. > > However, if opponents control the tempo then this is no longer an > issue. I think this is why several European NBOs prefer this method of > tempo control. > There are many players in ACBL-land who think that the European regulation is in force here. I put out the Stop card, and instead of studying their hands as they should, they stare at the Stop card, waiting for me to pick it up (or they stare at me!). "Why are you looking at the Stop card?" "I can't pass until you pick it up." Whichever regulation is in force, LHO should be required to act as if s/he has a problem during the required time period, even with a bust hand. Very few do that over here. The ACBL regulation applies only over skip bids. I would prefer a regulation that declares which situations are tempo-sensitive, and apply the regulation to all of them, e.g., -- An opening-bid position -- Over a low-level action by LHO -- Over any action by LHO if partner has acted -- Over any skip bid Never at any level have I seen an opponent wait the full 10 seconds unless having a real problem. Since that amount of time seems to be unenforceable, I would prefer a time rule that depends on the level of the game, i.e., that it be in the Conditions of Contest. Five seconds is plenty of time in a sectional stratified pair event. In my club (if I had one) I would adopt a less formal rule. In every tempo-sensitive situation, you must act as if you have a really tough problem. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Jul 1 18:32:04 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:32:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... Message-ID: <006301c33ff6$b1097e80$86c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Luis Argerich wrote: >> NS vulnerable >> West holds: >> x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx >> >> The bidding with east as dealer >> >> 1d - 1s - 2h - p >> 3d - 4c - p - 4s >> p* - p - 5d - x >> p - p - p >> * = 4 minutes hesitation(!) >> >> Result: +550 >> East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx >> >> I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? >> My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that >>for this particular west there would have been an LA to 5d >>and that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. > >The director went for an "evaluation" of the 5d bid. > >The director asked 3 players what they would bid (without >the hesitation), the three players said they would bid 5d, >2 of them didn't like the pass over 4c. > >So the director ruled the result to stand and I thanked him >for the ruling and for asking some players before ruling. > >I posted this here because I still believed that West's pass >over 4c was evidence of pass being a LA to that particular >player. I'm surprised to find that 2 people already said that >pass Was indeed a LA. Do you have some comments or >recommendations for the director that can be useful to >improve his rulings? No, since I am replying only to one player's version of what happened, and thus may not have all the facts. However, did the Director ask West why he passed 4C? West might have answered that he wanted to get doubled in 5D, and as he held four clubs and only one spade, a preference to 4S was ceretainly coming, so he would cunningly wait and appear to be sacrificing in order to attract a Double. An answer that sounds true as it would be almost impossible to invent at the time, unless that is just what West actually did think at the table. Or West might have said that he didn't want to push the opponents into 4S and was happy to defend 4C in case they could make 5S or 4S. Again a reasonable answer. Or West might have said that he didn't have enough good cards to bid 4D as East might have KJxx, x, K9xxx, KQx and be unable to bid 2NT systemically with a singleton heart. Or that partner might even have xxxx, xx, AKQx, Kxx and be forced to rebid 3D in their methods. Or that his partner opens very light so a 4D bid was risky but 5D was OK as a sacrifice - in fact East's long pause with a normal Pass of 4S suggests to me that East may be a bit of a bidaholic, adding some evidence that "East being an overbidder" may be close to the truth behind the strange Pass of 4C. My point is that the West's answer to the Director's question might clarify what really happened in the auction. Given that West passed 4C, and given that we may have been presented with limited facts on BLML, I think that Pass of 4S is almost certainly a LA. If asked what I would have bid over 4S, of course 5D would have been my answer, but this has no effect on whether Pass of 4S is a LA as I would not have passed 4C. Peter Gill Australia. From adam@tameware.com Tue Jul 1 18:43:23 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:43:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:33 AM -0700 6/30/03, Linda Trent wrote: >Any chance you could post the article? No -- that would violate their copyright. All is not lost, however. The NY Times site will e-mail a copy to anyone, whether or not they're a member, and I will happily mail a copy to you and to anyone else who requests one. This will be an option for another few weeks, then they'll start charging. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Tue Jul 1 18:52:37 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:33 PM +0100 6/30/03, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >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 think you're referring to this: >At the end of the night, back at the bar, Wildavsky runs into >Michael Polowan, Jason Hackett's partner during the controversy over >the 10-second delay. "I want to give you some advice," Wildavsky >says. "There is a rule that I don't think Jason understands." >Wildavsky goes on to explain that under A.C.B.L. rules, he was >correct to wait the full 10 seconds and posits that perhaps Jason >was mistakenly following the European rules on waiting. I'm not quoted correctly, but in any case you are reading too much into my comment. I do not know what the European regulation on waiting is. I do know what the WBF regulation is, and that is what I guessed Jason was used to. Like DWS I consider the WBF regulation vastly superior to the ACBL's. I've written about the subject both here and on rec.games.bridge. I have yet to convince the ACBL, but I've not yet given up. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 1 18:53:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:53:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card In-Reply-To: <003601c33ff5$865bb3c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c33ff9$a4b9ea40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ......... > There are many players in ACBL-land who think that the=20 > European regulation is in force here. I put out the Stop > card, and instead of studying their hands as they should, > they stare at the Stop card, waiting for me to pick it up > (or they stare at me!). >=20 > "Why are you looking at the Stop card?" >=20 > "I can't pass until you pick it up." Is this to say that under the ACBL regulation if the skip bidder forgets = to take back his stop card and leaves it on the table you simply ignore it after 10 seconds and proceed? What happens the next time he wants to = make a skip bid? "Oh - I already have the stop card faced on the table!"? >=20 > Whichever regulation is in force, LHO should be required=20 > to act as if s/he has a problem during the required time > period, even with a bust hand. Very few do that over here. Very many do just that over here! >=20 > The ACBL regulation applies only over skip bids. I would > prefer a regulation that declares which situations are=20 > tempo-sensitive, and apply the regulation to all of them, > e.g., >=20 > -- An opening-bid position > -- Over a low-level action by LHO > -- Over any action by LHO if partner has acted > -- Over any skip bid That was indeed the case in Norway when the Stop regulation was first introduced. Stop should also be used when the opening bid in 1NT was (or could be?) below 15 HCP, but that part of the regulation was soon = removed. As the secretary general of the Norwegian federation once told me: In = one particular region of Norway they established a new opening bid = convention: Stop followed by 1NT showed 12-14 HCP while an opening bid in 1NT = without any stop showed 15-17. On their convention cards they had the 1NT = opening range specified as 12-17. "And it was completely impossible to get them understand this was = illegal!" >=20 > Never at any level have I seen an opponent wait the full 10 seconds > unless having a real problem. Since that amount of time seems to be > unenforceable, I would prefer a time rule that depends on the level > of the game, i.e., that it be in the Conditions of Contest. Five > seconds is plenty of time in a sectional stratified pair event. Quite sensible, but are you not yourself giving one of the best = available arguments for why the timing should be controlled by the skip bidder and = not by the caller who is required to delay his call? >=20 > In my club (if I had one) I would adopt a less formal rule. In every > tempo-sensitive situation, you must act as if you have a really tough > problem. Why don't you visit a European club and study how well it works here? I = feel sure you would return to ACBL-land with a refreshed opinion. Regards Sven From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Jul 1 18:57:39 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:57:39 -0300 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... References: <006301c33ff6$b1097e80$86c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <0a2b01c33ffa$4683c300$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Not a LA but... > Luis Argerich wrote: > >> NS vulnerable > >> West holds: > >> x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx > >> > >> The bidding with east as dealer > >> > >> 1d - 1s - 2h - p > >> 3d - 4c - p - 4s > >> p* - p - 5d - x > >> p - p - p > >> * = 4 minutes hesitation(!) > >> > >> Result: +550 > >> East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx > >> > >> I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? > >> My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that > >>for this particular west there would have been an LA to 5d > >>and that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. > > > >The director went for an "evaluation" of the 5d bid. > > > >The director asked 3 players what they would bid (without > >the hesitation), the three players said they would bid 5d, > >2 of them didn't like the pass over 4c. > > > >So the director ruled the result to stand and I thanked him > >for the ruling and for asking some players before ruling. > > > >I posted this here because I still believed that West's pass > >over 4c was evidence of pass being a LA to that particular >player. I'm > surprised to find that 2 people already said that > >pass Was indeed a LA. Do you have some comments or >recommendations for > the director that can be useful to > >improve his rulings? > > No, since I am replying only to one player's version of what > happened, and thus may not have all the facts. I'm not looking for a result change :-) The director is a good guy and I want to know if his ruling was correct and if I can have some tips from this ML that can be useful for him. > However, did the Director ask West why he passed 4C? No, he didn't. But my pd asked and west said "I have clubs" > My point is that the West's answer to the Director's question > might clarify what really happened in the auction. He only said that he didn't bid over 4c because he had clubs. > Given that West passed 4C, and given that we may have > been presented with limited facts on BLML, I think that Pass > of 4S is almost certainly a LA. If asked what I would have bid > over 4S, of course 5D would have been my answer, but this > has no effect on whether Pass of 4S is a LA as I would not > have passed 4C. Thanks for your comments. From adam@tameware.com Tue Jul 1 19:03:38 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:03:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:38 AM +0100 7/1/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Marv wrote: > >> 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 > >Surely the truth is somewhere between the two. Surely not. (2) is what the Laws require. It seems to me a rephrasing of the language they use. >If I my next call seems >blindingly obvious/systemically required or if it is a call I planned to >make when I chose my previous call (ie trying to look as if pushed) then I >should clearly make that call in tempo. To do otherwise risks giving UI >to partner/deceiving opponents/getting a better score than I would have >done in the absence of the UI (of course the TD may judge that my choice >was not obvious/planned and adjust). However if my next call was merely >"what I think I would have done" this is not enough. In this latter >situation I must go through the steps of >a) working out in detail what pard holds >b) working out what extra info the UI tells me about pard's hand >c) working out what calls this suggests/contraindicates in the context >d) working out whether my peers would potentially make these calls >While some players may always manage a-d without breaking tempo I have to >say that I am not one of them. I would also be extremely reluctant to >rule a deceptive hesitation against players trying to solve such a problem >at the table. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Might you need some time to properly comply with the Laws? Indeed you might. Could partner take advantage? If he does I hope your opponents will summon the director. Will your opponents be damaged by your hesitation? It seems unlikely -- your first priority must be to obey the Laws. This is also where your self-interest lies. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jul 1 21:32:18 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:32:18 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F012B84.7020602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c3400f$de302490$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 6:35 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows 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.\ > >> > > > some have criticized my use of the word law here, when I should have > said regulation. Go hang yourselves. > > > > > > No way. > > > > If I say that I open 10-12hcp and I use my judgement to open a lower > > counting hand then I have merely said that I think that > this particular > > is better bid as a hand in that stated range. I may or may not be > > correct in this judgement. > > > > > No Wayne, then you have merely said that you are playing a system > which under that regulation is illegal. Blatantly not so. Read L40A. A player can make any call not based on a partnership understanding. If my system is 1NT is in the range 10-12 that is not an undertaking to have precisely 10 or more points and 12 or fewer points every time that I open 1NT. This is alluded to in L40E1. Two players may play the same system but exercise different judgement or style. What the law allows is that the agreement can be regulated but the practice of opening or not opening on any particular hand is not subject to regulation. Actually the law says 'partnership understandings'. My system maybe 10-12 but that does not prevent me opening a 9 count or 8 count or whatever I choose per L40A. Even the hallowed Orange Book acknowledges that it is merely the agreement that is constrained, for example "The following conventions and agreements, together with those in section 12, may be used in `Level 3' competitions. ... The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP; except ..." Not the minimum allowable opening bid is Rule of 19. They are quite different beasts. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > currently at the European Bridge Championships in Menton > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jul 1 09:43:25 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:43:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C33FAC.D65B0540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yes we always have delays at the start of a new event. And that is caused by having to rearrange the set up because of not showing up while preregistered. But I am not sure that this causes real problems. Players seem to accept such delay. Though technically spoken I agree with Kojak: it would be much easier to ask the player to pay (at least part of ) the entry fee at the moment they preregister, I don't know what the effect is on that pre-registration. If only two pairs decide not to come while they do play using the present procedure that might be enough reason to keep it this way. In Menton in both big events, the mixed and open pairs, the number of pairs eventually registering were some 60 less than the pre-registration. It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both events started. But disadvantages are that we didn't use the space as optimal as possible and the seeding could have been better, especially since we removed a whole section. But this procedure 'creating major problems' sounds too strong in my opinion. ton 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C33FAC.D65B0540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Yes we always have delays at the start of a new event. And that is caused by having to rearrange the set up because of not showing up while preregistered. But I am not sure that this causes real problems. Players seem to accept such delay. Though technically spoken I agree with Kojak: it would be much easier to ask the player to pay (at least part of ) the entry fee at the moment they preregister, I don't know what the effect is on that pre-registration. If only two pairs decide not to come while they do play using the present procedure that might be enough reason to keep it this way.
In Menton in both big events, the mixed and open pairs, the  number of pairs eventually registering were some 60 less than the pre-registration. It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both events started. But disadvantages are that we didn't use the space as optimal as possible and the seeding could have been  better, especially since we removed a whole section. 
But this procedure 'creating major problems' sounds too strong in my opinion.
 
ton
 

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
------_=_NextPart_001_01C33FAC.D65B0540-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 12:56:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:56:06 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: <002501c33f22$03341a10$3d682452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030701134709.00abfc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_7036178==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 17:09 30/06/2003 +0100, mamos wrote: > > 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 AG : I have to disagree very strongly. Asking questions and then passing will never be illegal per se. If a 1C opening is alerted, I have to ask, because we use different defenses over different artificial clubs. (of course, the pass of a forcing bid creates an unexpected situation, but that's the game). BTW, I *always* ask over an alerted 1C or 1D opening bid. Thus no UI is created. #3 thought it was a good idea to pass. If he did it against me, it could turn out quite badly. Even if I didn't do it every time, he could be surprised to see I hold a 3235 2-count, because with such a hand we overcall (NV) over a Polish Club, but not over a medium Club (Flodqvist style). All this boils down to : 1) the fact of asking and passing isn't illegal. Never. 2) It may or may not create UI. Even if it does, this isn't illegal either. 3) Only making use of UI is illegal. 4) If repoener has a 23-count, I can hardly see how the TD could disallow this. Best regards, Alain. --=====================_7036178==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 17:09 30/06/2003 +0100, mamos wrote:

> 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

AG : I have to disagree very strongly. Asking questions and then passing will never be illegal per se.
If a 1C opening is alerted, I have to ask, because we use different defenses over different artificial clubs.
(of course, the pass of a forcing bid creates an unexpected situation, but that's the game).
BTW, I *always* ask over an alerted 1C or 1D opening bid. Thus no UI is created.

#3 thought it was a good idea to pass. If he did it against me, it could turn out quite badly. Even if  I didn't do it every time, he could be surprised to see I hold a 3235 2-count, because with such a hand we overcall (NV) over a Polish Club, but not over a medium Club (Flodqvist style).

All this boils down to :
1) the fact of asking and passing isn't illegal. Never.
2) It may or may not create UI. Even if it does, this isn't illegal either.
3) Only making use of UI is illegal.
4) If repoener has a 23-count, I can hardly see how the TD could disallow this.

Best regards,

        Alain.

--=====================_7036178==_.ALT-- From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 1 20:24:23 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:24:23 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Marv wrote: > > > 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 don't think that there are many directors or people familiar with the laws who believe that (1) is the current correct procedure. What we do have - in the ACBL and a lot of other places - are a LOT of players who are no good at imagining a roomful of hypothetical players of similar ability to themselves, imagining what those players might do or consider doing, and sift out from this mental simulation a list of logical alternatives. Even on this list we have a hard time agreeing on what calls are or aren't LAs. (May I propose a meta-term? A "LALA" is a call which you don't believe is a logical alternative, but which some number of potential appeals committee members might consider to be one. Often in BLML cases, I can see some LAs, some LALAs, and some non-LAs.) Players would either laugh in our faces, or angrily announce the rules are stupid, or both, if they knew just what a mess logical alternatives get to be. Meanwhile, we have to say *something* to the players that will get them on the right track often enough to keep both the number of appeals and the number of blatant UI infractions low. What we say is something like "if you have a completely clear-cut action, (= no other LA, sort of) go ahead and do whatever you were planning to do; but if you have more than one reasonable action to take now, you must take care to do the opposite of whatever you think partner's hesitation (remark, grimace, whatever) means he is hoping you will do." Those aren't quite the actual words I use at the table (the last part, especially, get worded differently depending what the UI was), and I realize they don't quite match exactly what the laws say ... but they give the players SOME sense of what the UI rules are trying to do. I am sure there are people who only recall the first half of that speech afterward, and there are people who delude themselves into thinking they had a clear decision when they might not have - but that will be true wwhatever we say. It can be REALLY hard to imagine what you would have done if you didn't know something. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 1 22:06:11 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:06:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... In-Reply-To: <08c401c33fcb$7cca9cb0$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030701170246.0271fec0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:22 AM 7/1/03, Luis wrote: >NS vulnerable >West holds: >x, KQJxx, Jxx, A9xx > >The bidding with east as dealer > >1d - 1s - 2h - p >3d - 4c - p - 4s >p* - p - 5d - x >p - p - p >* = 4 minutes hesitation(!) > >Result: +550 >East hand: Axx, xx, AKQxxx, xx > >I think there's not an LA to 5d for West, is it? >My question is if the pass of 4c can be used to think that for this >particular west there would have been an LA to 5d and >that he bid 5d because of the hesitation. Where I play, it would be normal to assume, absent a specific agreement to the contrary, that both West's pass of 4C and East's pass of 4S were forcing. Therefore if, when I asked West why he chose to bid 5D, he told me that he assumed he was forced and could not pass, I would be inclined to accept that statement without requiring him to produce any additional evidence. YMMV. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 1 22:26:47 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:26:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <001b01c3400f$de302490$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F01FC97.9050007@skynet.be> Wayne, you are delusional. Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>No Wayne, then you have merely said that you are playing a system >>which under that regulation is illegal. >> > > Blatantly not so. Read L40A. A player can make any call not based on > a partnership understanding. > The first set of problems in this thread were about someone saying that he should not be forced to count his points under Milton-Work points. Which is true. but then if that person opens something which according to HIS methods is an opening bid, then that IS a partnership understanding. So L40A has nothing to do with it. This is systemic and hence forbidden, if it falls under the limit that was set in HCP. > If my system is 1NT is in the range 10-12 that is not an undertaking to > have precisely 10 or more points and 12 or fewer points every time that > I open 1NT. This is alluded to in L40E1. Two players may play the same > system but exercise different judgement or style. > Now what is the difference between one player stating: "in my point system, this hand is worth 17 QP, which is an opening", and another who says "in my judgment, this 9HCP is worth 10". Nothing. Both have used judgment to decide that this is an opening bid in their system. One is honest about it, the other hides behind judgment. Still, they both open the same hand, and the second cannot prove it is not systemic to do so. Both are playing a system which is deemed illegal. > What the law allows is that the agreement can be regulated but the > practice > of opening or not opening on any particular hand is not subject to > regulation. > Actually the law says 'partnership understandings'. My system maybe > 10-12 > but that does not prevent me opening a 9 count or 8 count or whatever I > choose per L40A. > Well, most people will state "I want to open this hand because of this or that redeeming feature". That makes it systemic to me, and they cannot prove that it is not. The same law which we use to state that someone who opens a 15-17NT on 14 has to tell his opponents that this is possible, should also be used to tell that a 9HCP opening is systemic when playing 10-12 1NT openers. > Even the hallowed Orange Book acknowledges that it is merely the > agreement > that is constrained, for example > > "The following conventions and agreements, together with those in > section 12, may be used in `Level 3' competitions. ... > > > The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP; > except ..." > > Not the minimum allowable opening bid is Rule of 19. They are quite > different beasts. > I'm absolutely certain they are. And I won't stop you from opening 1NT on 9HCP if your CC says you are playing 15-17. That is a psyche. But if your CC says you play 15-17, and you open a 14HCP, I will rule that in actual fact, you play 14.5-17, and that your opponents are misinformed (and very probably not harmed). Similarly, if you open on 9HCP when your CC says 10-12, I will rule that you actually play 9.5-12, and have not put that on the CC because it would be forbidden. The difference between the two cases is that 14.5-17 is not forbidden, but 9.5-12 IS. > Wayne > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 1 23:01:25 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:01:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] NY Times Magazine on the Stop Card References: <000601c33ff9$a4b9ea40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c3401c$51fe7b40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Sven Pran wrote: > Marvin French wrote: ......... > There are many players in ACBL-land who think that the > European regulation is in force here. I put out the Stop > card, and instead of studying their hands as they should, > they stare at the Stop card, waiting for me to pick it up > (or they stare at me!). > > "Why are you looking at the Stop card?" > > "I can't pass until you pick it up." Is this to say that under the ACBL regulation if the skip bidder forgets to take back his stop card and leaves it on the table you simply ignore it after 10 seconds and proceed? What happens the next time he wants to make a skip bid? "Oh - I already have the stop card faced on the table!"? [mlf] The skip bidder can pick up the stop card immediately, leave it on the table until LHO acts, or leave it there always (so the TD can see it was used when he looks at the bidding). Strictly speaking, the proper procedure is to lay it down, make sure LHO sees it, and then pick it up. Whatever the player does with the stop card makes no difference as to what LHO is supposed to do, which is to study his hand for 10 seconds before calling. Needless to say, a player should not vary the way he handles the stop card. [mlf] The next time he makes a skip bid he can retrieve the stop card from a previous call or from the bidding box, no problem. [mlf] Against many players, I take about 5 seconds to get the stop card out, look at it for a while to make sure it's the right card [ :-))], and slowly lay it on the table. If they refuse to wait 10 seconds, at least that makes sure they can't make a call quickly. Not very effective, admittedly. An elderly German player here says "SHTOP!" and slowly moves the stop card from the bidding box onto the table. I think I'll try that. [mlf] When many high-level players refused to use the stop card, the ACBL accommodated them by requiring a 10-second wait over a skip bid whether or not the stop card is put down, making it optional. That puts the onus on the LHO, who has not been reminded of his wait obligation. Should that give his partner exemption from any tempo UI accusation? Some have ruled that way, and in fact this was ruled both ways by ACs during the St Louis NABC some years back. Today there seems to be no such exemption. [mlf] Since the stop card use is optional, we see many players using it irregularly, violating an unenforced rule that you must use it before every skip bid or not use it at all. > Never at any level have I seen an opponent wait the full 10 seconds > unless having a real problem. Since that amount of time seems to be > unenforceable, I would prefer a time rule that depends on the level > of the game, i.e., that it be in the Conditions of Contest. Five > seconds is plenty of time in a sectional stratified pair event. Quite sensible, but are you not yourself giving one of the best available arguments for why the timing should be controlled by the skip bidder and not by the caller who is required to delay his call? [mlf] Well, yes, but I don't like the idea of the skip bidder's varying the stop time within a single session. Let the stop time vary with the importance of the event, not with the bidding situation. > > In my club (if I had one) I would adopt a less formal rule. In every > tempo-sensitive situation, you must act as if you have a really tough > problem. Why don't you visit a European club and study how well it works here? I feel sure you would return to ACBL-land with a refreshed opinion. [mlf] I'm mostly on your side, actually. However, it is extremely difficult to get the ACBL to change a regulation, even if it is one that is not being followed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 23:05:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:05:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Aussie N.O.T. (was Menton) Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Minutely detailed procedures are now adopted to prevent >>the recurrence of an identical deal. Steve Willner: >While the goal is, of course, laudable, this is not the >most effective approach. Why not use "Big Deal" or a >similar program, where identical deals are prevented by >technical means? Or is that what you meant, and the >"detailed procedures" are merely how to specify the >input to Big Deal and how to label the resulting hand >records? Richard Hills: I am not aware of the exact details, so the ABF may or may not be using "Big Deal", or a parallel program. The ABF, however, now has a *solitary* dedicated PC that produces the masters of the hand records for every session of national championship events. Best wishes Richard From David Stevenson Tue Jul 1 15:19:09 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:19:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> References: <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn writes >To Tim and Nigel and Probst any other layman who may have wandered in, I >say this: you play bridge in a jurisdiction in which your partner is not >permitted to expect that a 1S opening in third position may be based on >either AKQJ xxx xxx xxx or AQ109xx J10xxx x x; if there is any evidence >from the auction or from the play or from answers to questions >legitimately asked by the opponents that your partner may so expect, >then there is evidence that you are playing an illegal method. DWS kept >refusing to say this on r.g.b; his performance in that regard was some >way short of lamentable, but he is a good bridge player and as such he >thinks (as I do) that most regulations of this kind are ridiculous. I have answered all questions asked of me there, except the one that asked whether my colleagues agreed with me, which seemed a wind-up. The problem was that people did not like my answers so kept repeating the question in the hopes that I would change my answers. We have a legal reg, decided long before my time on the L&EC, which players must follow, and it covers agreements. The 120 questions about what hand it is legal to bid on are really irrelevant: it is illegal not to follow the reg, ie to have the wrong agreement is illegal. I don't suppose this view will be any more acceptable here than on RGB. I expect people to ask silly questions about particular hands! >If there is any subscriber to BLML, including DWS, who has not been >mortally offended by the foregoing, please let me know. I should hate >any of you to feel left out. I am not mortally offended. Please try harder. -- 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jul 1 23:57:42 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:57:42 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F01FC97.9050007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 9:27 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne, you are delusional. Really? > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > >>No Wayne, then you have merely said that you are playing a system > >>which under that regulation is illegal. > >> > > > > Blatantly not so. Read L40A. A player can make any call > not based on > > a partnership understanding. > > > > > The first set of problems in this thread were about someone saying > that he should not be forced to count his points under Milton-Work > points. Which is true. but then if that person opens something which > according to HIS methods is an opening bid, then that IS a > partnership > understanding. So L40A has nothing to do with it. This is > systemic and > hence forbidden, if it falls under the limit that was set in HCP. This is rubbish. If I agree with my partner 10-12 and I open a particular 9 count this proves nothing. And this is precisely what L40A says - I can depart from commonly accepted practice. > > > If my system is 1NT is in the range 10-12 that is not an > undertaking to > > have precisely 10 or more points and 12 or fewer points > every time that > > I open 1NT. This is alluded to in L40E1. Two players may > play the same > > system but exercise different judgement or style. > > > > > Now what is the difference between one player stating: "in my point > system, this hand is worth 17 QP, which is an opening", and another > who says "in my judgment, this 9HCP is worth 10". Nothing. Both have > used judgment to decide that this is an opening bid in their system. > One is honest about it, the other hides behind judgment. Still, they > both open the same hand, and the second cannot prove it is not > systemic to do so. Both are playing a system which is deemed illegal. > Not so. The system that has been deemed illegal is the agreement not the practice. There is no proof that it is systemic. There is no regulation nor is there a mandate for a regulation that forbids opening any particular hand on a 9 count. > > > What the law allows is that the agreement can be regulated but the > > practice > > of opening or not opening on any particular hand is not subject to > > regulation. > > Actually the law says 'partnership understandings'. My system maybe > > 10-12 > > but that does not prevent me opening a 9 count or 8 count > or whatever I > > choose per L40A. > > > > > Well, most people will state "I want to open this hand > because of this > or that redeeming feature". That makes it systemic to me, and they > cannot prove that it is not. > The same law which we use to state that someone who opens a > 15-17NT on > 14 has to tell his opponents that this is possible, should also be > used to tell that a 9HCP opening is systemic when playing 10-12 1NT > openers. > No that makes it judgement and style. In spite of playing the same agreements it is common for two players to exercise different judgement. Otherwise we would have no need for Master Solver's Clubs. The agreement can be regulated the judgement and style cannot. The agreement is a partnership matter the judgement and style is an individual matter. I have never seen a regulation that stated that an individual cannot open a 9 point hand. The regulations state that the partnership cannot agree to open a 9 point hand. To me this is quite different. > > > Even the hallowed Orange Book acknowledges that it is merely the > > agreement > > that is constrained, for example > > > > "The following conventions and agreements, together with those in > > section 12, may be used in `Level 3' competitions. ... > > > > > > The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of > 19, or 11 HCP; > > except ..." > > > > Not the minimum allowable opening bid is Rule of 19. They are quite > > different beasts. > > > > > I'm absolutely certain they are. And I won't stop you from > opening 1NT > on 9HCP if your CC says you are playing 15-17. That is a psyche. But > if your CC says you play 15-17, and you open a 14HCP, I will > rule that > in actual fact, you play 14.5-17, and that your opponents are > misinformed (and very probably not harmed). Similarly, if you open on > 9HCP when your CC says 10-12, I will rule that you actually play > 9.5-12, and have not put that on the CC because it would be forbidden. > > The difference between the two cases is that 14.5-17 is not > forbidden, > but 9.5-12 IS. Well you have no right to rule that I have agreed something that I have not agreed. I frequently agree things with my partner's especially casual partner's that I violate. My partner's will no nothing of that in advance because we have had no discussion nor have we had any experience so how on earth can you rule that it is an agreement. On Monday evening I played with a person that I have never played with before. We agreed Acol with 12-14 NT. None of this prevented me opening on 11. I can not see how you can justify telling my partner that we had an agreement to open a lower point count. Yours is the nonsense Herman. Even if I play with a regular partner and agree to open 12-14 there is nothing necessarily in that agreement that indicates that either partner will open any particular 11 count or 15 count. Yet that still may happen and it is not based on an agreement. For you to rule so without proof is in my opinion unbelievably arrogant. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Jul 2 00:07:02 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:07:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F01FC97.9050007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c34025$80485ee0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 9:27 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > I'm absolutely certain they are. And I won't stop you from > opening 1NT > on 9HCP if your CC says you are playing 15-17. That is a psyche. But > if your CC says you play 15-17, and you open a 14HCP, I will > rule that > in actual fact, you play 14.5-17, and that your opponents are > misinformed (and very probably not harmed). Similarly, if you open on > 9HCP when your CC says 10-12, I will rule that you actually play > 9.5-12, and have not put that on the CC because it would be forbidden. > > The difference between the two cases is that 14.5-17 is not > forbidden, > but 9.5-12 IS. I am just as entitled to violate my agreement by one point as six points. The fact that the latter is termed a psyche in no way indicates that the former is not a violation. And any violation not based on an agreement is legal. Wayne From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 2 00:16:20 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:16:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? References: Message-ID: <003b01c34026$c92843e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" Excellent words, but omitting something. Edgar Kaplan, November 1995 *The Bridge World*: "If you are convinced that you would always [take that action], huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 2 00:26:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:26:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? Message-ID: From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >>d) working out whether my peers would potentially make these calls >> >>While some players may always manage a-d without breaking tempo I >>have to say that I am not one of them. I would also be extremely >>reluctant to rule a deceptive hesitation against players trying to >>solve such a problem at the table. Steve Willner: >Shouldn't "extremely reluctant" be "never?" It seems to me that a >UI problem is a "demonstrable bridge reason" within the meaning of >L73F2. Does anyone disagree? Richard Hills: Never say never again. Mark Abraham, an Aussie blmler, was pinged under Law 73F2 when Mark took some time to assess his legal options after Mark received UI from Mark's pard. I am fence-sitting on whether Mark's TD and AC gave the correct Lawful ruling, and would be interested if Grattan and/or Ton and/or Kojak would be kind enough to express an unofficial personal opinion. Best wishes Richard From David Stevenson Wed Jul 2 01:19:25 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 01:19:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? In-Reply-To: <200307011532.LAA26713@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200307011532.LAA26713@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6M0$yGBNUiA$Ewi2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner writes >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Well, if that man does reopen over 1C, it may be argued that there is no LA >> to this. > >I haven't been following this discussion, but wasn't it a MI case? >What do LA's have to do with anything? The question would seem to be >whether it is "at all probable" or "likely" not to reopen (L12C2). We were originally just asked what the LAs are without being told the story. However, I'll bet you US$1 that partner hesitated over 1C. -- 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jul 2 03:43:41 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:43:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <2516979.1056987891685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030701222545.01f10e00@mail.vzavenue.net> At 11:44 AM 6/30/2003, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >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? Thanks for including these details. The Bermuda bowl book gives no details, writing only, "a Swedish appeal, alleging that Flint-Sheehan had not correctly described their bidding methods, resulted in a 5-IMP procedural penalty against the British." Here's the hand, which is similar to David Burn's recollection: Board 78, E dealer, neither vulnerable Q3 K63 AQ98 AJ97 AK652 T7 2 QT74 JT642 5 QT K86532 J984 AJ985 K73 4 W N E S 1C! P 1C=fert 1S! X 2C 4H 1S=12+, five or more spades AP AK of spades, third spade ruffed with the H6 and overruffed with the H7, club to the Q and A, and declarer played AK of hearts, playing West for Qx rather than a stiff heart. I agree with the AC ruling. East is more likely to have the HQ than West is, since KTxxxx and out does not look like a 2C bid, while West has as good an opening hand with AKxxx x JTxxx QT as with AKxxx Qx JTxx QT. Therefore, the normal play here is to finesse, rather than to assume that West is a Walrus in the semifinals of the Bermuda Bowl. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 2 03:12:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:12:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: [snip] >b) we firmly believe that *our* assessment of what >constitutes reasonable valuation methods (HCP, or >whatever) is the one and only, and that no player >may pretend to know better than us. > >Isn't part b) just a little bit conceited ? > >Best regards, > >Alain. Richard replies: No. Conceit does not come into it. The reason most NCBO system regulations are based on the Milton Work point count of A = 4, K = 3, Q = 2, J = 1 is *not* because of a sinister conspiracy to enforce poor hand evaluation on experts. Rather, most NCBO regulations use the Milton Work point count due the world-wide popularity of Goren's books since the late 1940s. So, NCBO regulations work with Work, since the method is used by the vast majority of the NCBO's membership. Some parts of Europe use an alternative scale which more accurately evaluates the relative worth of the top four honour cards: A = 7, K = 5, Q = 3, J = 1 No doubt the local regulations in those parts of Europe therefore avoid working with Work. If Goren had never existed, then most NCBO system regulations would be based on the Culbertson Honour Trick method of hand evaluation. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 2 04:29:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:29:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote: [snip] >In other words, I will make no call or play that >will suggest that I'm aware partner may break our >agreement. Should I tell opponents partner has a >despicable but occasional habit? They are entitled >to know, surely? [snip] Professor Twist replies: If *both* members of a partnership have the *same* despicable but occasional habit of breaking their explicit agreement in a particular way, then the partnership's explicit agreement is merely a subset of the partnership's broader implicit agreement. Such a broader implicit agreement must be disclosed. (Law 75A and Law 75B) However, if only one member of the partnership is occasionally despicable, then it is an infraction of the English language to describe unilateral despicableness as an implicit agreement of both members of the partnership. But, it is a Law 40A and Law 40B partnership *understanding* that one member of the partnership is occasionally despicable. Therefore, an SO has the Law 40 power to regulate occasional unilateral despicableness if it so desires. A partnership with an occasionally unilaterally despicable member is required to give a prior announcement. (Law 40A, Law 40B and Law 40E1) To avoid misconceptions, the 2005 Laws should elimanate one or both of "understandings" and "agreements" from Lawful vocabulary. Perhaps both of these words should be replaced by the word "expectations". Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 07:54:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:54:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F0281BA.6090306@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>Wayne, you are delusional. >> > > Really? > yes, really. > > This is rubbish. > > If I agree with my partner 10-12 and I open a particular 9 count > this proves nothing. And this is precisely what L40A says - I can > depart from commonly accepted practice. > But how do you prove it is "depart" and not "part of" ? If you play 15-17 and you open on 9, that is clearly "depart". But if you open on 14, you are using judgment, and I rule that this is part of your practice with that partner. And you would not mind me telling you it's 14.5-17 that you actually play, because there is no law against it. You will be asked to put that on your CC, and inform the opponents about the possibility and frequency. Similarly, if you open on 9 whilst playing 10-12, in Belgium, I will tell you to change your CC to 9.5-12 and I will tell your opponents they have been misinformed but probably not damaged. But then playing 9.5-12 is not forbidden in Belgium. Now if you do the same in the ACBL, the ruling should be the same. Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC might not be the one you are actually playing. And the system you are playing is an illegal one. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 07:58:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:58:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F02828C.2020306@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Not so. The system that has been deemed illegal is the agreement not > the practice. There is no proof that it is systemic. > And there is no proof that it isn't. But there is a big piece of evidence that says that it is: you've just done it, you have only deviated a little from what you have announced, AND you are barred from announcing correctly if you would like to. There's nothing stopping you from putting 14.5-17 on your CC, but you cannot put 9.5-12 on it. > There is no regulation nor is there a mandate for a regulation that > forbids opening any particular hand on a 9 count. > Which is why I allow you to open on 9 if playing 15-17. But I rule that you are playing 14.5-17 if you open on 14. And I rule that you are playing 9.5-12 if you open on 9 when your CC says 10-12. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 08:02:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:02:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F0283A2.5090103@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > > No that makes it judgement and style. In spite of playing the same > agreements it is common for two players to exercise different judgement. > Otherwise we would have no need for Master Solver's Clubs. > > The agreement can be regulated the judgement and style cannot. > > The agreement is a partnership matter the judgement and style is an > individual matter. > > I have never seen a regulation that stated that an individual cannot > open a 9 point hand. The regulations state that the partnership cannot > agree to open a 9 point hand. > > To me this is quite different. > Yes it is quite different. But when you open a 9pointer, how are you going to prove that this is not a partnership agreement? If you bid 2Di over 1NT, when holding hearts, is that not a piece of evidence that you may well have an agreement to play transfers? And if transfers are not on your CC, is it not possible that we rule that the CC is faulty? I'm not talking regulation here, I'm talking rulings. I'm not saying that the regulation forbids you to deviate from your agreements. I'm saying that I shall rule that it is part of your agreement, and there is no way you will be able to prove that it's not. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 08:09:54 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:09:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F028542.10002@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Well you have no right to rule that I have agreed something that I > have not agreed. > Yes I have, and I frequently do. > I frequently agree things with my partner's especially casual partner's > that I violate. My partner's will no nothing of that in advance because > we have had no discussion nor have we had any experience so how on earth > can you rule that it is an agreement. > And how do you expect me to believe you, when your actions are precisely the same ones as those from someone who HAS agreed to play an illegal system? > On Monday evening I played with a person that I have never played with > before. > > We agreed Acol with 12-14 NT. None of this prevented me opening on 11. > And I will believe you - because nothing prevents you from playing 11.5-14! > I can not see how you can justify telling my partner that we had an > agreement > to open a lower point count. > > Yours is the nonsense Herman. > > Even if I play with a regular partner and agree to open 12-14 there is > nothing > necessarily in that agreement that indicates that either partner will > open > any particular 11 count or 15 count. Yet that still may happen and it > is not > based on an agreement. For you to rule so without proof is in my > opinion > unbelievably arrogant. > No, for you to continue to open 9-counts, while writing 10-12 is arrogant. Opening on 11 whilst playing 12-14 can be any of three things: - a very first occurence; or - a regular event; or - an agreement with partner. And I don't care which it is , because all three allowed. But opening on 9 whilst playing 10-12 in certain regions can be one of the same three. And now I do mind, because the second and third are forbidden. If you can show me satisfactory evidence that it is the first, I might allow it, but how are you going to do that ? Again, I'm not talking regulation here, I'm talking ruling. There is no way you will be able, at the table, to convince me that you are not a lying cheat who is simply trying to play the system he wants to, regardless of regulations forbidding it. > Wayne > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 2 08:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > [snip] > > >In other words, I will make no call or play that > >will suggest that I'm aware partner may break our > >agreement. Should I tell opponents partner has a > >despicable but occasional habit? They are entitled > >to know, surely? > > [snip] > > Professor Twist replies: > > If *both* members of a partnership have the *same* > despicable but occasional habit of breaking their > explicit agreement in a particular way, then the > partnership's explicit agreement is merely a > subset of the partnership's broader implicit > agreement. Such a broader implicit agreement must > be disclosed. (Law 75A and Law 75B) There must also be a level of mutual awareness of the despicable habit. Of course such awareness will develop rapidly in common situations faced by a regular partnership. However it is also possible that TDs will rule, as DWS apparently suggests, that a despicable habit that applies only to a small number of exceptional hand types should be regarded as an understanding rather than an implicit agreement. > However, if only one member of the partnership is > occasionally despicable, then it is an infraction > of the English language to describe unilateral > despicableness as an implicit agreement of both > members of the partnership. > > But, it is a Law 40A and Law 40B partnership > *understanding* that one member of the partnership > is occasionally despicable. Therefore, an SO has > the Law 40 power to regulate occasional unilateral > despicableness if it so desires. But only if the despicable habit is related to conventional bids or natural 1 level bids more than a king from average strength. > A partnership with an occasionally unilaterally > despicable member is required to give a prior > announcement. (Law 40A, Law 40B and Law 40E1) Perhaps. Although the possibility of occasional despicability is surely general bridge knowledge. The official CC may/may not provide for such disclosure. In many cases the despicabilty can appropriately be disclosed by way of alerts/answers to questions. For example I am not allowed to put any information about John's psyching habits on an EBU CC but I would be failing in my duty of disclosure if I did not alert/answer questions fully and freely. > To avoid misconceptions, the 2005 Laws should > elimanate one or both of "understandings" and > "agreements" from Lawful vocabulary. Perhaps both > of these words should be replaced by the word > "expectations". I think that would be a shame. The distinction between agreements (subject to regulation and disclosure) and understandings (outwith regulation but subject to disclosure) seems a useful one to me. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 2 08:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam wrote: > > I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Might you need some > time to properly comply with the Laws? Indeed you might. Could > partner take advantage? If he does I hope your opponents will summon > the director. Will your opponents be damaged by your hesitation? It > seems unlikely -- your first priority must be to obey the Laws. This > is also where your self-interest lies. The scenario. Partner opens 1H and LHO overcalls 1S. I have a hand that really wants to be in 4H (preferably doubled) but I know that opponents will have a decent sacrifice in 4S. I start with a mild 3H because I believe that either opps will compete to 3S or pard will bid 4H anyway. Sadly pard hesitates over the 3S call. I now have two choices: either execute my original plan and bid 4H in good tempo or stop and consider all the ramifications of l16a before, in all probability, arriving at the conclusion that there is indeed no LA to 4H. If I choose the latter approach I *look* like a man bidding a reluctant 4H (ideal for nefarious purposes) and yet have a perfect excuse for the committee "I had a genuine problem deciding on whether there was an LA to 4H". I am of the opinion that once one has decided to walk the dog one must carry through *in tempo* regardless of UI from partner. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the law requires both to bid in tempo and to solve complex UI issues at the table and that I know myself incapable of complying with both simultaneously. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 2 09:27:57 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:27:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <8351585.1057134477462.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: >I think that would be a shame. The distinction between agreements (subject to regulation and disclosure) and understandings (outwith regulation but subject to disclosure) seems a useful one to me. Yes, I expect it probably does. It is a completely useless one to anybody else, of course - except people who wish to circumvent regulations by referring to their illegal actions as based on thing A rather than thing B. If you do X, and I understand that you will do X, then we are in agreement as far as your propensity to do X is concerned. There is, for practical purposes and all others, no difference between the terms "agreement" and "understanding" in the Laws; the use of two different terms is unfortunate, but a prosodist such as Kaplan would never use a single word twice where a synonym could be found. The "distinction" that someone appears to have made between the two is a fiction; the suggestion that both be replaced by "expectation" in the next revision has considerable merit. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 09:49:21 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:49:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <8351585.1057134477462.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F029C91.4080605@skynet.be> I am in complete agreement with DB on this one. We have a common understanding about this one. Note that this is not an expectation, though. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > TWM wrote: > > >>I think that would be a shame. The distinction between agreements (subject to regulation and disclosure) and understandings (outwith regulation but subject to disclosure) seems a useful one to me. >> > > Yes, I expect it probably does. It is a completely useless one to anybody else, of course - except people who wish to circumvent regulations by referring to their illegal actions as based on thing A rather than thing B. > > If you do X, and I understand that you will do X, then we are in agreement as far as your propensity to do X is concerned. There is, for practical purposes and all others, no difference between the terms "agreement" and "understanding" in the Laws; the use of two different terms is unfortunate, but a prosodist such as Kaplan would never use a single word twice where a synonym could be found. The "distinction" that someone appears to have made between the two is a fiction; the suggestion that both be replaced by "expectation" in the next revision has considerable merit. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 2 09:53:45 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:53:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury Message-ID: <000401c34078$23ddd6a0$c2da4c51@pc> Can you ebuites confirm at what level the dreaded Drury becomes a legal convention these days? lnb From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jul 2 10:23:04 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:23:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465AE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Level 2, OB 12.3.6 Any call which shows support for partner and the values for game opposite a non-minimum opening is allowed. This includes calls that could alternatively contain game values. Traditionally Drury 2C was a response by a passed hand. Since third hand openers on BLML have a minimum of balanced 8 count, a Drury 2C would need about 15HCP to have "the values for game opposite a non-minimum opening". Since all rule of 19 hands (including all 12 counts) are opened in first/second at level 2, Drury is permitted but no hands will qualify. Robin -----Original Message----- From: LarryBennett [mailto:larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: 02 July 2003 09:54 To: blml Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury Can you ebuites confirm at what level the dreaded Drury becomes a legal convention these days? lnb _______________________________________________ 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 2 10:22:17 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:22:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury In-Reply-To: <000401c34078$23ddd6a0$c2da4c51@pc> Message-ID: On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 09:53 AM, LarryBennett wrote: > Can you ebuites confirm at what level the dreaded Drury > becomes a legal convention these days? > > lnb Level 2. OB 14.2.4 Examples of conventions covered by 12.3.4 and 12.3.6 at Level 2 (previously Restricted Licence). Fit jumps (previously Fit-showing jumps) if showing values for a raise SNAP Drury -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 2 11:44:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <8351585.1057134477462.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: DB wrote: > If you do X, and I understand that you will do X, then we are in > agreement as far as your propensity to do X is concerned. And if you do Y and I understand that that you will do Y we have an understanding about that to. However we do not have an agreement. It is what I understand the terms "style and judgement" in L40E are trying to get at. The idea that players could be forced to use similar judgement to their partners is not one I like. The idea of giving yet more power to the local regulators when the chairman of EBUL&EC considers at least one of the existing ones ridiculous seems laughable. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 2 12:11:39 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:11:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: >And if you do Y and I understand that that you will do Y we have an understanding about that too. However we do not have an agreement. Nonsense. How would you answer the question: "Do you both agree that T has a propensity to do Y?" >The idea that players could be forced to use similar judgement to their partners is not one I like. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. But you may not "judge" that a nine count is a ten count. You may "judge" that nine-count P has more playing potential than ten-count Q; you may "judge" that a good result is more likely if you open nine-count P than if you open ten-count Q. But in a jurisdiction where you may not open a nine count, you may not open nine-count P regardless of what your "judgement" tells you to do. >The idea of giving yet more power to the local regulators when the chairman of EBUL&EC considers at least one of the existing ones ridiculous seems laughable. The chairman of the EBU L&EC considers the regulation ridiculous *in terms of bridge assumed to be played at a certain standard*. He does not consider it ridiculous at all in terms of creating an environment for players of a different standard; indeed, he considers it pretty much essential. And "power to the local regulators" is exactly what I want. I do not want "power" to be where it is at the moment, with a central body who cannot hope to define standards that will be suitable for all (or indeed any) environments. If St Johns Wood says that you can open six counts at the one level, that is fine with me - presumably, the management of St Johns Wood has decided that such an environment is one that it wants for its patrons and occasional visitors. The trouble is, of course, that you and Probst would then start opening five counts. There are those who understand what a rule is, and there are... well, I say no more. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 13:15:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> <000001c33f69$7fdcf950$0100a8c0@Desktop> <00a001c33f71$72ee9ac0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702141002.024d9260@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:19 1/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > We have a legal reg, decided long before my time on the L&EC, which >players must follow, and it covers agreements. The 120 questions about >what hand it is legal to bid on are really irrelevant: it is illegal not >to follow the reg, ie to have the wrong agreement is illegal. AG : I would accept this fully ; but the interpretation currently given to L/18 and other regulations goes too far : they don't only disallow you to have some agreement, they also disallow you to have legal agreements and depart form them. The *first* time you will open a L17 hand, you will be penalized. This is not even a "one in a lifetime rule", it is a "never do it" rule. *that* is the outrageous part. It clearly disobeys L75B. Best regards, Alain. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jul 2 13:13:52 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:13:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465AF@hotel.npl.co.uk> Alain writes: > The *first* time you will open a L17 hand, you will be penalized. > This is not even a "one in a lifetime rule", it is a "never do > it" rule. *that* is the outrageous part. It clearly disobeys L75B. Where do they do this? In principle, the TD will decide whether this is an agreement or a departure from agreements. If it is agreement and they have agreed to play conventions over this opening, then the TD will rule on an illegal agreement. If it is a departure from agreements, the TD will record the hand and allow the score to stand. Of course, pairs that manage to hide their agreements (from opponents and the TD) will get away with opponening sub-Lo19 hands for quite some while. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] Sent: 02 July 2003 13:15 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] HCP At 15:19 1/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > We have a legal reg, decided long before my time on the L&EC, which >players must follow, and it covers agreements. The 120 questions about >what hand it is legal to bid on are really irrelevant: it is illegal not >to follow the reg, ie to have the wrong agreement is illegal. AG : I would accept this fully ; but the interpretation currently given to L/18 and other regulations goes too far : they don't only disallow you to have some agreement, they also disallow you to have legal agreements and depart form them. The *first* time you will open a L17 hand, you will be penalized. This is not even a "one in a lifetime rule", it is a "never do it" rule. *that* is the outrageous part. It clearly disobeys L75B. Best regards, Alain. _______________________________________________ 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 2 13:19:06 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:19:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0281BA.6090306@skynet.be> References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030702081352.020136b0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:54 AM 7/2/03, Herman wrote: >Now if you do the same in the ACBL, the ruling should be the same. >Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC >might not be the one you are actually playing. And the system you are >playing is an illegal one. It's the "even one" that makes the legality of the ACBL's policy controversial. It is obviously legal to regulate practices that qualify as "implicit agreements", but the policy that makes "even one" deviation a presumptive implicit agreement defies common sense, logic, and the dictionary. 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 Jul 2 13:39:34 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:39:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Not a LA but... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030701170246.0271fec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <08c401c33fcb$7cca9cb0$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000701c33f48$2524f4c0$b72e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702143329.024db900@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:06 1/07/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Where I play, it would be normal to assume, absent a specific agreement to >the contrary, that both West's pass of 4C and East's pass of 4S were >forcing. Therefore if, when I asked West why he chose to bid 5D, he told >me that he assumed he was forced and could not pass, I would be inclined >to accept that statement without requiring him to produce any additional >evidence. YMMV. AG : MMIDV (My Mileage Indeed Does Vary). In a recent thread, many of us agreed that after recieving UI, you are not always allowed to do what you would have done anyway. IMOBO this is the case of "close" forcing-pass cases, and I would allow the argument only if it was explicitly mentioned that such a pass is forcng. Since nearly everybody plays a pass as forcing after freely-bid vulnerable (or at least V vs NV) games, but only part of the bridge players do play the other kinds (eg pass over 4C here), I'll require evidence that they do. For ewample, a pair which mentioned "commitment principle" on their CC would be allowed to bid 2S after p p 1S p 2C 2H ...p p because the pass over 2H is forcing (promises a sound opening). Other pairs would not. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 14:09:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:09:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F01FC97.9050007@skynet.be> References: <001b01c3400f$de302490$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702144458.024da8b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:26 1/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, most people will state "I want to open this hand because of this or >that redeeming feature". That makes it systemic to me, and they cannot >prove that it is not. >The same law which we use to state that someone who opens a 15-17NT on 14 >has to tell his opponents that this is possible, should also be used to >tell that a 9HCP opening is systemic when playing 10-12 1NT openers. AG : the problem is, the interdiction of opening 9HCP 1NTs is extended to first-time partnerships which can prove they are, where the deviation could not have occurred before. That is, you are deemed to have an agreement even when you can't have. I've seen it happen, and the pair was penalized. Even if you can prove that it's the first time you perpetrated some deviation, your partner is deemed to know you could do it -that's the sense of the word "agreement". Recently, I ran across an opponent who could not believe that we hadn't any agreement about a fairly uncommon auction (2N-3D-3S) in a long-established partnership. We hadn't. He demanded a guess as what the bid could mean, I gave him one, and it proved slightly wrong. Then he went angry. Why is it so incredible that you do some bid without having agreed that you could do it on the hand you happen to hold ? Doesn't it happen to each of us again and again ? >I'm absolutely certain they are. And I won't stop you from opening 1NT on >9HCP if your CC says you are playing 15-17. That is a psyche. But if your >CC says you play 15-17, and you open a 14HCP, I will rule that in actual >fact, you play 14.5-17, and that your opponents are misinformed (and very >probably not harmed). Similarly, if you open on 9HCP when your CC says >10-12, I will rule that you actually play 9.5-12, and have not put that on >the CC because it would be forbidden. AG : strange indeed. This is plainly inconsistent, in the logical sense of the term. There are several reasons why a player would open 1NT (15-17) on xx - K10x - AQ109x - xxx : a) he psyched b) he thought he was playing another system (possibly illegal) c) he wanted to pull 2D (or 2C including weak 2D) and slipped You decide, rightly so, that you don't know which is true and don't need to. There are several reasons why a player would open 1NT (15-17) on xx - K10x - AQ109x - AJx : a) he upgraded his hand to 15 b) he miscounted his points c) he thought he was playing 13-15, or whatever d) he wanted to pull 2D (natural, opening values) and slipped e) he was shooting for a top f) he ddin't see his cards and thought he had a singleton ... You decide that you *know* it was a). I can't accept it. Also, note that if said player opens 1D on a balanced 15 count, while playing 15-17 NTs, you won't pretend he has a special agreement to do so, but if he opens 1NT on 14, you will ... ??? This 1D opening I made last monday, and the reason was none of the above. Partner was angry at me (right or wrong, the jury is still out) and I decided it was better to maximize the chances that he'd play the next hand. And he did (in 2S). Nobody could have guessed it, yet you pretend to guess why a player opens an understrength 1NT ? Best regards, Alain. From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 2 13:59:34 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:59:34 -0300 Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. Message-ID: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Hi, Our national asociation (The Argentine bridge asociation) decided that in National tournaments systems that requiere a "prepared defense" won't be allowed. 1) I wonder what do you understand by a system that "requieres a prepared defense". 2) What do you think about this regulation? Tks, Luis. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 14:37:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:37:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F02828C.2020306@skynet.be> References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702153012.024e2ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:58 2/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>Not so. The system that has been deemed illegal is the agreement not the >>practice. There is no proof that it is systemic. > > >And there is no proof that it isn't. But there is a big piece of evidence >that says that it is: you've just done it, you have only deviated a little >from what you have announced, AND you are barred from announcing correctly >if you would like to. AG : what would you think of a court's decision that would look like this : "You drove dangerously. I know that it was because you were drunk. The evidence of this is that : 1) you drove dangerously 2) you can't admit you were drunk without being heavily sentenced. Therefore, I sentence you heavily" Absurd, isn't it ? Now, imagine an AC says : "You opened 1NT on 9. I know that it was because you had an agreement to do so. The evidence of this is that : 1) you opened 1NT on 9 2) you can't write it down on your CC without suffering hevy penalties. Therefore, I inflict a heavy penalty." Any reason why it would be less absurd than the previous example ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 14:44:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:44:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0283A2.5090103@skynet.be> References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702153857.024e5ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:02 2/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>No that makes it judgement and style. In spite of playing the same >>agreements it is common for two players to exercise different judgement. >>Otherwise we would have no need for Master Solver's Clubs. >>The agreement can be regulated the judgement and style cannot. >>The agreement is a partnership matter the judgement and style is an >>individual matter. >>I have never seen a regulation that stated that an individual cannot >>open a 9 point hand. The regulations state that the partnership cannot >>agree to open a 9 point hand. >>To me this is quite different. > > >Yes it is quite different. But when you open a 9pointer, how are you going >to prove that this is not a partnership agreement? AG : actor incumbit probatio (the burden of proof is on the one who asserts). A player may have a duty to prove he has some agreement, when he prentends having it. A player should not have a duty to prove he has no agreement, when somebody else pretends he has. If a player says that he counted 11, while holding 9, and if nothing in partner's bidding and play suggests he expected 9, you may penalize him according to L74B1 if you want, but you may not call him a liar without strong evidence. Remember, his statement is consistent with the fact than he opened on 9, so you can't take this fact as proof that his statement is false. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 14:48:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:48:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <8351585.1057134477462.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702154653.024e4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:27 2/07/2003 +0100, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >TWM wrote: > > >I think that would be a shame. The distinction between agreements > (subject to regulation and disclosure) and understandings (outwith > regulation but subject to disclosure) seems a useful one to me. > >Yes, I expect it probably does. It is a completely useless one to anybody >else, of course - except people who wish to circumvent regulations by >referring to their illegal actions as based on thing A rather than thing B. > >If you do X, and I understand that you will do X, then we are in agreement >as far as your propensity to do X is concerned. There is, for practical >purposes and all others, no difference between the terms "agreement" and >"understanding" in the Laws; the use of two different terms is >unfortunate, but a prosodist such as Kaplan would never use a single word >twice where a synonym could be found. AG : if this is the explanation -and I'll take your word that it is-, then it was a very bad idea. Law texts, like philosophical or mathematical treatises, are complex enough to avoid by all means creating confusion by the use of several words for the same thing. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 14:52:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155008.024e04e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:11 2/07/2003 +0100, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >TWM wrote: > > >And if you do Y and I understand that that you will do Y we have an > understanding about that too. However we do not have an agreement. > >Nonsense. How would you answer the question: "Do you both agree that T has >a propensity to do Y?" > > >The idea that players could be forced to use similar judgement to their > partners is not one I like. > >Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. But you may not "judge" that a >nine count is a ten count. You may "judge" that nine-count P has more >playing potential than ten-count Q; you may "judge" that a good result is >more likely if you open nine-count P than if you open ten-count Q. But in >a jurisdiction where you may not open a nine count, you may not open >nine-count P regardless of what your "judgement" tells you to do. AG : quite right. And you've just made a good point as to why such regulations should be avoided : a player could be compelled to act in an inferior way -or a way he feels inferior. Remembers me of the Fosbury affair. But there, good sense prevailed. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 14:40:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:40:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34024$2ff6a740$0100a8c0@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030702081352.020136b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F02E0D4.8050307@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:54 AM 7/2/03, Herman wrote: > >> Now if you do the same in the ACBL, the ruling should be the same. >> Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC >> might not be the one you are actually playing. And the system you are >> playing is an illegal one. > > > It's the "even one" that makes the legality of the ACBL's policy > controversial. It is obviously legal to regulate practices that qualify > as "implicit agreements", but the policy that makes "even one" deviation > a presumptive implicit agreement defies common sense, logic, and the > dictionary. > True, but isn't the "this is the first time I've done this" a self-serving statement, which must be discounted against the "and look at all my voids and tens". I agree that if it is truely the first time, it shouldn't count, but experience has tought me that it's always the same people who play very weak openings and then "just for the first time" transgress downwards. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 15:05:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:05:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465AF@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:13 2/07/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >Alain writes: > > The *first* time you will open a L17 hand, you will be penalized. > > This is not even a "one in a lifetime rule", it is a "never do > > it" rule. *that* is the outrageous part. It clearly disobeys L75B. > >Where do they do this? AG : here in Belgium. 1st case : A pair of intermediate-level players who played their first-ever session together was penalized for the following reason : West opens 2S. No alert. They've agreed to play weak two's, and weak two's aren't alertable. West happens to have something like KQ10xx - xx - Qxxx - Qx. At some moment during the play, North asks to East "6 cards, yeah ?". "Yep". Then he chooses the wrong endplay. Their hastily filled convention card doesn't mention the number of cards. E/W were penalized for wrong explanation and undisclosed "agreement". 2nd case : My partner, not known as an agressive bidder (this is an understatement : he is known in Brussels as The Submariner) opens 1D on a R17 hand, in second seat. His explanation was that he thought he was 3rd in hand (those openings were allowed 3rd in hand in that context). The deal was scored as 60 / 0 for illegal agreement. We were playing together for the third time IIRC, the first time since about 2 years. >In principle, the TD will decide whether this is an agreement or >a departure from agreements. AG : my view is that he'd rather have some evidence it was an agreement before deciding it. > If it is agreement and they have >agreed to play conventions over this opening, then the TD will >rule on an illegal agreement. If it is a departure from agreements, >the TD will record the hand and allow the score to stand. > >Of course, pairs that manage to hide their agreements (from >opponents and the TD) will get away with opponening sub-Lo19 >hands for quite some while. AG : would you believe me if I told you it wasn't our case ? Best regards, Alain. From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 2 14:00:40 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:00:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465AE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501c340a8$4c2b5ee0$8fdb4c51@pc> Indeed, but I'm refering to 1M, 2c......have you really got your bid? lnb > Level 2, OB 12.3.6 > Any call which shows support for partner and the values for game > opposite a non-minimum opening is allowed. This includes calls > that could alternatively contain game values. > > > Traditionally Drury 2C was a response by a passed hand. > Since third hand openers on BLML have a minimum of balanced > 8 count, a Drury 2C would need about 15HCP to have "the values > for game opposite a non-minimum opening". Since all rule of > 19 hands (including all 12 counts) are opened in first/second > at level 2, Drury is permitted but no hands will qualify. > > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: LarryBennett [mailto:larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: 02 July 2003 09:54 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury > > > Can you ebuites confirm at what level the dreaded Drury > becomes a legal convention these days? > > lnb > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ---------------------------------------------------------- --------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ---------------------------------------------------------- --------- > From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 2 15:59:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. In-Reply-To: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000301c340aa$956be500$6900a8c0@WINXP> If that is an accurate quotation of the regulation then I would say that = the regulation is far too imprecise to be of any use. Your first question = hits the nail on the head: What exactly allows you to determine whether a = system requires a prepared defense or not. In Norway we have a "similar" regulation: Systems are classified into = four different classes out of which one is the HUM (Highly Unusual Methods) category. There are specific criteria for determining when a system = shall be classified as HUM and HUM systems are only allowed in certain = tournaments (top level national championships for teams etc.). One of the conditions = for using a HUM system is that opponents must have been provided with = approved defense systems which such opponents are free to consult at any time = during auction and play. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Luis > Argerich > Sent: 2. juli 2003 15:00 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Our national asociation (The Argentine bridge asociation) decided that = in > National tournaments systems that > requiere a "prepared defense" won't be allowed. >=20 > 1) I wonder what do you understand by a system that "requieres a = prepared > defense". > 2) What do you think about this regulation? >=20 > Tks, > Luis. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 16:00:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:00:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0281BA.6090306@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 02:54 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC > might not be the one you are actually playing "Might not be" is not the same thing as "is not", yet you insist that it *is* the same thing. Maybe you ought to rethink that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 16:04:11 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0283A2.5090103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <70174CCA-AC9E-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 03:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes it is quite different. But when you open a 9pointer, how are you > going to prove that this is not a partnership agreement? Since when does he have to prove it? And what constitutes proof? If he and his partner say that this is *not* a matter of agreement, will you automatically decide they're (a) lying or (b) deluding themselves? It sure sounds like you will. :( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 16:07:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:07:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F028542.10002@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 03:09 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Again, I'm not talking regulation here, I'm talking ruling. There is > no way you will be able, at the table, to convince me that you are not > a lying cheat who is simply trying to play the system he wants to, > regardless of regulations forbidding it. > That does it. Herman, you are way over the top here. Wayne calls you unbelievably arrogant. I didn't want to go down that road, but he's right. I'm glad I don't live in Antwerp. :( From David Stevenson Wed Jul 2 12:19:28 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:19:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dr. Ury In-Reply-To: <000401c34078$23ddd6a0$c2da4c51@pc> References: <000401c34078$23ddd6a0$c2da4c51@pc> Message-ID: LarryBennett writes >Can you ebuites confirm at what level the dreaded Drury >becomes a legal convention these days? If played to guarantee a fit and values for the 3-level then it is L2 = OB 12.3.6. If it just shows values and enquires then L3 - OB 13.2.2. -- 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 Wed Jul 2 16:34:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:34:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F02E0D4.8050307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9D164F16-ACA2-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 09:40 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > True, but isn't the "this is the first time I've done this" a > self-serving statement, which must be discounted against the "and look > at all my voids and tens". I agree that if it is truely the first > time, it shouldn't count, but experience has tought me that it's > always the same people who play very weak openings and then "just for > the first time" transgress downwards. > What "voids and tens"? What are you talking about? If you mean that the self-serving statement "this is the first time I've done this" must be discounted because it *is* self-serving, I disagree. If you mean that your experience tells you they're lying, well, I suppose you know your experience better than I, but perhaps you should consider whether the hypothetical "transgressor" in this case is necessarily one of those "always the same people" with whom you are so familiar. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 16:37:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:37:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <11C9AF8A-ACA3-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 10:05 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > 1st case : > A pair of intermediate-level players who played their first-ever > session together was penalized for the following reason : > West opens 2S. No alert. They've agreed to play weak two's, and weak > two's aren't alertable. > West happens to have something like KQ10xx - xx - Qxxx - Qx. > At some moment during the play, North asks to East "6 cards, yeah ?". > "Yep". Then he chooses the wrong endplay. > Their hastily filled convention card doesn't mention the number of > cards. > E/W were penalized for wrong explanation and undisclosed "agreement". > > 2nd case : > My partner, not known as an agressive bidder (this is an > understatement : he is known in Brussels as The Submariner) opens 1D > on a R17 hand, in second seat. > His explanation was that he thought he was 3rd in hand (those openings > were allowed 3rd in hand in that context). > The deal was scored as 60 / 0 for illegal agreement. > We were playing together for the third time IIRC, the first time since > about 2 years. > Personal opinion: the above rulings are unmitigated bullshit, and whoever perpetrated them should be drawn and quartered. From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 2 16:58:31 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:58:31 -0300 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <11C9AF8A-ACA3-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <0c5501c340b2$cbdadb20$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Well I fully agree with you Ed, both rullings chilled me so much that I was even afraid of posting my opinion.... This kind of rulings enforce players to have a "back-me-up-please" convention card making it useless: 2s 4-11 cards 0-12 hcp. > > 1st case : > > A pair of intermediate-level players who played their first-ever > > session together was penalized for the following reason : > > West opens 2S. No alert. They've agreed to play weak two's, and weak > > two's aren't alertable. > > West happens to have something like KQ10xx - xx - Qxxx - Qx. > > At some moment during the play, North asks to East "6 cards, yeah ?". > > "Yep". Then he chooses the wrong endplay. > > Their hastily filled convention card doesn't mention the number of > > cards. > > E/W were penalized for wrong explanation and undisclosed "agreement". > > > > 2nd case : > > My partner, not known as an agressive bidder (this is an > > understatement : he is known in Brussels as The Submariner) opens 1D > > on a R17 hand, in second seat. > > His explanation was that he thought he was 3rd in hand (those openings > > were allowed 3rd in hand in that context). > > The deal was scored as 60 / 0 for illegal agreement. > > We were playing together for the third time IIRC, the first time since > > about 2 years. > > > Personal opinion: the above rulings are unmitigated bullshit, and > whoever perpetrated them should be drawn and quartered. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 2 17:06:09 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <200307021606.MAA18559@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > 1st case : > > A pair of intermediate-level players who played their first-ever > > session together... > > West opens 2S. No alert. They've agreed to play weak two's, and weak > > two's aren't alertable. > > ... North asks to East "6 cards, yeah ?". > > "Yep". [second case deleted] > From: Ed Reppert > Personal opinion: the above rulings are unmitigated bullshit, I wasn't going to comment, but... In contrast to Ed's view, to me it looks automatic to rule MI on the facts presented. A correct explanation would have been something along the lines of "We've agreed to play weak twos, but we have had no further discussion." East's actual answer confirms six card expected length, but there is no apparent basis for that being the agreement. Of course if EW really did agree that 2S promises six cards -- in which case we should have been told that by the OP -- I'd have more sympathy for Ed's view. As usual, the correct ruling depends on the exact facts of the case. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 2 17:08:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:08:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F03038E.2030403@skynet.be> OK, I'll rethink that: Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 02:54 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC >> might not be the one you are actually playing > > > "Might not be" is not the same thing as "is not", yet you insist that it > *is* the same thing. Maybe you ought to rethink that. > Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC is not the one you are actually playing. OK now? Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and that evidence can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 2 17:10:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:10:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <70174CCA-AC9E-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F0303FB.60300@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 03:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Yes it is quite different. But when you open a 9pointer, how are you >> going to prove that this is not a partnership agreement? > > > Since when does he have to prove it? And what constitutes proof? If he > and his partner say that this is *not* a matter of agreement, will you > automatically decide they're (a) lying or (b) deluding themselves? It > sure sounds like you will. :( > Well, the Law says that when no evidence is given, the Director shall rule mistaken information rather than mistaken bid. Are you suggesting this is a different situation? Might not the burden of proof lie with the person who claims he's done it only once? And don't forget that in the real world, the player will invariably point at his tens and voids and state that he "always" opens that hand. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 2 17:14:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:14:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F0304DA.5030203@skynet.be> Alain, don't go giving bad examples, please. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 13:13 2/07/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > >> Alain writes: >> > The *first* time you will open a L17 hand, you will be penalized. >> > This is not even a "one in a lifetime rule", it is a "never do >> > it" rule. *that* is the outrageous part. It clearly disobeys L75B. >> >> Where do they do this? > > > AG : here in Belgium. > > 1st case : > A pair of intermediate-level players who played their first-ever session > together was penalized for the following reason : > West opens 2S. No alert. They've agreed to play weak two's, and weak > two's aren't alertable. > West happens to have something like KQ10xx - xx - Qxxx - Qx. > At some moment during the play, North asks to East "6 cards, yeah ?". > "Yep". Then he chooses the wrong endplay. > Their hastily filled convention card doesn't mention the number of cards. > E/W were penalized for wrong explanation and undisclosed "agreement". > Well, isn't that just possible? Is it not the TD's duty to gather all the facts? If it is a fact that you have never played together then maybe that ruling is wrong, but maybe the TD did not believe you? > 2nd case : > My partner, not known as an agressive bidder (this is an understatement > : he is known in Brussels as The Submariner) opens 1D on a R17 hand, in > second seat. > His explanation was that he thought he was 3rd in hand (those openings > were allowed 3rd in hand in that context). > The deal was scored as 60 / 0 for illegal agreement. > We were playing together for the third time IIRC, the first time since > about 2 years. > Clearly a wrong ruling. Unless of course the TD did not believe your partner when he said he thought he was 3rd in hand. >> In principle, the TD will decide whether this is an agreement or >> a departure from agreements. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 2 17:41:07 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:41:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <11C9AF8A-ACA3-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:37 2/07/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 10:05 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>1st case : >>A pair of intermediate-level players who played their first-ever session >>together was penalized for the following reason : >>West opens 2S. No alert. They've agreed to play weak two's, and weak >>two's aren't alertable. >>West happens to have something like KQ10xx - xx - Qxxx - Qx. >>At some moment during the play, North asks to East "6 cards, yeah ?". >>"Yep". Then he chooses the wrong endplay. >>Their hastily filled convention card doesn't mention the number of cards. >>E/W were penalized for wrong explanation and undisclosed "agreement". >> >>2nd case : >>My partner, not known as an agressive bidder (this is an understatement : >>he is known in Brussels as The Submariner) opens 1D on a R17 hand, in >>second seat. >>His explanation was that he thought he was 3rd in hand (those openings >>were allowed 3rd in hand in that context). >>The deal was scored as 60 / 0 for illegal agreement. >>We were playing together for the third time IIRC, the first time since >>about 2 years. >Personal opinion: the above rulings are unmitigated b***t and whoever >perpetrated them should be drawn and quartered. AG : I agree emphatically. But the ACBL, several national committees, and several contributors tell us that at least the second case should be so treated. Perhaps some now understand why I pretend the regulations are going too far and should be fought. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 17:50:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:50:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03038E.2030403@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702184256.024ecb90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:08 2/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >OK, I'll rethink that: > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 02:54 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC >>>might not be the one you are actually playing >> >>"Might not be" is not the same thing as "is not", yet you insist that it >>*is* the same thing. Maybe you ought to rethink that. > > >Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC is >not the one you are actually playing. > > >OK now? AG : perfectly clear now. But L75B says that it will need several similar violations to create agreements, which emphatically means that "once isn't a habit". If the fact that you made bid X on hand Y was sufficient to create evidence, then the bid my opponent made three weeks ago (2C, nominally a weak 2H or several strong types, on a 2245 6-count) would be evidence that they agreed to open 2C on weak club-oriented hands. Of course, this is not the case. He thought, for some reason, that partner had opened 1C. I have to agree with you, however, that excessively aggressive players are usually the same which go below set requirements, but only usually. Best regards, Alain. From David Stevenson Wed Jul 2 17:11:29 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:11:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. In-Reply-To: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Luis Argerich writes >Our national asociation (The Argentine bridge asociation) decided that in >National tournaments systems that >requiere a "prepared defense" won't be allowed. > >1) I wonder what do you understand by a system that "requieres a prepared >defense". *Any* system *ever* devised. For example, Acol and Standard American certainly require a prepared defence. Luckily lots of people have done the work for us so we can just find out what other people play, eg take-out double, weak, intermediate or strong jump overcalls, Michaels, Ghestem [+] and so on. >2) What do you think about this regulation? It needs re-wording. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 2 18:56:12 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:56:12 -0300 Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. References: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <0d1a01c340c3$3c93b7a0$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> If we take into consideration WBF laws, would you say that Red or Yellow systems requiere a prepared defense? Both? What about green/blue systems? In all seriousness I think that the note requieres rewording and formalisation, I just wonder how can you categorize a system/convention as "requieres a prepared defense"... ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. > Luis Argerich writes > > >Our national asociation (The Argentine bridge asociation) decided that in > >National tournaments systems that > >requiere a "prepared defense" won't be allowed. > > > >1) I wonder what do you understand by a system that "requieres a prepared > >defense". > > *Any* system *ever* devised. > > For example, Acol and Standard American certainly require a prepared > defence. Luckily lots of people have done the work for us so we can > just find out what other people play, eg take-out double, weak, > intermediate or strong jump overcalls, Michaels, Ghestem [+] and so on. > > >2) What do you think about this regulation? > > It needs re-wording. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 2 19:31:25 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:31:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. References: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <009301c340c8$253e90c0$51a427d9@pbncomputer> DWS wrote: > >1) I wonder what do you understand by a system that "requieres a prepared > >defense". > > *Any* system *ever* devised. It's not as bad as that. One can defend against natural bids without playing two-suited overcalls, Western cue bids, or the like. I imagine that what is meant is a convention over which the meaning of certain calls cannot be deduced from general principles or bridge knowledge. For example, if our opponents play 2D as weak in a major or strong balanced, then I who am playing with you for the first time will not know what you have if you double. I may decide, on the general principle that double of an artificial bid shows the mentioned suit, that you have diamonds. Or I may decide that you simply have a strong hand, or a medium range no trump, or... However, even the simplest artificial or quasi-artificial calls require a degree of preparation by the defending side. If my opponents open one club that might be clubs, or balanced, or any strong hand (Polish, say), then I may not know what you have if you bid 2C (even though I know what you would have to bid 2H over 1H). For this reason, I regard the proposed regulation as far too wide-ranging; considerably more detail is required. David Burn London, England From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Jul 2 19:01:50 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:01:50 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03038E.2030403@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC > is not the one you are actually playing. I will accept that --- if you will accept in return that me writing something on my convention card or in my system notes is (quite strong) evidence of what my partner and I are playing (or trying to play, on the bad days.) I have a problem with the idea that a single deviation consists of *so much* evidence that it makes you assume the written system notes are lies. Two times, I can understand - and in a club game it is quite possible to know who does these things repeatedly. In a big tournament where most of the players are unfamiliar to you it is harder. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 21:14:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:14:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:41 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Perhaps some now understand why I pretend the regulations are going > too far and should be fought. Perhaps it's time we stopped pretending and went at it tooth and nail. I just got back from the funeral of a long term partner. In discussing Dick's interest in bridge with some non bridge players, another player (he happens to be the TD at the club at which Dick and I mostly played) said that "bridge won't outlast our generation". He's in his 60s, Dick was 73. I'm 56. If he's right (and he may well be) then fighting this crap certainly won't do any harm, and might even do some good. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 21:27:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:27:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0303FB.60300@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:10 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, the Law says that when no evidence is given, the Director shall > rule mistaken information rather than mistaken bid. Are you suggesting > this is a different situation? Might not the burden of proof lie with > the person who claims he's done it only once? The parenthetical note in the footnote to Law 75 says "(Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)" This means that if the decision is between mistaken bid and mistaken explanation, you presume the latter if there is no evidence pointing to the former. In the case in question, however, there is no question whether it was a mistaken bid - it was not. The bidder said so. He said in his judgment, given their agreement to open on 10-12, this hand was worth an opening bid. Excuse me. If you define "mistaken bid" to include hands which in the bidder's judgment fit the bid, but in the judgment of his peers (not the TD, mind you) it didn't, then this bid was a mistaken bid. But you can't have it both ways. Either it was a mistaken bid, or it wasn't. If it was, you can't call it a mistaken explanation, and in all fairness, IMO, you can't call it illegal either. If it wasn't a mistaken bid, then you can't call it a mistaken explanation unless, in *every* case where explanations are given, you require players who may use their judgment to deviate from some absolute numerical method of hand evaluation to explicitly say so. Are you willing to do that? > And don't forget that in the real world, the player will invariably > point at his tens and voids and state that he "always" opens that > hand. "No generalization is true". - Robert A. Heinlein From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 2 21:33:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:33:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03038E.2030403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7A9E1658-ACCC-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:08 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC > is not the one you are actually playing. > > > OK now? > Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and that evidence > can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? > Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the conclusion to which you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of evidence". I haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and I have seen that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition that the conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct one. So no, not okay. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 2 21:44:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:44:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Non deterministic regulations opinion wanted. In-Reply-To: <0b4f01c34099$cc6d6080$2b00a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030702164137.00a1c220@pop.starpower.net> At 08:59 AM 7/2/03, Luis wrote: >Our national asociation (The Argentine bridge asociation) decided that in >National tournaments systems that >requiere a "prepared defense" won't be allowed. > >1) I wonder what do you understand by a system that "requieres a prepared >defense". In the context of a single pair, it means a system with which the pair is unfamiliar. In the context of an NCBO regulation, I'm not sure it means anything. >2) What do you think about this regulation? I think it's a backhanded way of saying, "Only systems we choose to consider 'standard' are allowed." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@tameware.com Thu Jul 3 02:49:04 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:49:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:32 AM +0100 7/2/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: >I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the law requires both to bid >in tempo and to solve complex UI issues at the table and that I know >myself incapable of complying with both simultaneously. 1. Urge your partner to make his calls in tempo, so that you won't face this problem. 2. Urge your directors and AC's to be consistent in ruling against those who may have profited from UI, so that partner won't have any incentive to transmit UI, even subconsciously. 3. I often have problems at the table I don't have the time to solve well. One does one's best - that's the nature of the game. 4. If you were to change the law, what change would you make? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 3 05:50:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:50:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wolves and Sheep (was HCP) Message-ID: The HCP thread has veered into a debate about a hard-line aspect of the De Wael School, and the hard-line regs of some Sponsoring Organisations. I can see where Herman is coming from - an occasional problem for TDs are villains who deliberately infract Law 40B by deliberately lying about their partnership agreements. However, I disagree with Herman's "solution" to the Law 40B problem: 1. dWS TDs hardly ever rule a misbid, and 2. dWS TDs almost always rule a misexplanation. Sure, this draconian "justice" means that wolves in sheep's clothing do not profit from their villainy. But, this wide net Herman casts unjustly entangles the vast majority of players who are sheep in sheep's clothing. Many years ago, the ACBL tried to stamp out slow play with a Hermanesque policy of penalising everyone at the ACBL Nationals, both slow players *and* their innocent opponents. This policy was answered with a universal "Baa, humbug!" by the sheep, and the ACBL was forced to reverse the policy. Surely there must be a better way of targeting the wolves *without* fleecing the sheep. For what it is worth, this is my solution: a) Slightly wolfish players get their entry fee for a particular event declined and returned. Hopefully, those players will take the hint, and be lapdogs in a subsequent event. b) Rabidly wolfish players get their annual membership fee of the Sponsoring Organisation declined and returned. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 08:16:22 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:16:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <7A9E1658-ACCC-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F03D846.8050805@skynet.be> Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:08 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC >> is not the one you are actually playing. >> >> >> OK now? >> Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and that evidence >> can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? >> > Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the conclusion to which > you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of evidence". I > haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and I have seen > that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition that the > conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct one. So no, not > okay. > What evidence? How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always wrong in ruling as I do - how can you do that? Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you accept that you can rule against this player? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 08:20:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:20:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F03D92A.9020604@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:10 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Well, the Law says that when no evidence is given, the Director shall >> rule mistaken information rather than mistaken bid. Are you suggesting >> this is a different situation? Might not the burden of proof lie with >> the person who claims he's done it only once? > > > The parenthetical note in the footnote to Law 75 says "(Regardless of > damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director > is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the > absence of evidence to the contrary.)" This means that if the decision > is between mistaken bid and mistaken explanation, you presume the latter > if there is no evidence pointing to the former. In the case in question, > however, there is no question whether it was a mistaken bid - it was > not. The bidder said so. He said in his judgment, given their agreement > to open on 10-12, this hand was worth an opening bid. So it's not a "mistaken bid". So it's a systemic one - OK? What more do you want me to say? Excuse me. If you > define "mistaken bid" to include hands which in the bidder's judgment > fit the bid, but in the judgment of his peers (not the TD, mind you) it > didn't, then this bid was a mistaken bid. But you can't have it both > ways. Either it was a mistaken bid, or it wasn't. If it was, you can't > call it a mistaken explanation, and in all fairness, IMO, you can't call > it illegal either. If it wasn't a mistaken bid, then you can't call it a > mistaken explanation unless, in *every* case where explanations are > given, you require players who may use their judgment to deviate from > some absolute numerical method of hand evaluation to explicitly say so. > Are you willing to do that? > Yes of course, that is exactly what this discussion is all about. A system in which a hand that falls below a particular value (in this case 10HCP) can be opened in a particular manner (1NT) is a forbidden system. You have just admitted that you might well rule that this opening, for this player, is not a mistaken bid - so it is systemic, so that system is forbidden. Again, what more do you need? >> And don't forget that in the real world, the player will invariably >> point at his tens and voids and state that he "always" opens that > hand. > > > "No generalization is true". - Robert A. Heinlein > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 08:20:53 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:20:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F03D955.1000106@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:14 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Clearly a wrong ruling. Unless of course the TD did not believe your >> partner when he said he thought he was 3rd in hand. >> > Do TDs in Belgium (or anywhere, for that matter) really routinely > believe that players lie to them when asked questions? Why are not more > players banned from the game, then? > So TDs in the ACBL invariably believ what playerss tell them, perhaps? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 08:22:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:22:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F03D9BE.1020001@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 11:37 2/07/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> > >> Personal opinion: the above rulings are unmitigated b***t and whoever >> perpetrated them should be drawn and quartered. > > > AG : I agree emphatically. But the ACBL, several national committees, > and several contributors tell us that at least the second case should be > so treated. > Perhaps some now understand why I pretend the regulations are going too > far and should be fought. > > No they don't, and they shouldn't. The TD is to weigh all pieces of evidence (including the statement that partner thought he was third in hand) and decide whether or not a particular opening is systemic or not. And if he decides it is, and the hand does not follow the simple rule, then the system is forbidden. Quite easy, really. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 3 09:47:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:47:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D955.1000106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0955E1D2-AD33-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > So TDs in the ACBL invariably believ what playerss tell them, perhaps? Of course not. But my admittedly limited experience suggest players are much more likely to tell the truth than to lie when asked questions by the TD. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 3 10:10:40 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:10:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: <3F0303FB.60300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111018.024ffe70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:27 2/07/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >"No generalization is true". - Robert A. Heinlein AG : especially that very one. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 3 10:24:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:24:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D9BE.1020001@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111511.025022f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:22 3/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>At 11:37 2/07/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >>>Personal opinion: the above rulings are unmitigated b***t and whoever >>>perpetrated them should be drawn and quartered. >> >>AG : I agree emphatically. But the ACBL, several national committees, and >>several contributors tell us that at least the second case should be so >>treated. >>Perhaps some now understand why I pretend the regulations are going too >>far and should be fought. > > >No they don't, and they shouldn't. >The TD is to weigh all pieces of evidence (including the statement that >partner thought he was third in hand) and decide whether or not a >particular opening is systemic or not. >And if he decides it is, and the hand does not follow the simple rule, >then the system is forbidden. Quite easy, really. AG : yes, that's the easy stuff. The harder part, as several have pointed out, is that you can't decide this between saying that the player lies. This is quite a drastic position. It can't be taken from the mere evidence that the player made the bid. You say that, barring other evidence, the fact that he made the bid is strong enough evidence to tell that this is a systemic bid. Do you really believe that every bid made by every player is a systemic bid ? Do you really believe that the CC is lesser evidence than this ? Why then do we demand CCs ? Of course it is a bit caricatural, but your position can be summed up as : "you did it on purpose. The main piece of evidence for saying this is that you did it." Or, even more sketchy : "nobody ever does anything involuntarily" Do you believe it would be accepted by any Court ? From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 10:11:26 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:11:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <0955E1D2-AD33-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F03F33E.4020905@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> So TDs in the ACBL invariably believ what playerss tell them, perhaps? > > > Of course not. But my admittedly limited experience suggest players are > much more likely to tell the truth than to lie when asked questions by > the TD. > And in what way does that contradict my post that began this sub-thread? To recap: "Maybe the TD did not believe the player?" > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 10:16:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:16:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111511.025022f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F03F451.4080609@skynet.be> Don't turn things around, Alain: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > AG : yes, that's the easy stuff. The harder part, as several have > pointed out, is that you can't decide this between saying that the > player lies. > This is quite a drastic position. It can't be taken from the mere > evidence that the player made the bid. > > You say that, barring other evidence, the fact that he made the bid is > strong enough evidence to tell that this is a systemic bid. > And you say that, barring any evidence, the fact that he made the bid is evidence that it is not. > Do you really believe that every bid made by every player is a systemic > bid ? > Well, don't you believe that a bid is systemic unless a player can point to some piece of evidence that it is not? > Do you really believe that the CC is lesser evidence than this ? > Why then do we demand CCs ? > And do you really believe that CC's, in general, are well filled-in? When someone opens a 14-count as 15-17, do you believe he is playing 14.5-17 or 15-17? I'm willing to accept miscounting, tiredness and all such excuses, but I'm not accepting the two tens and the five-card diamond suit. > Of course it is a bit caricatural, but your position can be summed up as : > "you did it on purpose. The main piece of evidence for saying this is > that you did it." > Or, even more sketchy : "nobody ever does anything involuntarily" Well, your point seems to be that a player never does anything on purpose. > Do you believe it would be accepted by any Court ? > Yes. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 08:13:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:13:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F03D78A.4080607@skynet.be> In general, I'd agree with you, Gordon, Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC >>is not the one you are actually playing. >> > > I will accept that --- if you will accept in return that me writing > something on my convention card or in my system notes is (quite strong) > evidence of what my partner and I are playing (or trying to play, on the > bad days.) > > I have a problem with the idea that a single deviation consists of *so > much* evidence that it makes you assume the written system notes are lies. > Two times, I can understand - and in a club game it is quite possible to > know who does these things repeatedly. In a big tournament where most of > the players are unfamiliar to you it is harder. > In general, I'd agree. But if you write on your CC 10-12, and you open on 9, AND 9-12 would be a forbidden system, then yes, I'd say straight away that you are a liar. > GRB > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 3 11:53:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:53:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange Book Message-ID: <003001c34151$661c6840$619868d5@tinyhrieuyik> The EBU seeks feedback on the Orange Book. For its current purpose, the Orange book is good; a few small personal quibbles... (1) I would rather that there were only 2 or at the most 3 levels of competition. No Fear (WBF standard card or whatever). Unrestricted (except perhaps for HUMs). HUMs allowed. (2) Please retain the HTML format as well as (or instead of) the dreaded PDF as I get frustrated trying to download and use the slow and bulky PDF reader. (3) Please collect all the definitions into one Glossary rather than scatter them throughout the book. (4) Insist that people specify HCP truthfully (i.e. in a way that the Walrus would recognise) (5) Clear up the confusion about 3rd-hand opening understandings and the rule of 19. (6) Clear up any confusion about varying HCP requirements in 4th seat for example, see separate thread "Multi 4th" (7) Publicise and enforce. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30/06/2003 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Jul 2 20:37:26 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:37:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <001b01c3400f$de302490$0100a8c0@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702144458.024da8b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301c34154$eca991a0$84053dd4@b0e7g1> > Recently, I ran across an opponent who could not believe that we hadn't any > agreement about a fairly uncommon auction (2N-3D-3S) in a long-established > partnership. We hadn't. He demanded a guess as what the bid could mean, I > gave him one . . . . . Now your partner knows how you have taken it up! Ben From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 3 12:27:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:27:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multi 4th Message-ID: <003601c34156$1b98d6a0$619868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [cross-posted from rec.games.bridge, where it got no reply] Nobody who plays Multi seems to have read the Orange Book. My partner and I play Multi and our CC specifies one of our Multi 2D options as... 6-10 HCP with 5+H/S. My partner cravenly refuses to open the bidding with 6 counts, in fourth seat, vul against not. Unfortunately, we recently played somebody who has read the Orange book and pointed out that if forbids you from "treating" the point count requirements for Multi. The EBU Orange book (9.4.1) defines treatments "In the 'treatment' of a permitted convention, you may alter the suit length(s) only if this does not change the nature of the convention, and you may change the range of values only if the different range is: The same width or narrower and not weaker. You may not change suits [SNIP]" The Orange Book (9.4.3) issues a special caveat for the Multi... "Certain permitted conventions may not be 'treated' at all and you should check the descriptions before using them: Multi-2 at Level 3 (13.4.2) [SNIP]" Later, the Orange Book (13.4.2) describes Multi "Multi-2: you may play it as one of: (a) a weak unspecified 5+ card major which must have a defined range of no more than 5 HCPs, a minimum strength of 4 HCPs and a maximum of 12 HCPs [SNIP]" The Orange Book insists that you include meaning (a) as one of the meanings of Multi. Please will the Orange Book allow us to "treat" bidding requirements in fourth seat. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30/06/2003 From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 3 12:55:39 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:55:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03F451.4080609@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111511.025022f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703134809.02500840@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:16 3/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Don't turn things around, Alain: > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>AG : yes, that's the easy stuff. The harder part, as several have pointed= =20 >>out, is that you can't decide this between saying that the player lies. >>This is quite a drastic position. It can't be taken from the mere=20 >>evidence that the player made the bid. >>You say that, barring other evidence, the fact that he made the bid is=20 >>strong enough evidence to tell that this is a systemic bid. > > >And you say that, barring any evidence, the fact that he made the bid is=20 >evidence that it is not. AG : no. I only say that you need *very strong* evidence to call somebody a= =20 liar. (of course, frequent discrepancies with the announced system may be the=20 strong evidence you need) >>Do you really believe that every bid made by every player is a systemic= bid ? > > >Well, don't you believe that a bid is systemic unless a player can point=20 >to some piece of evidence that it is not? AG : actor incumbit probatio. Ever heard of "pr=E9somption d'innocence ?"=20 (sorry, don't know the English phrase). If you and the player pretend=20 opopsite things, it's you, the prosecutor, who have to produce the evidence. >Well, your point seems to be that a player never does anything on purpose. > AG : no. I mean that when you need to determine whether he did, you need=20 strong evidence (the French phrase : faisceau de pr=E9somptions =3D bundle= of=20 evidence items) >>Do you believe it would be accepted by any Court ? > > >Yes. AG : you're wrong, for the reason mentioned hereabove. In the Sandeman case, odds of billions to one were considered insufficient= =20 to call somebody a cheat. In the cases we're speaking of, you'd like to call somebody a liar, and in= =20 some sense a cheat, based on odds of (rough estimation) 4 to 1 (80%=20 probability that he did it on purpose). Bet it won't work ? From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 3 13:12:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:12:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030703080125.01ffea00@pop.starpower.net> At 09:49 PM 7/2/03, Adam wrote: >At 8:32 AM +0100 7/2/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: >>I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the law requires both to bid >>in tempo and to solve complex UI issues at the table and that I know >>myself incapable of complying with both simultaneously. > >1. Urge your partner to make his calls in tempo, so that you won't >face this problem. > >2. Urge your directors and AC's to be consistent in ruling against >those who may have profited from UI, so that partner won't have any >incentive to transmit UI, even subconsciously. > >3. I often have problems at the table I don't have the time to solve >well. One does one's best - that's the nature of the game. > >4. If you were to change the law, what change would you make? The ACBL in particular would have to start by enabling the "reservation of rights" clause in L16A1, and encouraging its use. Then have a rule that says that when a player has been determined to have UI, he is required to hesitate (and appear to be considering his call), just as when bidding after a skip bid. Richard Colker has long argued that skip bids are not the only situations in which it should be considered normal (as opposed to UI-generating) for a player to take some time for thought. This seems like an obvious case. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 13:24:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:24:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702185219.024ec260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703112445.02505160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F042069.7050307@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> So the TD got it wrong - is that so surprising? >> And what does that prove? > > > AG : it proves that the principle of "under L18, penalize" , as > advocated by the ACBL, FFB, VBL and LBF, goes too far. The problem, you > see, is not that the TD erred. He went with the law. The lawmakers erred. > No they didn't. The TD erred when he believed those SO's say L18=penalize. And I'm not saying that either. What I'm saying is that when a player breaks the L18, or the ACBL regulation of 9points 1NT, AND he cannot provide a good reason, AND it's a small deviation from the pre-announced range, THEN we should penalize. So if we believe your partner who thought he was 3rd in hand, we don't penalize. Or if someone opens a 9HCP 1NT when announcing 15-17, we don't. Or if I open a 3rd hand 1He on 2HCP, we don't penalize. But we do penalize a 1Sp-opening on AJTxx KTxx T987 - when R18 is in force, and when the player points at the tens and the void. Because I judge the last one to be systemic, the first three not. It's not the regulation that is faulty, it's some people's perception of it. Including yours I'm afraid. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 3 13:32:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:32:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D846.8050805@skynet.be> References: <7A9E1658-ACCC-11D7-9947-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030703081415.02019020@pop.starpower.net> At 03:16 AM 7/3/03, Herman wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the conclusion to >>which you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of >>evidence". I haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and >>I have seen that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition >>that the conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct one. >>So no, not okay. >What evidence? > >How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about >other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? > >I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but >you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always wrong in >ruling as I do - how can you do that? > >Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary >evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would >always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you >accept that you can rule against this player? Even a player who would always open a particular hand in violation of his stated agreements might well be playing with a first-time partner who has no idea of this, in which case there's no case to be made for an actual "implicit agreement" at odds with the stated one. An "agreement" isn't defined by what you hold; it's defined by what partner expects you to hold. Partner's subsequent bidding often consitutes the most compelling "evidence" of whether or not an implicit agreement exists. In general, there will always be "contrary" evidence, if only in the testimony of the presumptive offender. His statements will, of course, be "self-serving", and we are required to discount self-serving statements, but must be careful to recognize the difference between "discount" and "ignore". 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 Jul 3 13:50:08 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:50:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030703080125.01ffea00@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703144708.02501750@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:12 3/07/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:49 PM 7/2/03, Adam wrote: > >>At 8:32 AM +0100 7/2/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: >>>I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the law requires both to bid >>>in tempo and to solve complex UI issues at the table and that I know >>>myself incapable of complying with both simultaneously. >> >>1. Urge your partner to make his calls in tempo, so that you won't face >>this problem. >> >>2. Urge your directors and AC's to be consistent in ruling against those >>who may have profited from UI, so that partner won't have any incentive >>to transmit UI, even subconsciously. >> >>3. I often have problems at the table I don't have the time to solve >>well. One does one's best - that's the nature of the game. >> >>4. If you were to change the law, what change would you make? > >The ACBL in particular would have to start by enabling the "reservation of >rights" clause in L16A1, and encouraging its use. Then have a rule that >says that when a player has been determined to have UI, he is required to >hesitate (and appear to be considering his call), just as when bidding >after a skip bid. AG : good idea, but only usable at some level of play. Palyers who didn't' reserve their rights" would then be placed in the same situation as players who didn't use the Stop card ; the must be (made) fully aware of this. >Richard Colker has long argued that skip bids are not the only situations >in which it should be considered normal (as opposed to UI-generating) for >a player to take some time for thought. This seems like an obvious case. AG : listing the cases would be difficult, but is worth trying (and telling the TDs and ACs). My favorite situation would be after a penalty double or lead-directing double. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 3 13:36:53 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:36:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D955.1000106@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030703083422.0200db80@pop.starpower.net> At 03:20 AM 7/3/03, Herman wrote: >So TDs in the ACBL invariably believ what playerss tell them, perhaps? Not invariably, only in the absense of any evidence to the contrary. It's the American way. 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 Jul 3 14:07:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:07:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F042069.7050307@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702185219.024ec260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703112445.02505160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703145030.02506c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:24 3/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >The TD erred when he believed those SO's say L18=penalize. >And I'm not saying that either. AG : many a Belgian or French tournament notice says it. And, if I understood previous contributions correctly, ACBL general regulations do, too. Several Belgian clubs enforce it systematically (eg Forum, UAE) etc. Now the TDs are constrained by it, alas. >What I'm saying is that when a player breaks the L18, or the ACBL >regulation of 9points 1NT, AND he cannot provide a good reason AG : where in the laws, conditions of contest etc. is there a list of "good reasons" ? Also, there is the traditional problem : quick-minded, crafty, players will find a reason ; honest players won't. >, AND it's a small deviation from the pre-announced range, THEN we should >penalize. > >So if we believe your partner who thought he was 3rd in hand, we don't >penalize. >Or if someone opens a 9HCP 1NT when announcing 15-17, we don't. >Or if I open a 3rd hand 1He on 2HCP, we don't penalize. >But we do penalize a 1Sp-opening on AJTxx KTxx T987 - when R18 is in >force, and when the player points at the tens and the void. >Because I judge the last one to be systemic, the first three not. > >It's not the regulation that is faulty, it's some people's perception of >it. Including yours I'm afraid. AG : OK, the final two quesstion from me. Feel free to respond or not. I'll keep mum. 1) When the player shows the 10s and 9s, on which grounds do you judge that the deviation is systemic rather than exceptional ? After all, a hand with so many intermediates (and a void rather than 22 residue) is quite uncommon. And the fact that the player did open is compatible with both "systemic" and "exceptional". [ To fuzzy logic specialists : if A pi C and B pi C, then the A vs B issue can't be decided from C's appearance. Non-specialists could be advised to read literature on "prime implicants" (Ragin, Berg-Schlosser, De Meur, Rihoux et al) ] 2) Wouldn't it be fairer to replace your sovereign judgment by acceptance of a "first time" and registration, like we do with psyches ? And a final word : don't imagine that I want to open this hand 1S. 2C is a better opening. I'm just mentioning my ideas of what fairness, and sound use of Boolean algebra are. Best ragards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 3 14:09:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:09:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030703083422.0200db80@pop.starpower.net> References: <3F03D955.1000106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703150854.024f7d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:36 3/07/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:20 AM 7/3/03, Herman wrote: > >>So TDs in the ACBL invariably believ what playerss tell them, perhaps? > >Not invariably, only in the absense of any evidence to the contrary. It's >the American way. AG : it's the only way compatible with the Bill of Rights and all subsequent versions. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 3 14:16:12 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:16:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702185219.024ec260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703112445.02505160@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703145030.02506c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F042C9C.8060803@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:24 3/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The TD erred when he believed those SO's say L18=penalize. >> And I'm not saying that either. > > > AG : many a Belgian or French tournament notice says it. And, if I > understood previous contributions correctly, ACBL general regulations > do, too. Several Belgian clubs enforce it systematically (eg Forum, UAE) > etc. Now the TDs are constrained by it, alas. > Well, these notices are wrong, and you are right to argue against it. But none of the notices actually ban psyching, do they? So they are not as absolute as you might think. Which brings me back to my original point: the mere fact of breaking the R18 once can easily be seen as enough evidence of a systemic agreement. > > >> What I'm saying is that when a player breaks the L18, or the ACBL >> regulation of 9points 1NT, AND he cannot provide a good reason > > > AG : where in the laws, conditions of contest etc. is there a list of > "good reasons" ? Nowhere - that's where tournament director's experience comes in. > Also, there is the traditional problem : quick-minded, crafty, players > will find a reason ; honest players won't. > Which is why many reasons will not be accepted. And which may be why your partner's assertion that he thought he was in third seat was not accepted. > >> , AND it's a small deviation from the pre-announced range, THEN we >> should penalize. >> >> So if we believe your partner who thought he was 3rd in hand, we don't >> penalize. >> Or if someone opens a 9HCP 1NT when announcing 15-17, we don't. >> Or if I open a 3rd hand 1He on 2HCP, we don't penalize. >> But we do penalize a 1Sp-opening on AJTxx KTxx T987 - when R18 is in >> force, and when the player points at the tens and the void. >> Because I judge the last one to be systemic, the first three not. >> >> It's not the regulation that is faulty, it's some people's perception >> of it. Including yours I'm afraid. > > > AG : OK, the final two quesstion from me. Feel free to respond or not. > I'll keep mum. > > 1) When the player shows the 10s and 9s, on which grounds do you judge > that the deviation is systemic rather than exceptional ? After all, a > hand with so many intermediates (and a void rather than 22 residue) is > quite uncommon. > And the fact that the player did open is compatible with both "systemic" > and "exceptional". > Because by showing the 10s and 9s, the player explicitely states that in his opinion, the hand is "worth" an opening bid. That makes it systemic to me. It's as if the player were using a different point count, and stating that in his system 19QP are enough to open. If the hand with 19QP can be one with only 9HCP, then the system to open with 19QP is illegal. The player showing the 10s and 9s is doing exactly the same but less formally. > [ To fuzzy logic specialists : if A pi C and B pi C, then the A vs B > issue can't be decided from C's appearance. Non-specialists could be > advised to read literature on "prime implicants" (Ragin, Berg-Schlosser, > De Meur, Rihoux et al) ] > > 2) Wouldn't it be fairer to replace your sovereign judgment by > acceptance of a "first time" and registration, like we do with psyches ? > No, because as with psyches, the system simply does not work. We must rely on other things than repetition. A first time psyche which is covered by system is much worse than a psyche that one performs twice a year, even if one has played 20 years and has consequently done the same thing 40 times. > And a final word : don't imagine that I want to open this hand 1S. 2C is > a better opening. > I'm just mentioning my ideas of what fairness, and sound use of Boolean > algebra are. > > Best ragards, > > Alain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 3 17:30:53 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:30:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: In article <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1>, dalburn@btopenworld.com writes >TWM wrote: > >>And if you do Y and I understand that that you will do Y we have an >understanding about that too. However we do not have an agreement. > >Nonsense. How would you answer the question: "Do you both agree that T has a >propensity to do Y?" > >>The idea that players could be forced to use similar judgement to their >partners is not one I like. > >Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. But you may not "judge" that a nine >count is a ten count. You may "judge" that nine-count P has more playing >potential than ten-count Q; you may "judge" that a good result is more likely if >you open nine-count P than if you open ten-count Q. But in a jurisdiction where >you may not open a nine count, you may not open nine-count P regardless of what >your "judgement" tells you to do. > >>The idea of giving yet more power to the local regulators when the chairman of >EBUL&EC considers at least one of the existing ones ridiculous seems laughable. > >The chairman of the EBU L&EC considers the regulation ridiculous *in terms of >bridge assumed to be played at a certain standard*. He does not consider it >ridiculous at all in terms of creating an environment for players of a different >standard; indeed, he considers it pretty much essential. > >And "power to the local regulators" is exactly what I want. I do not want >"power" to be where it is at the moment, with a central body who cannot hope to >define standards that will be suitable for all (or indeed any) environments. If >St Johns Wood says that you can open six counts at the one level, that is fine >with me - presumably, the management of St Johns Wood has decided that such an >environment is one that it wants for its patrons and occasional visitors. Fortunately there are no such regulations at St John's Wood. The complete set of regulations for St Johns Wood BC is published on the members notice board in 18 point on a single sheet of A4. It basically says you are allowed to play bridge, but you can't use many conventions. No-one would dream of telling Natalie that her idea of a Strong 2 would get her a psyche record with the EBU, as indeed no-one would tell John Lewis that regular 5-card pre-empts are not necessarily good bridge, but again would get him into the EBU psyche book at least once a day. > The >trouble is, of course, that you and Probst would then start opening five counts. >There are those who understand what a rule is, and there are... well, I say no >more. Tim and I have no problem obeying the regulations of St Johns Wood BC, and fortunately there is no regulation which stops us using our judgement. In other words we have agreements and we depart from them from time to time. Our agreements are legal within the framework of St Johns Wood BC (as indeed are our agreements within the framework of EBU). Where the problem lies is that the EBU seeks to restrain our judgement in departing from agreements, and St Johns Wood does not. > >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Jul 3 19:59:53 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Jul 01, 2003 10:45:37 AM Message-ID: <200307031859.h63IxrS12091@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > Marv wrote: > > >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, > > [snip] > > Richard replies: > > While I admire Rubens' skills as an Editor, a bidding > theorist, and a par contest creator - I do *not* accept > his advice on current Law, and I do *not* accept his > eccentric views on what Law "should" be in future. > > Nor do I accept, without evidence, what an unnamed ACBL > official states used to be the opinion of Edgar Kaplan. Especially since I recall a sharp exchange of footnotes in one of Rubens' articles in which Kaplan takes position two. Will see if I can find it. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 4 00:48:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:48:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] There is a Tavern in the Town Message-ID: Fare thee well, for I must leave thee, Do not let the parting grieve thee, And remember that the best of friends must part. In the the thread HCP, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: [big snip] >Where the problem lies is that the EBU seeks to >restrain our judgement in departing from agreements, >and St Johns Wood does not. Richard replies: Not so. The EBU does not wish to restrain your *parting* from your agreements. The EBU merely applies an appropriate Lawful definition of what your agreements *actually are*. The parenthesis in Law 75B states: "(but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)" Adieu, adieu MadDog, adieu, adieu, adieu I can no longer bid with you, bid with you, I'll hang your judgement on a weeping willow tree, And may the world go well with thee. Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jul 4 03:14:08 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:14:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03F451.4080609@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111511.025022f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030703215229.024d8e90@mail.vzavenue.net> At 05:16 AM 7/3/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: >And do you really believe that CC's, in general, are well filled-in? >When someone opens a 14-count as 15-17, do you believe he is playing >14.5-17 or 15-17? I'm willing to accept miscounting, tiredness and all >such excuses, but I'm not accepting the two tens and the five-card diamond >suit. The problem with requiring such things is that 14.5-17 can itself be more misleading. Suppose you are considering opening 2NT, which you limit to 22 HCP. (I am using this example because the half-point range is common for this bid.) Here are three possible 20-point hands. A: AJTx AKx KQTx Kx B: AJT AKx KQT9x Kx C: AQT Axx AQT9x Ax If you open 2NT on all three hands, you can mark your card 20-22. If you open 2NT on B and C but not on A, you can mark your card 20+ to 22. If you open 2NT on none of the hands, you can mark your card 21-22. But what do you mark if you open 2NT on hand C only, counting extra for all four aces? 21-22 probably describes your agreement best, as you want partner to bid as though you have 21 HCP. If you write 20+ to 22 and open hand B with 1D, the opponents will not expect you to have hand B. I would say that you may occasionally deviate from an agreement without MI as long as you have a hand which wants partner to believe you are following the agreement. Thus, if your card says 21-22, you may open hand C with 2NT. If 1D-1S-1NT shows 12-14 balanced, you may still bid it on K KJxx Qxxxx AJx. If your agreement is that 1H-2NT(Jacoby)-3H shows five losers, you may still bid it on QJ AQJxx AKx AJx. From newtldmanager@yahoo.co.jp Fri Jul 4 02:56:12 2003 From: newtldmanager@yahoo.co.jp (Domain manage) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:56:12 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Personal Tld release Message-ID: AWLERKCJALWEFC
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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 4 03:46:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:46:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange Book Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie suggests: >The EBU seeks feedback on the Orange Book. >For its current purpose, the Orange book is >good; a few small personal quibbles... > >(1) I would rather that there were only 2 or > at the most 3 levels of competition. > No Fear (WBF standard card or whatever). > Unrestricted (except perhaps for HUMs). > HUMs allowed. Richard replies: The ABF gets by with four levels of competition: Green = Basic Standard or Acol Blue = And/or Precision and/or European Multi 2D and/or other funny twos with an anchor suit and/or funny club systems (Polish Club, Moscito, Power) Red = Almost anything goes Yellow = Anything goes, HUMs and ultralight bids. However, for all practical purposes, open events in Australia are mostly at the Red level - Green and Blue categories are relevant only to intraclub or the rare Restricted events. (There is a provision for Protected Pairs - in a matchpoint event, bunnies playing a Green system may prohibit their current opponents from using their Red conventions.) [snip] Nigel Guthrie suggests: >(7) Publicise and enforce. Richard replies: Indeed. The best way to publicise and enforce the Orange Book, would be to change it to the Orange Pamphlet. My experience has been that many players in Australia have a reasonable (if somewhat vague) understanding of the ABF system rules *because* the ABF system rules are succinct and simple. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 4 07:40:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:40:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F052149.5060705@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >>The >>trouble is, of course, that you and Probst would then start opening five counts. >>There are those who understand what a rule is, and there are... well, I say no >>more. >> > > Tim and I have no problem obeying the regulations of St Johns Wood BC, > and fortunately there is no regulation which stops us using our > judgement. In other words we have agreements and we depart from them > from time to time. Our agreements are legal within the framework of St > Johns Wood BC (as indeed are our agreements within the framework of > EBU). Where the problem lies is that the EBU seeks to restrain our > judgement in departing from agreements, and St Johns Wood does not. > Don't you see what you are doing, John? For whatever reason, the EBU has stated that it does not want to see very weak openings. The EBU has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that 5HCP is too little to open on. And John and Tim have decided they don't want to follow that rule, they do want to open 5-pointers. But John and Tim are actually good guys, and they want to follow the rules. So they've decided on the following ploy: They write on their CC: 6+. But occasionally they have a 5-pointer they want to open. So they do. And then the excuses come: "it's the first time" (this hour?) "he doesn't know I have only 5" (doesn't he?) "look at all these tens" (are they worth anything in HCP, now?) "we're using judgment" (so?) "L40A says we can do what we want" (no it doesn't!) Please tell me in which way this is not the breaking of the regulation as set by the EBU. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jul 4 09:25:05 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:25:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity Message-ID: <000701c34205$c5fc45a0$3d682452@mikeamos> Hi all I'd like to ask a question about equity and Law 64C Dealer W Love All 82 8 K10862 A9853 J1093 A7 A109532 J7 J7 AQ94 K QJ1042 KQ654 KQ64 53 76 Result at table 4Hx -3 by West NS+500 Trick 1 N AC -2-7-K Trick 2 N S8 - won with A in dummy Trick 3 E CQ - ruffed (sic) with H4 by South - West discarding S Scenario 1 You are called at the end of play EW will complain that they contract could have been made if S had followed suit Scenario 2 You are called at the end of the round - ie several boards have been played in the interim - same complaint Mike From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 4 18:17:30 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <200307041717.NAA08644@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > "you did it on purpose. The main piece of evidence for saying this is that > you did it." > Do you believe it would be accepted by any Court ? Yes, if there is no other evidence, and the standard is "preponderance of the evidence," as in most civil cases and in score adjustment cases in bridge. Of course in real cases, both bridge and otherwise, there will usually be other evidence. > AG : no. I only say that you need *very strong* evidence to call somebody a > liar. Yes, in a conduct case, the standard is higher than "preponderance of evidence," and evidence needs to be stronger. > AG : actor incumbit probatio. Ever heard of "présomption d'innocence ?" > (sorry, don't know the English phrase). If you and the player pretend > opopsite things, it's you, the prosecutor, who have to produce the evidence. "Presumption of innocence," which I'm a little surprised applies in Belgium. (I had understood it does not apply in France and Italy, even in criminal cases.) It applies to criminal cases in the US and UK, at least, and also to alleged conduct offenses in bridge (at least in many jurisdictions). It doesn't apply to civil cases in most jurisdictions nor to score adjustment cases in bridge. After all, if one side might have given MI, the one clear thing is that the _other_ side is innocent. > In the Sandeman case, odds of billions to one were considered insufficient > to call somebody a cheat. Which seems completely bizarre. Those odds should be enough for "beyond reasonable doubt." Either there is more to the story, or the court was completely off the rails. The important point, though, is to keep in mind the difference between score adjustment and conduct cases. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 3 09:52:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:52:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <778C8CA4-AD70-11D7-8E3A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:16 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. If it's fruitless, why are you attempting to prolong it? :-) > What evidence? > > How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about > other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? Sorry Herman. You give a strong impression, even if you didn't say so outright, that you would take *one* instance of a player opening 1NT on a 9 count as "proof" that he has an illegal agreement (in the ACBL). Not just "evidence", but *conclusive* evidence. It is that to which I object. > I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but > you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always wrong in > ruling as I do - how can you do that? I'm not. I'm saying that, a priori, you don't know what the story is - and the fact a player opens on a nine count is not sufficient evidence to convict. You need more, one way or t'other. > Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary > evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would > always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you > accept that you can rule against this player? If a player tells me that he frequently opens 1NT on a nine count, *and* his CC or other evidence says his agreements include any conventional bids after 1NT, then yes, I'll rule against him. But the whole point in this thread, unless I completely missed it, is that the ACBL has, or at least many folks here in ACBL land (including TDs) think it has, made an interpretation of their regulation that says "you may not open 1NT on a 9 count". Period. So they rule "illegal use of convention" whenever a player opens on a nine count. "Other evidence", whatever it may be, becomes irrelevant. Except it's not irrelevant. Quite the contrary. That's pretty much all I've been trying to say. I think. It's nearly 5 AM here, and I'm pretty tired. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 3 17:26:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:26:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D92A.9020604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08F8FE02-AD73-11D7-8E3A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > So it's not a "mistaken bid". So it's a systemic one - OK? > What more do you want me to say? If by "systemic" you mean they have an agreement to open on nine counts, then no, not okay. > Yes of course, that is exactly what this discussion is all about. A > system in which a hand that falls below a particular value (in this > case 10HCP) can be opened in a particular manner (1NT) is a forbidden > system. You have just admitted that you might well rule that this > opening, for this player, is not a mistaken bid - so it is systemic, > so that system is forbidden. Again, what more do you need? You are completely missing the point, Herman. From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] World Championships in Monaco References: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC481113@bruce.ecats.co.uk> Message-ID: <009201c342dc$d21f2280$b92a24d5@Default> Anna: .. .And the hotels looked lovely as well ... Big deal, they should be at those prices. Anyway the WBF is also way out of line on this one. At Menton there was ridiculous promotional material. What about this item: ... Monaco is easy to reach; it is just 7 minutes from Nice airport by helicopter ..... Is the WBF offering this service or does the WBF think a helicopter shuttle is a normal part of the average bridge player's budget? They are completely nuts. Everybody who forks out the money for this kind of transportation knows that it is way quicker than ground transport without being told. Anyway they forgot to mention that there is also a speedboat connection. Sorry but I cannot quote a price on that one. But now back to those hotels starting at 150 euros a night. 'Of course' the Dutch Fed has made other arrangements (they actually have to justify their spending to the people paying for it) which got a very angry WBF reaction. No surprise there because fewer sold rooms through the WBF means fewer free rooms to the WBF. Yes you are paying for that as well. Now I don't object to an organisation taking some money on the rooms in itself. All commercial bridge travel is based on this principle (you get a group discount and you keep (part of) the discount for your efforts/organisation). But every commercial organisation knows that the quoted price should be attractive to the client. If not there are no buyers. Now 150 probably is quite a good price for Monte Carlo. But it still is 150 a night a head if you give your players single rooms. So maybe Monte Carlo is not a very intelligent choice. Since it cannot offer affordable lodging. Which for me is a prime issue when selecting a venue. But that is just me I guess. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anna Gudge" To: Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:50 PM Subject: [blml] World Championships in Monaco 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:45 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? References: Message-ID: <009401c342dc$d45feac0$b92a24d5@Default> Nice post. For whatever it is worth I would throw in the hand without thinking too much about it. Partner could not bid over 1C (ok I don't believe in strong passes against Polish club and the like) and I have nothing serious. Easy. But I know that in real life very few people can restrain themselves from bidding 1D. Quite understandable, in the end it might be our partial. But then it might be their game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who framed Rueful Rabbit? > > What really happened: > > NORTH > T873 > QT92 > T > AKQ6 > Rueful Richard EAST > AJ52 KQ > 3 J654 > KJ5432 Q87 > 92 T853 > SOUTH > 964 > AK87 > A96 > J74 > > NORTH EAST SOUTH R.R. > 1C (1) Pass Pass (2) 1D (3) > > (1) Not alerted, because South did not > notice North's opening bid. > > (2) 12-count too grotty to "open" the > bidding on. > > (3) Oops. > > Bad news: NS now found their heart fit. > Good news: NS still stopped in a partial. > Bad news: -170 instead of -140 cost one > imp and consequently one VP. > Worse news: The TD ruled that even without > the MI, passing 1C was not a LA. > Worst news: The majority of blml agreed with > the TD's ruling. > Best news: My team still convincingly won > last Sunday's swiss. > > A gold star to those blmlers who thought that > the pass of a forcing bid suggested that a > wheel had come off for NS, and sensibly > refused to give NS another chance. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <009501c342dc$d5973240$b92a24d5@Default> Ton: > 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. How do you (ok it is not you, it is Rona who is to blame) dare to claim being unlucky. Taking this kind of risks is insane. You might call it extreme hot weather. It is well known it can be quite hot in Menton the end of June. This year it was extreme in a way. But a few degrees less would still have resulted in impossible playing conditions and then the weather would have to be described as 'slightly above average temperatures for the time of the year'. No dear Ton/Rona/EBL. You are a bunch of money grabbing fools. The only important quality of this building was that it was for free. The EBL didn't really care whether it was suitable or not for the event. If so it would never have been considered let alone have been chosen. Next year I will organise an out-door event in Holland. If the rain spoils it I will claim being unlucky. Do you buy that ? And then the chance of rain in Holland is less than it being too hot to play in the Palais de Europe in Menton for any given day the end of June (to be honest the wind might be more of a problem than the rain, and of course in the long run it is sure to rain, just like in the long run it is sure to be too hot in Menton). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:45 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Menton European Championships > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:43 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights References: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009301c342dc$d3441a80$b92a24d5@Default> DWS: > A partly named card has not been played. So if declarer says "Spade" > dummy may interrupt him and stop him playing from dummy. According to me declarer has just played dummy's lowest spade. And dummy cannot change that. Anyway allowing dummy to interrupt declarer when instructing dummy makes no sense (to me). Besides all 'partial actions' should be scraped from the laws. Starting to make a bid/play/whatever should mean you have to make that bid. Makes life so much easier for all of us. Then we don't need laws anymore dealing with someone bidding 'five', waiving a stack of bidding cards in mid-air, and all that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's rights > 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 ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:50 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <006c01c33e4d$c0cdc2e0$1583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <009801c342dc$d6d49440$b92a24d5@Default> Back to Lille. Ton: > What happened was that the computer produced the right movement which was > translated manually in table cards, something I wasn't aware of. Kojak also claims not to be aware. So you must be a lousy manager if the staff can do such a thing without anybody knowing what is going on. Manual translation seems not to be the normal procedure to me so who the heck authorized it if not Ton and not Kojak ? And who on earth doesn't double check such a dangerous move ? Ton > 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. You really amaze me. You are responsible and claim not to feel guilty over such a mess. In any normal organization you would have lost your job on the spot. Probably you made no operational mistake of your own. But you failed as a manager. You picked/accepted the wrong people. You gave the wrong orders. You failed to communicate. You overloaded yourself with other tasks so you had no time to do your real work (= making sure everything was ok). Whatever went wrong it was you who was to blame. And you don't feel guilty. Go explain that to all the players who suffered from your magnificent leadership. But I also have some doubts about Kojak on this one. He must have known that you or sombody else had overruled him on the movement and was about to do something silly (at least in his mind). He probably was far from happy with that but he still might/should have checked the final result of whatever was done. Unless of course you or somebody else told him explicitly not to worry. But in the end Kojak is very right about one thing. The WBF/EBL event organization needs a fundemental upgrade. If only because EBL/WBF organizations are consistently worse than ACBL or NBB or FFB only organizations (and quite a lot of other NCBO's and commercial events as well). MISDUPLICATION AGAIN By the way dear Ton. In Menton once again there were some serious problems caused by misduplication. Do you feel guilty this time ? Or is nobody to blame as usual. How often does this have to happen before you or whoever is in charge defines some simple basic procedures which makes big time misduplication impossible (I am not discussing minor errors, like switching two boards, which are hard to avoid completely). It is not that difficult you know. Let all matches play with one physical set. If not and at pairs let the TD's or someone check some hands of every series when dispatching from the duplication area. Isn't this what they call quality control in operational management ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" ; Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:41 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. > > > ton > > > From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:02:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:02:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> '... Perfect ethics ...', don't make me laugh with this kind of silly concepts. You don't give me the impression you have any idea what it means. Don't worry, probably nobody does. The case is impossible to judge without diagram and bidding seq. but if the auction is competitive all the way to 6H then it is quite normal for the next guy to take some time. Such a pause means he is not sure what to do, which is quite normal in this kind of sequences, and doesn't easily create UI, because pass means exactly the same (barring special conventions). Anyway, was there a hesitation (quite normal IMHO) or a real pause? Might make a difference. Or are you suggesting a split second pass is 'perfect ethics'. IMHO split second bidding in that kind of situations is close to cheating but that is just me. Anyway the current rules encourage this behaviour. Stupid laws. It is ridiculous there is no kind of stop rule here. You get 10 sec after 1NT-4NT but none if someone calls 6H over your 5S. Go home with your 'perfect ethics' and start working on some sensible rules instead. DWS > 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. I really fail to understand this. Are you trying to say that everybody of less than perfect ethics is a crook? I myself would double if I judged my hand to be worth a double (which tends to be a guess in cases like this). But maybe this is because I am a bridge player rather than a derailed suspicious official. Anyway what you say '.. always double with any extras ...' is complete nonsense from a bridge point of view. We are discussing a six level guess here so what the hell is 'extras'. And how the hell can partner 'progress as suitable'. What makes you think that partner knows what to do. You (DWS) do have some reputation on discussing laws but you don't seem to understand a lot about high-level competitive bidding. Next '.. as a two-way shot ..', two-way shot maybe, but two-way in the sense maybe right maybe wrong. DWS > West did not know for certain what East was thinking about. But his > hesitation suggested action was better than inaction. Why? How can you judge the info content of a pause without the bidding sequence (normally it means I don't know just as pass does). Besides in theory you should always double or save. Still sometimes you decide to let them play undoubled. But now the actual case. Holding two aces partner was probably thinking about saving and not doubling (although it is quite possible he just needed some time to re-evaluate his hand for the six level, besides the opps might have gone berserk so nothing is sure). But the last thing this pause tends to suggest is to make a penalty double. Once again I have the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. But if you really like abstract discussions about ethics. In this case the guy thought he had a clear-cut penalty double (maybe stupid but that is irrelevant). The pause did in no way suggest doubling the final contract so he can double as he pleases. But what if he decided NOT to double because his partners thinking made him afraid partner would not sit for it. Very practical bridge you know. So suppose those two aces where cashing, do NS have a case against an 'unethical' pass by east !? This paragraph is just to show how difficult these problems are. And maybe that there is no such thing as perfect ethics. But definitely the rules are no good, you need a (real) 10 seconds stop in these sequences. But now to Tony. Why did Tony rule 'pass in not an LA'. It is always a LA in this kind of sequences. I would have ruled 'normal tempo' if the hesitation was not too long. And otherwise I would have ruled no UI (at least no suggestion to double). So who cares about LA's. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > 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 ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:56 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <012501c336ee$e9076c40$b68d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <009e01c342dc$dbbde740$b92a24d5@Default> Peter: > 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. It worries me too. On appeal it would take me 3 seconds (or so) to keep the money if a TD ruling of -100 would be appealed. What worries me more is that lots of people wonder if pass can be a LA. In their fantasies they don't realise that pass is the NORMAL almost AUTOMATIC action. I am not saying that double is ridiculous, of course it might work, but it is a very dangerous call because you have the wrong shape. Anyway what is double? You cannot penalty double without 4 decent spades because partner will sit for it with short spades. And you have the wrong shape for a take-out double. Change the hand to xx AQxxx Axx Axx. Now double is far far more attractive (even with a 12 or 13 count) although lots of players will still pass. 2S is now for sure at least an eight-card fit and all suits are breaking well for declarer (so if 2S was a dubious call the guy just guessed right also because he is not on lead against 1NT) and you have a decent fit for either minor. You might have a problem if partner is exactly 3244 but that is the kind of normal risk of bridge life. Next, some posts said that thinking doesn't suggest double. Please. Partner' s thinking means he is close to bidding something himself. So double will work with 99% certainty. Partner will bid his suit (sure to be six if he has his thinking) or pass if he thought about doubling (in that case 2S will not make). The point is that partners' thinking excludes most if not all hands (all those random 6 and 7 counts) where doubling might not be such a good idea. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > 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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:02:05 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:02:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? References: Message-ID: <00a001c342dc$df1d8d00$b92a24d5@Default> > 4. If you were to change the law, what change would you make? Obvious, a stop-rule in competitive auctions. This way you get rid of the very revealling quick bids in difficult situations (as likely to give (U)I as slow bids). This way you get some time to make up your mind in difficult situations. Another way of putting this, we need a good definition of 'in-tempo'. And back to the original question. I am faced with UI. Of course it affects my call. Are all of you crazy or what. I play competitive bridge and I try to win. So I will always make a call which I think will survive TD/AC rulings (being a frequent AC-member I have the advantage to have quite a good idea about what will pass and what will not). Like that I have at least a decent chance of a good score (if my actual call turns out to be a winning one). If I pick a call which might be ruled against I am almost assured of a bad score . Either I get it at the table or the TD/AC cancels my good table result. I know quite some arguments against this approach but under the current rules that is the only sensible thing to do. The problem is of course that the UI affects my choice of call which might be considered undesirable. But the only real alternative is to cancel play after UI has surfaced (meaning any UI leads to 60-40 or whatever). In the end you cannot expect players to bid what they would have bid without UI, knowing or guessing that call will not survive a ruling (that amounts to suicide). Besides often it is very hard to really know what you would have done without the UI. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? > At 8:32 AM +0100 7/2/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the law requires both to bid > >in tempo and to solve complex UI issues at the table and that I know > >myself incapable of complying with both simultaneously. > > 1. Urge your partner to make his calls in tempo, so that you won't > face this problem. > > 2. Urge your directors and AC's to be consistent in ruling against > those who may have profited from UI, so that partner won't have any > incentive to transmit UI, even subconsciously. > > 3. I often have problems at the table I don't have the time to solve > well. One does one's best - that's the nature of the game. > > 4. If you were to change the law, what change would you make? > > -- > 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jul 6 03:53:24 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 03:53:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rest period? Message-ID: <001101c3436a$04494190$6f35e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott As I haven't received anything from blml since Thursday July 3rd I went to the archives and found one post after the last I have seen. This post was dated July 28th !?!?! and has never reached me. Has something gone wrong on the list? Regards Sven From henk@ripe.net Sun Jul 6 13:27:20 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Test, ignore Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 henk@ripe.net Sun Jul 6 13:28:55 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:28:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Re: Is there a problem with blml right now? In-Reply-To: <000001c34391$7ce531a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > As I haven't received anything from blml since Thursday July 3rd I went to > the archives and found one post after the last I have seen. This post was > dated July 28th !?!?! and has never reached me. Yup, something appears to be stuck, I'll try to reach a sysadmin to fix it. Henk > > Has something gone wrong on the list? > > Regards Sven > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 henk@ripe.net Sun Jul 6 13:32:45 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Re: Rest period? In-Reply-To: <001101c3436a$04494190$6f35e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "A little inaccuracy sometimes saves > tons of explanation." ~ Saki > ============================== > > No messages for 24 hours. Has my PC given > up on blml or is life just a bore? No, the list is stuck, I'll ask a sysadmin to fix this but don't expect anything before tomorrow morning. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jul 6 20:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F052149.5060705@skynet.be> Message-ID: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > > > >>The > >>trouble is, of course, that you and Probst would then start opening > five counts. >>There are those who understand what a rule is, and there > are... well, I say no >>more. > >> > > > > Tim and I have no problem obeying the regulations of St Johns Wood BC, > > and fortunately there is no regulation which stops us using our > > judgement. In other words we have agreements and we depart from them > > from time to time. Our agreements are legal within the framework of St > > Johns Wood BC (as indeed are our agreements within the framework of > > EBU). Where the problem lies is that the EBU seeks to restrain our > > judgement in departing from agreements, and St Johns Wood does not. > > > > > Don't you see what you are doing, John? > > For whatever reason, the EBU has stated that it does not want to see > very weak openings. The EBU may state this as a desire but they have no business issuing regulations about it unless the openings in question are more than a king below average strength. > The EBU has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that > 5HCP is too little to open on. No it hasn't. I quote the EBU Orange book below: 9.2 Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) 9.2.1 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). For example: (A) (B) A K T 9 6 K 3 8 7 5 4 2 T 9 3 J 6 4 3 2 J T 9 3 K Q High Card Points: 8 9 No. of cards in longest suit: 5 5 No. of cards in 2nd longest suit: 4 5 Total value by "Rule of 19": 17 19 At Level 2 (for example) it is normally permitted to open on Rule of 19, so you may normally agree to open on (B), but not on (A). See 9.3.1, 12.2.1, 13.1.1 and 14.1.1 for the main uses of this Rule. > And John and Tim have decided they don't want to follow that rule, > they do want to open 5-pointers. Tim and John are of the opinion that hand A) is clearly *better* than hand B). Tim and John do not understand why anyone (even those who don't like weak opening bids) would think otherwise. > But John and Tim are actually good guys, and they want to follow the > rules. And indeed would be delighted to know what they actually are. However when DWS says that a degree of judgement is allowed (particularly where the merits of opening a non Ro19 hand would be widely recognised) and DALB says "no judgement allowed at all", one could, perhaps, understand that they are just a tad confused. > So they've decided on the following ploy: > They write on their CC: 6+. Actually we write 10+, not to say that we wouldn't occasionally upgrade a really good 9/8 but 10 is lowest number of points on which we often open at the 1 level. > But occasionally they have a 5-pointer they want to open. So they do. > And then the excuses come: > "it's the first time" (this hour?) That would not be the action of good guys. Tim and John have played rubber bridge together/against eachother and have seen this sort of thing happen occasionally. > "he doesn't know I have only 5" (doesn't he?) Well he wouldn't "know" would he? Of course he wouldn't *know* what I (or anyone else) might choose to open holding AJT9xxx,T9xxxx,-,-. He does know that should such a hand ever arise I would give serious consideration to opening 1S. Now maybe I'm just stupid and 1S is obviously wrong but, IMO, anything one chooses to do on such an extreme hand may turn out badly and there is little point spending hours working on the bidding theory of extreme 2-suiters that may never come up. > "look at all these tens" (are they worth anything in HCP, now?) To be honest I have actually read Milton Work's books. I have no idea whether or not he values tens (or honour combinations). However I have never met a decent player who *doesn't* place some values on tens/intermediates (whilst also downgrading Q's in short suits). > "we're using judgment" (so?) It may be relevant. Note however that we are unlikely to make such a claim rather "He's using what he likes to think of as his judgement" is the closest either of us is likely to get. > "L40A says we can do what we want" (no it doesn't!) So why would we suggest that it does? L40B is the one that says we may make any call providing opponents may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning OR we disclose according to the requirements of the SO. Surely that is rather more relevant. > Please tell me in which way this is not the breaking of the regulation > as set by the EBU. In the way that the regulation of the EBU is interpreted as permitting a degree of judgement on exceptional hands. Sadly, while John and Tim have played many hands together in EBU competition we have never actually had one worth opening *and* non-Ro19 compliant. Thus we have never actually had an opportunity to create a test case (either of the interpretation or the legality) of the EBU regulation. And as for excuses you forgot "I thought it very unlikely that partner would make a conventional bid". Tim From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Jul 6 20:39:39 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:39:39 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <009801c342dc$d6d49440$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > MISDUPLICATION AGAIN > > By the way dear Ton. In Menton once again there were some serious problems > caused by misduplication. Do you feel guilty this time ? Or is nobody to > blame as usual. How often does this have to happen before you or whoever is > in charge defines some simple basic procedures which makes big time > misduplication impossible (I am not discussing minor errors, like switching > two boards, which are hard to avoid completely). It is not that difficult > you know. Let all matches play with one physical set. If not and at pairs > let the TD's or someone check some hands of every series when dispatching > from the duplication area. Isn't this what they call quality control in > operational management ? You may be interested to know that, at the last big ACBL tournament I attended, there were also problems with misduplication at the first pairs game of the week. Starting the next afternoon, and for the rest of the week, we had a new policy: hand records were distributed for the duplication and collected, the first round was played, players were told not to move for the second round, then hand records were distributed once again and everyone had to check that they had held the proper cards in round 1 before moving for round 2. It was a little annoying to me, actually -- it slowed down the game by about 5 minutes for what should be quite a rare problem, and it causes more averages to be awaed, instead of just factoring a board after a whole section plays it -- but it did serve exactly the purpose it was intended to, and was easy enough to implement on the fly. (For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... team matches are shuffle-and-deal, pairs games are played in 14 table sections, you make two boards (the ones you miss in a Skip Mitchell) from printed records, then play the other 26.) GRB From svenpran@online.no Sun Jul 6 23:15:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:15:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c3440c$190c5200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Oh dear, oh dear! Just for the record I am responsible for all logistics with boards for = 44 different tournaments during the Norwegian championships during the last week of July. That means preparing computer card files for a total of 2020 different boards and issuing instructions to 8 different card duplication centers = on their advance preparation of 38 thousand boards. In addition we shall = need some 8800 boards which will be duplicated on the spot during the week. And from my experience with the same job in 2001 and 2002 I seriously do = not expect any duplication error problem that we cannot fix without the contestants noticing any irregularity! You should really consider deploying card dealing machines and the associated routines! Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Gordon Bower > Sent: 6. juli 2003 21:40 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >=20 > > MISDUPLICATION AGAIN > > > > By the way dear Ton. In Menton once again there were some serious > problems > > caused by misduplication. Do you feel guilty this time ? Or is = nobody to > > blame as usual. How often does this have to happen before you or = whoever > is > > in charge defines some simple basic procedures which makes big time > > misduplication impossible (I am not discussing minor errors, like > switching > > two boards, which are hard to avoid completely). It is not that > difficult > > you know. Let all matches play with one physical set. If not and at > pairs > > let the TD's or someone check some hands of every series when > dispatching > > from the duplication area. Isn't this what they call quality control = in > > operational management ? >=20 > You may be interested to know that, at the last big ACBL tournament I > attended, there were also problems with misduplication at the first = pairs > game of the week. Starting the next afternoon, and for the rest of the > week, we had a new policy: hand records were distributed for the > duplication and collected, the first round was played, players were = told > not to move for the second round, then hand records were distributed = once > again and everyone had to check that they had held the proper cards in > round 1 before moving for round 2. It was a little annoying to me, > actually -- it slowed down the game by about 5 minutes for what = should be > quite a rare problem, and it causes more averages to be awaed, instead = of > just factoring a board after a whole section plays it -- but it did = serve > exactly the purpose it was intended to, and was easy enough to = implement > on the fly. >=20 > (For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and barometer pairs games = are > almost unknown here... team matches are shuffle-and-deal, pairs games = are > played in 14 table sections, you make two boards (the ones you miss = in a > Skip Mitchell) from printed records, then play the other 26.) >=20 > GRB >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From David Stevenson Sun Jul 6 22:35:13 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:35:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >'... Perfect ethics ...', don't make me laugh with this kind of silly >concepts. You don't give me the impression you have any idea what it means. >Don't worry, probably nobody does. I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up as the Supreme Being in my absence. [s] >You (DWS) do have some reputation >on discussing laws but you don't seem to understand a lot about high-level >competitive bidding. No, I am very sorry, I am merely a novice at this game. When I win my first duplicate I shall bring you the results and until that time I shall merely marvel at the feet of the master. --------- BLML any better, is it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Jul 6 22:37:59 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Test, ignore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) No, I cannot see this message at all. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Jul 6 22:28:54 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:28:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <009301c342dc$d3441a80$b92a24d5@Default> References: <001a01c33e66$bd79ac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009301c342dc$d3441a80$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >DWS: >> A partly named card has not been played. So if declarer says "Spade" >> dummy may interrupt him and stop him playing from dummy. > >According to me declarer has just played dummy's lowest spade. And dummy >cannot change that. Anyway allowing dummy to interrupt declarer when >instructing dummy makes no sense (to me). Besides all 'partial actions' >should be >scraped from the laws. Starting to make a bid/play/whatever should mean you >have to make that bid. Makes life so much easier for all of us. Then we >don't >need laws anymore dealing with someone bidding 'five', waiving a stack of >bidding cards in mid-air, and all that. So go tell the lawmakers. But my answer referred to what the Law is now, and if a call has not been made then it has not been made, and if a designation from dummy has not been made then it has not been made. True, it depends on what is said. If declarer says "Spade" without interruption and apparently has finished speaking, then he has designated a card partially, and there is a Law to cover it. But if he is part way through a designation and dummy interrupts then he has not made a designation, and it can be corrected. -- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 7 00:15:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:15:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) Message-ID: Gordon wrote: [snip] >(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and >barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... >team matches are shuffle-and-deal, [snip] Richard asks: Why should the ACBL provide hand records for pair games only? Is this part of the anti-imps and pro-matchpoints culture of the ACBL? Or is the ACBL such a large organisation that inertia prevents it adopting duplimate machines? Computer-dealt boards and hand records are commonplace in the most trivial Congress teams events in Australia, and the hand records are enjoyed by all contestants, from bunny to brilliant. Computer-dealt boards would also have prevented a recent ACBL cheating scandal, when an expert was found guilty of manipulating his shuffle of the cards to ensure that the expert's partner was dealt the ace of diamonds. Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 7 01:10:08 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:10:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <005801c3441d$142c6520$1b3387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > For whatever reason, the EBU has stated that it > > does not want to see very weak openings. > > The EBU may state this as a desire but they have no > business issuing regulations about it unless the > openings in question are more than a king below > average strength. > +=+ Such opinion is frequently expressed. However it appears a contrary view is at least as strongly held and, in my estimation, by the majority amongst the rank and file. I believe, therefore, that the EBU is doing what the majority of its members wish. Curiously democratic, but unsurprising since the control lies with the governing Council elected by the members of the constituent County Associations. It does not seem strange to me that a body that establishes tournaments for its members should wish to determine the conditions of entry attaching to them, including such restrictions as it may consider desirable in the matter of players' methods. On the subject generally under discussion in this thread, one should always observe the difference between a regulation that says "players may not do" and one that says "players may not have agreements to do". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 7 01:15:12 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:15:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: <005901c3441d$14f44900$1b3387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >'... Perfect ethics ...', don't make me laugh with > > this kind of silly concepts. You don't give me the > > impression you have any idea what it means. > > Don't worry, probably nobody does. > > I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up > as the Supreme Being in my absence. > > [s] > > > You (DWS) do have some reputation > > on discussing laws but you don't seem to > > understand a lot about high-level > >competitive bidding. > > No, I am very sorry, I am merely a novice at > this game. When I win my first duplicate I shall > bring you the results and until that time I shall > merely marvel at the feet of the master. > > --------- > > BLML any better, is it? > " The gentle mind by gentle deeds is known, For a man by nothing is so well bewrayed. As by his manners." 'The Faerie Queen' [Edmund Spenser] From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 7 00:35:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: >[snip] > >BLML any better, is it? > >-- >David Stevenson * * * Blml - as a whole - is more likely to indulge in civilised discourse. Alas, the *individual* Jaap has reverted to his previous habit of inelegant rodomontades. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 7 01:49:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:49:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David Stevenson" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > It is ridiculous there is no kind of stop rule > here. You get 10 sec after 1NT-4NT but none > if someone calls 6H over your 5S. Go home > with your 'perfect ethics' and start working > on some sensible rules instead. < +=+ Curiously enough, in the aftermath of Menton we have been looking at a text in words something like these to add to the WBF Code of Practice:- > 'HOT SEAT ' RULINGS. > > In the case of a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is > confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation > or high level pre-empt or competition) a > hesitation may be found not to suggest one > action over another if the extra time taken may be > occasioned by the need of the player to consider > what options he has, added to the normal time he > may then take in choosing among them. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 7 01:59:45 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:59:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) References: Message-ID: <001c01c34423$10341a20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > Gordon wrote: > > [snip] > > >(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and > >barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... > >team matches are shuffle-and-deal, > > [snip] > > Richard asks: > > Why should the ACBL provide hand records for > pair games only? Is this part of the anti-imps > and pro-matchpoints culture of the ACBL? Or is > the ACBL such a large organisation that inertia > prevents it adopting duplimate machines? > > Computer-dealt boards and hand records are > commonplace in the most trivial Congress teams > events in Australia, and the hand records are > enjoyed by all contestants, from bunny to > brilliant. I am personally buying a used Duplimate to be used in the San Diego area. Shamed by this, several units are considering putting up the money for me (only $1000 plus cards and boards). We have had duplicated hands in pair games, but not in team events. After I take delivery of the Duplimate at the Los Angeles NABC later this month, our local Swiss events will feature duplicated boards and hand records for Swiss matches. I wonder if we will be the first in ACBL-land to do this. I have access to four sets of boards that someone has here, but I have to buy the special cards. My thought is that a Swiss would get duplicated boards from the third round on. If all the matches can't have duplicated boards, then the top matches get them. With 7 or 8-board matches, and using half the boards per round, it seems to me I can have 8 matches using duplicated boards (no relays between matches), with two sets of boards in action while the other sets are being reduplicated. The dealer position won't be identical, but that isn't important. Suggestions would be welcome, as we have no experience in the matter hereabouts. Should I buy more boards and cards? > > Computer-dealt boards would also have prevented > a recent ACBL cheating scandal, when an expert > was found guilty of manipulating his shuffle of > the cards to ensure that the expert's partner > was dealt the ace of diamonds. > I have it on good authority (his client partner) that the despicable (Hamman's apt adjective) Ivan Erdos fixed up a hand "as a joke" in a 1960s local BAM event. In those days teammates shuffled up a pair of boards that they would not play, and the first move would follow. The N/S hands he composed had 10 spades AKxxx opposite J10xxx, and all the other aces and kings. Of course he made the queen three-long offside. The result was that no good team won a matchpoint on this board, and many lost one (weak field). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 7 02:18:03 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: <200307070118.VAA09714@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Curiously enough, in the aftermath of > Menton we have been looking at a text in > words something like these to add to the > WBF Code of Practice:- > > > 'HOT SEAT ' RULINGS. > > > > In the case of a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is > > confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation > > or high level pre-empt or competition) a > > hesitation may be found not to suggest one > > action over another if the extra time taken may be > > occasioned by the need of the player to consider > > what options he has, added to the normal time he > > may then take in choosing among them. This philosophy is perhaps even more important at lower levels of play. Experts will usually know whether they have an agreement, even in unusual situations, whereas intermediate players will often be left to wonder which of several (possibly conflicting!) meta-agreements might apply. Or wonder what partner will infer in the clear absence of any agreement. In the text, it might be worth including a mention that overly fast action in such a position is UI that might very well suggest one action over another. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 7 02:20:15 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 18:20:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? References: <200307031859.h63IxrS12091@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <002501c34425$ed3ecb20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" < > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > >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, > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard replies: > > > > While I admire Rubens' skills as an Editor, a bidding > > theorist, and a par contest creator - I do *not* accept > > his advice on current Law, and I do *not* accept his > > eccentric views on what Law "should" be in future. > > > > Nor do I accept, without evidence, what an unnamed ACBL > > official states used to be the opinion of Edgar Kaplan. > > Especially since I recall a sharp exchange of footnotes in > one of Rubens' articles in which Kaplan takes position two. > > Will see if I can find it. I can't find that, but here's something related to the matter: I recently brought Rubens' attention to Kaplan's answer to a Jeff Goldsmith letter, November 1995. In it he says that a player holding S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, unfavorable vulnerability, should not get away with balancing with a 4S bid after LHO's 4H opening. If he does, the score should be adjusted to 4H, because it would not "have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error...Pass would be right quite often. If you are convinced that you would always bid 4S, huddle or no huddle, blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo next time." To me that meant a player should not bid 4S in that situation, but Jeff says it is illegal for him to allow the huddle to influence his bidding in that way. He must go ahead and bid 4S and let the TD/AC take it away from him. After all, he says, Edgar did not say that the player should bid 4H. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Roger Curnow Mon Jul 7 02:32:01 2003 From: Roger Curnow (Roger Curnow) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:32:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: Message-ID: <003901c34427$94fd2fe0$1c49fea9@rogershome> the best thing about blml is the new words i learn. Last week "prosodist" this week "rodomontades" roger curnow. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > >[snip] > > > >BLML any better, is it? > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > * * * > > Blml - as a whole - is more likely to indulge in civilised > discourse. Alas, the *individual* Jaap has reverted to his > previous habit of inelegant rodomontades. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > From David Stevenson Mon Jul 7 03:06:53 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 03:06:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) In-Reply-To: <001c01c34423$10341a20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c34423$10341a20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French writes >I am personally buying a used Duplimate to be used in the San Diego area. >Shamed by this, several units are considering putting up the money for me >(only $1000 plus cards and boards). We have had duplicated hands in pair >games, but not in team events. After I take delivery of the Duplimate at the >Los Angeles NABC later this month, our local Swiss events will feature >duplicated boards and hand records for Swiss matches. I wonder if we will be >the first in ACBL-land to do this. > >I have access to four sets of boards that someone has here, but I have to buy >the special cards. My thought is that a Swiss would get duplicated boards from >the third round on. If all the matches can't have duplicated boards, then the >top matches get them. With 7 or 8-board matches, and using half the boards per >round, it seems to me I can have 8 matches using duplicated boards (no relays >between matches), with two sets of boards in action while the other sets are >being reduplicated. The dealer position won't be identical, but that isn't >important. Yes, it is, very. The moment people get used to the idea of moving into the twenty-first century they will not tolerate this, I am afraid. They will *expect* hand copies, and they will complain loudly if the dealer position is not right. People love discussing hands. I am still so disappointed that the hand in Phoenix where we outbid what's her name - sorry, forgotten for the moment, very fine lady player, severe medical problems, anyway it was her team-mates [and ours] at fault - was not duplicated across the field. However, if I want to know what you bid on an eight card suit and a very strong hand after 1D dbl 1S [she bid 6C] the answer that the bidding was different because the dealer was different would not be satisfactory! >Suggestions would be welcome, as we have no experience in the matter >hereabouts. Should I buy more boards and cards? Definitely. The more the merrier. You really need to do it right, and then let the rest of North America follow your example. -- 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Jul 7 05:48:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:48:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Card dealing capacities In-Reply-To: <001c01c34423$10341a20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c34443$00e410f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> You ask for experience and here is mine: Do not count on providing the main part of the boards by running the Duplimate (continuously?) during the event, you will have too little = room for "irregularities". When acquiring a machine the general experience here is that you should = get yourself sufficient number of cards and boards to completely deal all = boards for at least one day's events in advance, and if an event is of a = barometer type schedule with only two boards per round then it pays to do a "full duplication"; that is as many sets as there are tables with one set for = each table. At the duplication center I manage we started off with 1500 boards and = have added another 500 which is found ample to provide cards for up to 10 simultaneous events of average size or correspondingly fewer greater = events. Larger centers that I know about have in the order of 7000 to some 30000 boards. The smallest "center" I know has just around a few hundred = boards and has already realized the need for more. It is imperative that you do not underestimate the need for cards; the machine itself should never be your major investment. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: 7. juli 2003 03:00 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) >=20 >=20 > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > Gordon wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and > > >barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... > > >team matches are shuffle-and-deal, > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard asks: > > > > Why should the ACBL provide hand records for > > pair games only? Is this part of the anti-imps > > and pro-matchpoints culture of the ACBL? Or is > > the ACBL such a large organisation that inertia > > prevents it adopting duplimate machines? > > > > Computer-dealt boards and hand records are > > commonplace in the most trivial Congress teams > > events in Australia, and the hand records are > > enjoyed by all contestants, from bunny to > > brilliant. >=20 > I am personally buying a used Duplimate to be used in the San Diego = area. > Shamed by this, several units are considering putting up the money for = me > (only $1000 plus cards and boards). We have had duplicated hands in = pair > games, but not in team events. After I take delivery of the Duplimate = at > the > Los Angeles NABC later this month, our local Swiss events will feature > duplicated boards and hand records for Swiss matches. I wonder if we = will > be > the first in ACBL-land to do this. >=20 > I have access to four sets of boards that someone has here, but I have = to > buy > the special cards. My thought is that a Swiss would get duplicated = boards > from > the third round on. If all the matches can't have duplicated boards, = then > the > top matches get them. With 7 or 8-board matches, and using half the = boards > per > round, it seems to me I can have 8 matches using duplicated boards (no > relays > between matches), with two sets of boards in action while the other = sets > are > being reduplicated. The dealer position won't be identical, but that = isn't > important. >=20 > Suggestions would be welcome, as we have no experience in the matter > hereabouts. Should I buy more boards and cards? > > > > Computer-dealt boards would also have prevented > > a recent ACBL cheating scandal, when an expert > > was found guilty of manipulating his shuffle of > > the cards to ensure that the expert's partner > > was dealt the ace of diamonds. > > > I have it on good authority (his client partner) that the despicable > (Hamman's > apt adjective) Ivan Erdos fixed up a hand "as a joke" in a 1960s local = BAM > event. In those days teammates shuffled up a pair of boards that they > would > not play, and the first move would follow. The N/S hands he composed = had > 10 > spades AKxxx opposite J10xxx, and all the other aces and kings. Of = course > he > made the queen three-long offside. The result was that no good team = won a > matchpoint on this board, and many lost one (weak field). >=20 > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Anne Jones" <001c01c34423$10341a20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002101c3444b$6d8785e0$822d6651@annescomputer> Hi Marvin, I belong to East Wales - an area with 18 clubs and 2000 members. 6 years ago one of our members came up with the idea that we should buy a Duplimate machine for our Area events. Before this it was all "shuffle and deal". The biggest problem that the committee had at that time was to find somewhere to keep it. I volunteered to be responsible for this piece of valuable equipment.Little did I know what I was letting myself in for. I very shortly found it was easier to deal boards myself than look for other volunteers and as I was TDing more than playing a great deal of Bridge at that time, there was no problem.If there was an event I needed to play in, the boards were dealt elsewhere. Very rapidly the idea snowballed and demand was made for duplimated boards with hand records for all but ordinary club events, and some clubs decided to have one or two nights a week with duplimated boards. Every club was given 2 sets of boards and were required to bring them for duplimating as reuired. The biggest Congress in East Wales is the annual Swiss which attracts 100+ tables. We started off with enough boards to pre-deal two sessions and had caddys to deal on site as boards came out of play. We are now in a position to pre-deal the whole event of Friday night thu Sunday. (One Pairs event and 14 Swiss teams matches) We have about 120 sets of boards. For 8 board matches one set of boards is enough for 4 tables. We have found it a more secure way of playing to organise a snake movement of boards rather than small circes of 4 tables. The weight of storage has become a problem, as has the logistics of transporting the boards. We have now bought a second machine and have split the work between two people. Last year I pre-dealt about 500 sets of board. I have generated nearly 1000 files. My fellow dealer dealt about the same. David is right - this is the 21st century and players soon demand pre-dealt boards with hand records. It is by far a more fair competition for Swiss events, and as well as this, it adds a huge amount of interest to have hand records to study in the bar at the close of play. Another, often overlooked, advantage, is that cheating by substituting your own cards in an event, is no longer possible. Good luck with your project - get them to buy you a shed, but make sure you bring the boards indoors at least 12 hours before you try to deal them as playing cards are very temperature and humidity sensitive and the duplimate machine knows this!! Playing cards will last about 3 - 4 years so a rolling replacement programme is needed :-) Anne (Duplimate Spice) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > Gordon wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and > > >barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... > > >team matches are shuffle-and-deal, > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard asks: > > > > Why should the ACBL provide hand records for > > pair games only? Is this part of the anti-imps > > and pro-matchpoints culture of the ACBL? Or is > > the ACBL such a large organisation that inertia > > prevents it adopting duplimate machines? > > > > Computer-dealt boards and hand records are > > commonplace in the most trivial Congress teams > > events in Australia, and the hand records are > > enjoyed by all contestants, from bunny to > > brilliant. > > I am personally buying a used Duplimate to be used in the San Diego area. > Shamed by this, several units are considering putting up the money for me > (only $1000 plus cards and boards). We have had duplicated hands in pair > games, but not in team events. After I take delivery of the Duplimate at the > Los Angeles NABC later this month, our local Swiss events will feature > duplicated boards and hand records for Swiss matches. I wonder if we will be > the first in ACBL-land to do this. > > I have access to four sets of boards that someone has here, but I have to buy > the special cards. My thought is that a Swiss would get duplicated boards from > the third round on. If all the matches can't have duplicated boards, then the > top matches get them. With 7 or 8-board matches, and using half the boards per > round, it seems to me I can have 8 matches using duplicated boards (no relays > between matches), with two sets of boards in action while the other sets are > being reduplicated. The dealer position won't be identical, but that isn't > important. > > Suggestions would be welcome, as we have no experience in the matter > hereabouts. Should I buy more boards and cards? > > > > Computer-dealt boards would also have prevented > > a recent ACBL cheating scandal, when an expert > > was found guilty of manipulating his shuffle of > > the cards to ensure that the expert's partner > > was dealt the ace of diamonds. > > > I have it on good authority (his client partner) that the despicable (Hamman's > apt adjective) Ivan Erdos fixed up a hand "as a joke" in a 1960s local BAM > event. In those days teammates shuffled up a pair of boards that they would > not play, and the first move would follow. The N/S hands he composed had 10 > spades AKxxx opposite J10xxx, and all the other aces and kings. Of course he > made the queen three-long offside. The result was that no good team won a > matchpoint on this board, and many lost one (weak field). > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Jul 7 07:13:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:13:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) In-Reply-To: <002101c3444b$6d8785e0$822d6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <000401c3444e$e4312630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Anne Jones I agree fully with what Anne wrote except this: > Playing cards will last about 3 - 4 years so a rolling replacement > programme > is needed :-) >=20 > Anne (Duplimate Spice) When we bought our machine back in 1991 we also bought 1500 card decks; almost all of these are still in full use. I run up to 20000 boards per annum which means that on the average each card is processed 15 times = each year and has until now "suffered" from being processed around 200 times. = My estimate is that I have crashed something like 50 single cards during = these years (and extreme humidity with high temperatures while processing = during the national championships last year was a major contributing factor to = such crashes). I enforce rather strictly the rule that machine cards are NEVER to be = used for manual shuffling and dealing. This rule I believe is the main reason = for the life time of our cards. Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 7 01:22:19 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:22:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Test, ignore References: Message-ID: <000801c34451$1ef63ec0$1be5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Test, ignore > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, > > is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > No, I cannot see this message at all. > +=+ Then you still don't have a problem.+=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 7 07:26:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:26:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Equity Message-ID: Mike asked: >Hi all > >I'd like to ask a question about equity and Law 64C > >Dealer W >Love All > 82 > 8 > K10862 > A9853 >J1093 A7 >A109532 J7 >J7 AQ94 >K QJ1042 > KQ654 > KQ64 > 53 > 76 > >Result at table 4Hx -3 by West NS+500 > >Trick 1 N AC-2-7-K >Trick 2 N S8 - won with A in dummy >Trick 3 E CQ - ruffed (sic) with H4 by South - West discarding S > >Scenario 1: You are called at the end of play. EW will complain that >their contract could have been made if S had followed suit. > >Scenario 2: You are called at the end of the round - ie several boards >have been played in the interim - same complaint. Richard replies: If the question was applying a revoke penalty to EW, then there would be a difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 - Law 64B4 states: "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the nonoffending side has made a call on the subsequent deal." However, the revoke penalty (if applicable) is only two tricks, and EW are arguing that the occurrence of the revoke cost three tricks. For the purposes of Law 64C, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 lead to an identical result. Law 64C states: "When, after any established revoke, *including those not subject to penalty*, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law [Law 64A and Law 64B] for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." The words "including those not subject to penalty", means that the only time limit relevant to the application of Law 64C is that laid down in Law 79C. (ie Law 64C can normally be applied by the TD up to 30 minutes after the conclusion of the session.) However, it seems to me that, even with the revoke by South, it took careless or inferior play by West to fail by three tricks. If the TD rules that West's careless play was not wild, gambling or irrational, then the TD should change the score from NS +500 to EW +590. If the TD rules that the careless or inferior play by West was sufficiently bad to be wild, gambling or irrational, then the TD should use Law 64C to compensate West only for South's revoke, not for West's subsequent WGOI play. In that case, as TD I would give different rulings between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, due to the interaction of Law 64B4 with Law 64C. Scenario 1: NS +100, the standard two-trick penalty for winning a revoke trick. Scenario 2: NS +300, two tricks lost by WGOI play, but the one trick actually lost by the revoke returned. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 7 07:47:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:47:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: David J. Grabiner deviates: [snip] >A: AJTx AKx KQTx Kx >B: AJT AKx KQT9x Kx >C: AQT Axx AQT9x Ax > >If you open 2NT on all three hands, you can mark your >card 20-22. If you open 2NT on B and C but not on A, you >can mark your card 20+ to 22. If you open 2NT on none of >the hands, you can mark your card 21-22. > >But what do you mark if you open 2NT on hand C only, >counting extra for all four aces? 21-22 probably >describes your agreement best, as you want partner to bid >as though you have 21 HCP. If you write 20+ to 22 and >open hand B with 1D, the opponents will not expect you to >have hand B. > >I would say that you may occasionally deviate from an >agreement without MI as long as you have a hand which >wants partner to believe you are following the agreement. >Thus, if your card says 21-22, you may open hand C with >2NT. [snip] Richard differs: I disagree. If: x) my card states 2NT = 21-22, and y) I had a habit of opening hand C with a 2NT call, then z) my card would also prominently state this Pre-Alert -> "I am not Walter the Walrus. Hands may be slightly upgraded or slightly downgraded, despite their notional hcp." Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 7 08:04:09 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:04:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] World Championships, Monaco 2003. Message-ID: <001801c34456$2362f570$0f15e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Alain wrote: >>Recently, I ran across an opponent who could not believe >>that we hadn't any agreement about a fairly uncommon >>auction (2N-3D-3S) in a long-established partnership. We >>hadn't. He demanded a guess as what the bid could mean, I >>gave him one . . . . . Ben replied: >Now your partner knows how you have taken it up! Richard continues: This issue was the subject of a semi-official Editorial in the March 2003 ABF newsletter, attached at the end of this posting. There is a tension between giving UI to pard when you guess, and giving MI to opponents by not giving them an informed guess. The De Wael School cuts the Gordian Knot by ruling that "Undiscussed" is always an incorrect explanation, and the Editor of the ABF newsletter shows dWS tendencies by describing "Undiscussed" as a not particularly palatable explanation. Best wishes Richard * * * Opinion by David Lusk, March 2003 ABF newsletter 'No agreement' or 'Undiscussed' are terms that we don't particularly find palatable at the table when questions are asked about the meaning of bids. No doubt there are times when players have not discussed a particular sequence but it may not just be a matter of 'It's bridge' when it comes to understanding of bidding style or partnership experience. It is particularly inappropriate for players to suggest that something is undiscussed when what they really mean is that they can't remember. The Laws state that partnership agreements must be disclosed in full and in detail. An agreement need not be firm enough to appear on the system card but, even in situations where an agreement is informal, the onus is still on the partnership to disclose information about partnership style and previous experience. It is unlikely that an opponent would be able to claim redress if the response to a question were along the lines of: "We haven't discussed this sequence but partner's style would be..." Or "last time my partner did this he held only 4-4 in the majors but we were not vulnerable at the time..." Often enough players can assist their opponents by disclosing partnership style in auctions where some similarity exists. The obligation always exists to give the opposition an equal insight into the expectations associated with partner's bid. The object of the Laws on disclosure is to prevent partnerships from having and using esoteric bidding agreements. Any player who understands considerably more about the nature and meaning of a partner's bid than his opponents and fails to disclose this information, after being asked its meaning, is contravening law. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 7 13:13:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:13:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030703215229.024d8e90@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <3F03F451.4080609@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111511.025022f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030707080917.009f7c50@pop.starpower.net> At 10:14 PM 7/3/03, David wrote: A: AJTx AKx KQTx Kx >B: AJT AKx KQT9x Kx >C: AQT Axx AQT9x Ax > >If you open 2NT on all three hands, you can mark your card 20-22. If >you open 2NT on B and C but not on A, you can mark your card 20+ to >22. If you open 2NT on none of the hands, you can mark your card 21-22. > >But what do you mark if you open 2NT on hand C only, counting extra >for all four aces? 21-22 probably describes your agreement best, as >you want partner to bid as though you have 21 HCP. If you write 20+ >to 22 and open hand B with 1D, the opponents will not expect you to >have hand B. Perhaps it would carry some weight with the TD/AC to note that hand C *is* a 21-count by the "official Goren point count", which prescribes counting 17 points rather than 16 for four aces. So even Walter the Walrus would open 2NT showing 21-22. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From walt1@verizon.net Mon Jul 7 15:26:13 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:26:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] OT: ACBL and Duplimate machines .... was: Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> >Gordon wrote: >[snip] > >(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and > >barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... > >team matches are shuffle-and-deal, >[snip] At 07:15 PM 6/07/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Richard asks: >Why should the ACBL provide hand records for >pair games only? Is this part of the anti-imps >and pro-matchpoints culture of the ACBL? Or is >the ACBL such a large organisation that inertia >prevents it adopting duplimate machines? > >Computer-dealt boards and hand records are >commonplace in the most trivial Congress teams >events in Australia, and the hand records are >enjoyed by all contestants, from bunny to >brilliant. Richard I think it is incorrect to say that the ACBL is pro matchpoints and anti IMPs. It is well known here that the easiest way to get Gold Points (in the quest of Everyman a life master) is to play in bracketed knockouts and the bracketed KOs are very, very popular. Certainly shuffle and deal is faster, poses fewer problems for the directors, and is cheaper than buying more Duplimate machines. I think the ACBL has plenty of reasons for running team games the way that they do. That said, hand records are always a great thing to have and I sure would love to have them. I doubt that a movement to get team games Duplimated would be successful and duplicating from hand records for team games seems possible but inefficient. I'd love to hear contrary opinions and/or suggestions relating to this. Walt From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 7 15:35:00 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Equity Message-ID: <200307071435.KAA28477@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "mamos" > I'd like to ask a question about equity and Law 64C I don't think we can answer without knowing the entire play and perhaps more bridge judgment than I possess. Despite that, the legal issues are clear, as Richard says. > Scenario 1 You are called at the end of play EW will complain that they > contract could have been made if S had followed suit EW get at least two more tricks for the revoke, and then we go to L64C. > Scenario 2 You are called at the end of the round - ie several boards have > been played in the interim - same complaint No automatic tricks, but L64C still applies. To apply L64C, use bridge judgment to decide "probable" and "at all likely" scores (L12C2) as of the instant just before the revoke, i.e., the C-Q has been led from dummy (East), and South follows suit instead of revoking. What happens then? Then consider "irrational, wild, or gambling" according to the rules in your jurisdiction. The procedure is identical to any other case in which you would give an assigned adjusted score. Once you know the scores you would assign for each side, you compare to the "automatic" score in Scenario 1 or the table score in Scenario 2. (Let's call either of these the "automatic" score.) EW, the NOS, get either their provisional assigned score or the automatic score, whichever is better for them. Similarly, NS get either their provisional assigned score or the automatic score, whichever is worse. This procedure should be used for _all_ revokes, but usually it will be unnecessary. In most cases, it will be obvious that the automatic score is better for the NOS and worse for the OS than any score you would assign. From walt1@verizon.net Mon Jul 7 15:36:26 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) In-Reply-To: <001c01c34423$10341a20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707103349.02e6d530@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:59 PM 6/07/2003, Marvin French wrote: >I am personally buying a used Duplimate to be used in the San Diego area. >Shamed by this, several units are considering putting up the money for me >(only $1000 plus cards and boards). We have had duplicated hands in pair >games, but not in team events. After I take delivery of the Duplimate at the >Los Angeles NABC later this month, our local Swiss events will feature >duplicated boards and hand records for Swiss matches. I wonder if we will be >the first in ACBL-land to do this. Marvin That's fantastic. I hope that have started a movement that will sweep across the ACBL. Walt From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jul 7 15:58:53 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:58:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] OT: ACBL and Duplimate machines .... was: Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000f01c34498$483dbff0$3d682452@mikeamos> Shuffle and deal is NOT FASTER as Walt claims In our typical Swiss one day event with 7 x 7 board matches my guess is that 30 minutes or so has been knocked off the playing time for the day using pre-duplicated - perhaps simply because "putting the boards out" encourages bridge-players to sit down and get on with it - whereas the exhortation "Deal and start play" has very little effect especially on the nicotine brigade :)) mamos ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt" To: Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: [blml] OT: ACBL and Duplimate machines .... was: Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) > > >Gordon wrote: > >[snip] > > >(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and > > >barometer pairs games are almost unknown here... > > >team matches are shuffle-and-deal, > >[snip] > At 07:15 PM 6/07/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Richard asks: > >Why should the ACBL provide hand records for > >pair games only? Is this part of the anti-imps > >and pro-matchpoints culture of the ACBL? Or is > >the ACBL such a large organisation that inertia > >prevents it adopting duplimate machines? > > > >Computer-dealt boards and hand records are > >commonplace in the most trivial Congress teams > >events in Australia, and the hand records are > >enjoyed by all contestants, from bunny to > >brilliant. > > > > Richard > > I think it is incorrect to say that the ACBL is pro matchpoints and anti > IMPs. It is well known here that the easiest way to get Gold Points (in the > quest of Everyman a life master) is to play in bracketed knockouts and the > bracketed KOs are very, very popular. > > Certainly shuffle and deal is faster, poses fewer problems for the > directors, and is cheaper than buying more Duplimate machines. I think the > ACBL has plenty of reasons for running team games the way that they do. > > That said, hand records are always a great thing to have and I sure would > love to have them. I doubt that a movement to get team games Duplimated > would be successful and duplicating from hand records for team games seems > possible but inefficient. > > I'd love to hear contrary opinions and/or suggestions relating to this. > > Walt > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From luis@fuegolabs.com Mon Jul 7 16:09:06 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:09:06 -0300 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> <000f01c34498$483dbff0$3d682452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <020801c34499$b5c111c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> I've always thought that hand shuffling in team events was not fair enough, maybe some hands are better suited for some teams than others. I know it may sound strange but in a set of freakish boards dealt on a match a weaker team has better chances to knock a better team. If the same boards are played in all the matches then chances will be the same for all teams. From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 5 11:01:53 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C342ED.39866FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Ton, =20 Ton: > It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both events started. = =20 This is not true. Certain events started at least half an hour late. =20 Ton: > Players seem to accept such delay =20 Players hate it you self-satisfied fool. But whenever we want to play = EBL or WBF championship we know we have to suffer amateuristic = organisation so we have no choice. In that sense we seem to accept it. = But when waiting we all curse those incompetent idiots who are = responsible for the mess and never seem to improve. And don't worry, so = does the lower ranking staff as well as long as the fat cats are not = listening in. =20 Ton: > Though technically spoken I agree with Kojak: it would be much easier = to ask the player to pay (at least part of ) the entry fee at > the = moment they preregister, I don't know what the effect is on that = pre-registration. If only two pairs decide not to come while=20 > they do play using the present procedure that might be enough reason = to keep it this way.=20 =20 You really have understood the current EBL policy. Two more paying = customers is more important than the rest of us waiting half an hour or = so and suffering other inconveniencies. And don't pretend not to know = the effect of payment at (pre)registration. Even if you don't believe = Kojak then turn your eye to your own country. In Holland we run (almost) = all tournaments that way (pay in advance at (pre) registration time) and = Dutch tournaments have this strange habit of starting at the announced = time. And you don't have that hassle with making cash payments, which = cost half a day per sub-event of valuable time at an EBL/WBF event. = Besides what makes you think that players will object to prepayment. = They have to book hotels and transportation anyway. Most if not all = would be happy to pay the fees as well in a normal way rather than to = have to show up with a stack of cash at a crowded registration desk. = Besides IMHO the EBL is taking crazy risks with that amount of cash. One = day there will be a hold-up. =20 Ton: > But this procedure 'creating major problems' sounds too strong in my = opinion.=20 =20 Dear Ton, if you are the guy organising the event you are not the one to = judge your performance. It is up to the 'clients' (the players) to = judge. And with few exceptions 'we' feel that the EBL is a bunch of = cheats who screwed up big time. This might sound too strong, but = fortunately there is no law against expressing ones emotion about = service and products rendered. To put it more polite, the EBL did not = deliver anywhere near value for money this tournament and they did it on = purpose. Because the real goal of this event was to earn as much money = as possible.=20 =20 Jaap =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kooijman, A.=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:43 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Menton European Championships =20 Yes we always have delays at the start of a new event. And that is = caused by having to rearrange the set up because of not showing up while = preregistered. But I am not sure that this causes real problems. Players = seem to accept such delay. Though technically spoken I agree with Kojak: = it would be much easier to ask the player to pay (at least part of ) the = entry fee at the moment they preregister, I don't know what the effect = is on that pre-registration. If only two pairs decide not to come while = they do play using the present procedure that might be enough reason to = keep it this way.=20 In Menton in both big events, the mixed and open pairs, the number of = pairs eventually registering were some 60 less than the = pre-registration. It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both = events started. But disadvantages are that we didn't use the space as = optimal as possible and the seeding could have been better, especially = since we removed a whole section.=20 But this procedure 'creating major problems' sounds too strong in my = opinion.=20 =20 ton =20 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?=20 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 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C342ED.39866FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear=20 Ton,

 

Ton:

> It didn't take more = than 20=20 minutes delay to have both events started.

 

This is not true. Certain = events=20 started at least half an hour late.

 

Ton:

> Players seem to = accept such=20 delay

 

Players hate it you = self-satisfied=20 fool. But whenever we want to play EBL or WBF championship we know we = have to=20 suffer amateuristic organisation so we have no choice. In that sense we = seem to=20 accept it. But when waiting we all curse those incompetent idiots who = are=20 responsible for the mess and never seem to improve. And don't worry, so = does the=20 lower ranking staff as well as long as the fat cats are not listening=20 in.

 

Ton:

> Though technically=20 spoken I agree with Kojak: it would be much easier to ask the = player to pay=20 (at least part of ) the entry fee at > the moment they preregister, I = don't=20 know what the effect is on that pre-registration. If only two pairs = decide not=20 to come while

> they do = play using the=20 present procedure that might be enough reason to keep it this way.=20

 

You really have understood = the=20 current EBL policy. Two more paying customers is more important than the = rest of=20 us waiting half an hour or so and suffering other inconveniencies.=20 And don't pretend not to know the effect of payment at = (pre)registration. Even=20 if you don't believe Kojak then turn your eye to your own country. In=20 Holland we run (almost) all tournaments that way (pay in advance at = (pre)=20 registration time) and Dutch tournaments have this strange habit of = starting at=20 the announced time. And you don't have that hassle with making cash = payments,=20 which cost half a day per sub-event of valuable time at an EBL/WBF = event.=20 Besides what makes you think that players will object to prepayment. = They have=20 to book hotels and transportation anyway. Most if not all would be happy = to pay=20 the fees as well in a normal way rather than to have to show up with a = stack of=20 cash at a crowded registration desk. Besides IMHO the EBL is taking = crazy risks=20 with that amount of cash. One day there will be a hold-up.

 

Ton:

> But this procedure=20 'creating major problems' sounds too strong in my opinion.=20

 

Dear Ton, if you are the = guy=20 organising the event you are not the one to judge your performance. It = is up to=20 the 'clients' (the players) to judge. And with few exceptions 'we' feel = that the=20 EBL is a bunch of cheats who screwed up big time. This might sound too = strong,=20 but fortunately there is no law against expressing ones emotion about = service=20 and products rendered. To put it more polite, the EBL did not deliver = anywhere=20 near value for money this tournament and they did it on purpose. Because = the=20 real goal of this event was to earn as much money as possible.=20

 

Jaap

 

 

----- Original Message = -----=20

From: Kooijman, A. =

To: blml@rtflb.org

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 = 10:43=20 AM

Subject: RE: [blml] Menton = European=20 Championships

 

Yes we always = have=20 delays at the start of a new event. And that is caused by having to = rearrange=20 the set up because of not showing up while preregistered. But = I am not=20 sure that this causes real problems. Players seem to accept such delay. = Though=20 technically spoken I agree with Kojak: it would be much easier to = ask the=20 player to pay (at least part of ) the entry fee at the moment they = preregister,=20 I don't know what the effect is on that pre-registration. If only two = pairs=20 decide not to come while they do play using the present procedure = that=20 might be enough reason to keep it this way.

In Menton in = both big=20 events, the mixed and open pairs, the  number of pairs = eventually=20 registering were some 60 less than the pre-registration. It didn't take = more=20 than 20 minutes delay to have both events started. But disadvantages are = that we=20 didn't use the space as optimal as possible and the seeding could have=20 been  better, especially since we removed a whole=20 section. 

But this = procedure=20 'creating major problems' sounds too strong in my opinion.=20

 

ton

 


Yeah, how about = that?  What=20 is so difficult to establish that at a given time after the start of a = match the=20 results must be turned in, or the teams involved are subject to penalty? = How=20 many matches were truncated because of slow play?   How many = penalties=20 do you think it would take to get the player's eager cooperation? =

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

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

Kojak

 

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C342ED.39866FE0-- From Roger Curnow" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C3448C.4BA105A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Declarer (South) lead a diamond towards dummy holding A984, and called = for 8. East, holding KQ106, thought that A had been called, so played the 6, = allowing 8 to score. The other three agreed that 8 had been called.=20 Would you allow East to change his card ? I felt that Law 47 :E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation 2. Retraction of Play (a) No One Has Subsequently Played A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick.=20 covered the situation.=20 Others disagreed . Others suggested 45.4.b roger curnow ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C3448C.4BA105A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Declarer=20 (South) lead a diamond towards dummy holding A984, and called for=20 8.
East, holding=20 KQ106, thought that A had been called, so played the 6, allowing 8 to=20 score.
The other three agreed that 8 had been called. =
Would you allow=20 East to change his card ?
I felt that Law=20 47 :E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation
  2.  = Retraction of=20 Play
    (a) No One Has Subsequently=20 Played
    A player may retract the card he has played = because=20 of a mistaken
explanation of an opponent's call or = play and=20 before a corrected
explanation, but only if no card was subsequently = played=20 to that trick.
covered the=20 situation.
Others=20 disagreed . Others suggested 45.4.b
 
        = roger=20 curnow
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C3448C.4BA105A0-- From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 7 17:22:37 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: Jaap, Ton, > You really have understood the current EBL policy. Two more paying > customers is more important than the rest of us waiting half an hour or > so and suffering other inconveniencies. And don't pretend not to know > the effect of payment at (pre)registration. Even if you don't believe > Kojak then turn your eye to your own country. I think the problem is in the combination of pre-registration and paying on site. If one can pre-register without paying, nobody will bother to unregister if one decides not to play. This means that one will have to wait until game-time to see which of the pre-registered pairs/teams have shown up, and only then one can move pairs around. This takes time and nobody likes to wait. If one would pre-register and pay, then there would be an incentive to notify the staff in advance if one decided not to play. (At least, that is standard in .nl, if one registers but doesn't show up, then ones entry fee won't be refunded). However: > In Holland we run (almost) all tournaments that way (pay in advance at > (pre) registration time) and Dutch tournaments have this strange habit > of starting at the announced time. [...] Besides > what makes you think that players will object to prepayment. A lot of them will object. Inside Holland, it is easy to pay the registration fee in advance. Fill in a form or click on a webpage, and the money is transferred within a day from one account to the other, for free. However, if you ever had the "pleasure" of doing business in 109 countries, you'd know that this is not universally true. Inside the EU, banks still charge 10% in fees to transfer money accross borders and it is slow, between the EU and non-EU it is more expensive and slower, credit cards charge 5% and requires manual processing on the receiving end, other countries have the habit of sending checks and clearing them takes a while too (while I can imagine that the EBL treasurer wants checks to be cleared before play starts). And then there are all kinds of countries with restrictions on money to be transferred. > And you don't have that hassle with making cash payments, which cost > half a day per sub-event of valuable time at an EBL/WBF event. In ACBL events, it is customary to pay the registration fee on site and those events do start on time. Also, > Besides IMHO the EBL is taking crazy risks with that amount of cash. One > day there will be a hold-up. this problem is addressed in 2 ways: players can buy coupons with their credit card in advance _and_ a few security guards stand around the entry sellers. Selling entries this way goes pretty fast: one hands over the money and gets a form back with starting instructions, plus space to fill out the names of the players. If one has sufficient change available, then this is 10 seconds/pair maximum. So, I think the solution is to do very little with the pre-registration. Use it to get an idea of the numbers that one expects, perhaps use it to seed 1 or 2 pairs a section that are guaranteed to show up, but just sell the other entries at random. Random seeding is probably as good as anything when trying to seed unknown pairs from unknown places. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 7 17:35:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> <000f01c34498$483dbff0$3d682452@mikeamos> <020801c34499$b5c111c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <001601c344a5$bfdf9760$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Luis Argerich" < > I've always thought that hand shuffling in team events was not fair enough, > maybe some hands are better suited > for some teams than others. I know it may sound strange but in a set of > freakish boards dealt on a > match a weaker team has better chances to knock a better team. If the same > boards are played in all > the matches then chances will be the same for all teams. > They don't even have to be freakish to have high "volatility." Just throw in a few slam hands and strong teams have a much better chance to blitz than when the boards are mostly flat games or partscores. Hands that require a squeeze or other advanced play to make a game are also blitz material. With duplication strong teams will be on an even playing field, something we always seek. Without duplication, teams are ranked together even though they have played different deals, pretty dumb. It reminds me of our ACBL straight-Mitchell pair finals, in which two unmixed fields play different hands, face different opponents, and compare only within their field. That's two differerent games, and yet ranking is overall, pretty dumb. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 7 17:42:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:42:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Card dealing capacities References: <000201c34443$00e410f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002f01c344a6$bbd404c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Thanks to everyone for their very helpful suggestions - Marv From adam@tameware.com Mon Jul 7 18:14:47 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:14:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? In-Reply-To: <002501c34425$ed3ecb20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200307031859.h63IxrS12091@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <002501c34425$ed3ecb20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 6:20 PM -0700 7/6/03, Marvin French wrote: >I recently brought Rubens' attention to Kaplan's answer to a Jeff Goldsmith >letter, November 1995. In fact it's posted on Jeff's web site, at the bottom of this page: http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samed.html >To me that meant a player should not bid 4S in that situation, but Jeff says >it is illegal for him to allow the huddle to influence his bidding in that >way. He must go ahead and bid 4S and let the TD/AC take it away from him. Jeff has many unusual ideas about the laws. As the publisher of the premier bridge magazine he could be influential, but his ideas are so far out of the mainstream that I suspect he in fact has little influence on the laws or their application. That does not trouble me, since I disagree with most of his legal views. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From David Stevenson Mon Jul 7 17:00:46 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:00:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Test, ignore In-Reply-To: <000801c34451$1ef63ec0$1be5193e@4nrw70j> References: <000801c34451$1ef63ec0$1be5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott=============================== >" The gentle mind by gentle deeds is known, >For a man by nothing is so well bewrayed. >As by his manners." > 'The Faerie Queen' [Edmund Spenser] >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:37 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Test, ignore > > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> >> > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, >> > is it better? (Big ISP NOC) >> >> No, I cannot see this message at all. >> >+=+ Then you still don't have a problem.+=+ Pardon? I thought you said something? -- 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 Jul 7 17:48:33 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:48:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <200307071435.KAA28477@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200307071435.KAA28477@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes >No automatic tricks, but L64C still applies. > >To apply L64C, use bridge judgment to decide "probable" and "at all >likely" scores (L12C2) as of the instant just before the revoke, i.e., >the C-Q has been led from dummy (East), and South follows suit instead >of revoking. What happens then? Then consider "irrational, wild, or >gambling" according to the rules in your jurisdiction. The procedure >is identical to any other case in which you would give an assigned >adjusted score. Don't forget L12C3 in jurisdictions that use it. L64C talks of assigning. -- 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 Jul 7 18:03:40 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:03:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] change of played card. In-Reply-To: <002901c34438$7f371700$1c49fea9@rogershome> References: <002901c34438$7f371700$1c49fea9@rogershome> Message-ID: Roger Curnow writes > Declarer (South) lead a diamond towards dummy holding A984, and > called for 8. > East, holding KQ106, thought that A had been called, so played the > 6, allowing 8 to score. > The other three agreed that 8 had been called. > Would you allow East to change his card ? > I felt that Law 47 :E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >   2.  Retraction of Play >     (a) No One Has Subsequently Played >     A player may retract the card he has played because of a > mistaken > explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected > explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that > trick. > covered the situation. > Others disagreed . Others suggested 45.4.b It was not an explanation of a play, but a designation. The 6 has been played and stands. -- 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 Jul 7 18:06:06 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:06:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: writes > >Alain wrote: > >>>Recently, I ran across an opponent who could not believe >>>that we hadn't any agreement about a fairly uncommon >>>auction (2N-3D-3S) in a long-established partnership. We >>>hadn't. He demanded a guess as what the bid could mean, I >>>gave him one . . . . . > >Ben replied: > >>Now your partner knows how you have taken it up! > >Richard continues: > >This issue was the subject of a semi-official Editorial in >the March 2003 ABF newsletter, attached at the end of this >posting. > >There is a tension between giving UI to pard when you >guess, and giving MI to opponents by not giving them an >informed guess. Tension? Giving MI to opponents is illegal: giving UI to partner is not. No contest. -- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 7 19:32:03 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:32:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> <000f01c34498$483dbff0$3d682452@mikeamos> <020801c34499$b5c111c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <001601c344a5$bfdf9760$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c344b8$056210d0$dafaf1c3@LNV> Marv: > Without duplication, teams are ranked together even though they have played > different deals, pretty dumb. It reminds me of our ACBL straight-Mitchell > pair finals, in which two unmixed fields play different hands, face > different opponents, and compare only within their field. That's two > differerent games, and yet ranking is overall, pretty dumb. But nobody seems to complain. Wait till I propose such arrangement in the WBF open pairs final. And much more, it is almost impossible to make mistakes in such a set up. Cowards they are. ton > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 7 19:27:31 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:27:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <002601c344b8$04fd3480$dafaf1c3@LNV> > > So, I think the solution is to do very little with the pre-registration. > Use it to get an idea of the numbers that one expects, perhaps use it to > seed 1 or 2 pairs a section that are guaranteed to show up, but just sell > the other entries at random. Random seeding is probably as good as > anything when trying to seed unknown pairs from unknown places. > > > Henk I have decided not to answer any of the messages Japp is sending around any more. But a civilized reaction on such message can not be ignored. I have to confess that our efforts to get equal strength in all sections is probably a waste of time. Still it might be a good idea to explain how much is done to try to get things started. We start with the list of preregistration, this time some 408 pairs in the open and then I walk around and talk with many peoople trying to assess the strength of the pairs. Almost all TD's are involved since they represent a great part of Europe nowadays and most players from outside our continent are welll known. This leads to the groups which are composed in such way that pairs from the same country don't meet each other in the last rounds of the last session of the qualification. That is not too difficult in a mitchell, put them at tables 4 - 6 in the NS position and 1 - 3 in the EW position in that last session. Such arrangement is not possible when selling starting positions at random. But ...... But then we have to cancell a whole section when 60 pairs don't show up. 60 pairs are good for 2 sections even, but dropping the tables (14 and )15 in the other sections makes it possible to rearrange the set up this way. This means that more than some countrymen will meet at the end and even worse probably that some seeded pairs are filling up holes and make a section stronger. But if the players do not care? So may be we indeed should give up our idea of failing perfectionism and do it as Kojak and Henk are describing. We have qualifications, semi-finals and finals and strong pairs should be able to reach the semi finals anyway and our fear for protectionism within countries can be dealt with in the semi-finals. Wait and see what happens in two years, may be I am able to convince some others. ton From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 7 20:38:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:38:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> <000f01c34498$483dbff0$3d682452@mikeamos> <020801c34499$b5c111c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <001601c344a5$bfdf9760$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002701c344b8$056210d0$dafaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <009f01c344bf$4a3d9ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> ton wrote: > Marv: > > > Without duplication, teams are ranked together even though they have > played > > different deals, pretty dumb. It reminds me of our ACBL straight-Mitchell > > pair finals, in which two unmixed fields play different hands, face > > different opponents, and compare only within their field. That's two > > differerent games, and yet ranking is overall, pretty dumb. > > > But nobody seems to complain. Wait till I propose such arrangement in the > WBF open pairs final. > And much more, it is almost impossible to make mistakes in such a set up. > Cowards they are. > At the very least they could have only half the lines switch direction for the second session, so that pairs compare with 1/4 of other pairs twice, 1/2 of them once, and 1/4 of them never, instead of 1/2 of them twice and 1/2 of them never. Even cowards should be able to handle that. Oddly, the ACBL does that in a one-section two-sesson event, but for the wrong reason, which is to halve the number of playbacks. A couple of arrow switches per session would help too, but they are taboo in ACBL-land. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 7 21:09:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:09:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] change of played card. In-Reply-To: <002901c34438$7f371700$1c49fea9@rogershome> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 23:33 US/Eastern, Roger Curnow wrote: > Declarer (South) lead a diamond towards dummy holding A984, and called=20= > for 8. > East, holding KQ106, thought that A had been called, so played the 6,=20= > allowing 8 to score. > The other three agreed that 8 had been called. > Would you allow East to change his card ? > I felt that Law 47 :E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation > =A0 2.=A0 Retraction of Play > =A0=A0=A0 (a) No One Has Subsequently Played > =A0=A0=A0 A player may retract the card he has played because of a = mistaken > explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected > explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that = trick. > covered the situation. > Others disagreed . Others suggested 45.4.b Rather look at Law 47F. There has been no misinformation here, and I=20 see no justification for a change of play. If in that last you mean=20 L45B4, it is inapplicable as the card for which declarer called *was*=20 in the dummy. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 7 21:44:40 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:44:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <009f01c344bf$4a3d9ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Monday, Jul 7, 2003, at 15:38 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > A couple of arrow switches per session would help too, but they are > taboo in > ACBL-land. Which seems incredibly short-sighted to me. From svenpran@online.no Mon Jul 7 21:54:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:54:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] OT: ACBL and Duplimate machines .... was: Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000401c344c9$ff362680$6900a8c0@WINXP> Walt ......... > Certainly shuffle and deal is faster, poses fewer problems for the > directors, and is cheaper than buying more Duplimate machines. I think = the > ACBL has plenty of reasons for running team games the way that they = do. >=20 > That said, hand records are always a great thing to have and I sure = would > love to have them. I doubt that a movement to get team games = Duplimated > would be successful and duplicating from hand records for team games = seems > possible but inefficient. >=20 > I'd love to hear contrary opinions and/or suggestions relating to = this. I can only speak from experience, but that much said I cannot remember = any serious event in Norway for many years now where the players have been instructed to shuffle and deal the cards. Teams or pairs, Imps or match points make no difference. Sven=20 From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Jul 7 21:57:22 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:57:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Abusive language on BLML (was Re: Menton European Championships) Message-ID: <0bmjgv4mi71lpg9hfm0f5rrifiqaolh9ta@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:53 +0200, "Jaap van der Neut" wrote: >Players hate it you self-satisfied fool. I stopped reading at that point; criticism expressed in this way is usually not worth reading. I trust that Jaap's article will not disturb Ton much, but it is a real problem for BLML when new subscribers see articles like that - I would like BLML to be a forum where people, including inexperienced directors, feel free to voice their (possibly incorrect) opinions and questions without fear of getting a reply like that. It is quite possible that Jaap has some valuable ideas about how things could be done better than they were done in Menton. I would be happy to read such ideas if they were expressed in a way that I could take seriously. In general, it would be nice if BLML contributors would refrain from voicing their opinions about other contributors as persons. I like to read opinions about bridge law interpretation; I also like to read opinions about the organization of events like Menton; I often find it interesting that two people disagree strongly about something; but I have absolutely no need to know whether one of them considers the other one a fool. As for Menton, I was there enjoying the modest rank of "Assistant Tournament Director". Yes, several things could have been done better in Menton, and the experience should be used to improve future events. But calling the organizers fools certainly does not help. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 7 22:19:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:19:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle References: Message-ID: <00e701c344cd$84e9b8c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Ed Reppert wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > A couple of arrow switches per session would help too, but they are > > taboo in > > ACBL-land. > > Which seems incredibly short-sighted to me. > People tend to fear the unknown. Those who might recommend this are confused by the various approaches to arrow-switching, which is not surprising. When I mentioned to one of them that switching about 1/8 of the rounds (thanks for that guideline, John Probst) would tend to balance out an imbalance in the lines, I was looked at as if I had lost my mind. Actually, the seeding in NABC finals is so well done that there isn't likely to be a significant imbalance. Since frequent arrow switches (to equalize comparisons) are said to spoil the balance, perhaps the ACBL is right to forego arrow switching. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Jul 7 22:45:33 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Abusive language on BLML (was Re: Menton European Championships) In-Reply-To: <0bmjgv4mi71lpg9hfm0f5rrifiqaolh9ta@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <0bmjgv4mi71lpg9hfm0f5rrifiqaolh9ta@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: >On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:01:53 +0200, "Jaap van der Neut" >wrote: > >>Players hate it you self-satisfied fool. > >I stopped reading at that point; criticism expressed in this way is >usually not worth reading. > >I trust that Jaap's article will not disturb Ton much, but it is a >real problem for BLML when new subscribers see articles like that - I >would like BLML to be a forum where people, including inexperienced >directors, feel free to voice their (possibly incorrect) opinions and >questions without fear of getting a reply like that. > >It is quite possible that Jaap has some valuable ideas about how >things could be done better than they were done in Menton. I would be >happy to read such ideas if they were expressed in a way that I could >take seriously. > >In general, it would be nice if BLML contributors would refrain from >voicing their opinions about other contributors as persons. I like to >read opinions about bridge law interpretation; I also like to read >opinions about the organization of events like Menton; I often find it >interesting that two people disagree strongly about something; but I >have absolutely no need to know whether one of them considers the >other one a fool. > >As for Menton, I was there enjoying the modest rank of "Assistant >Tournament Director". Yes, several things could have been done better >in Menton, and the experience should be used to improve future events. >But calling the organizers fools certainly does not help. > >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. >http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > AMEN! -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 7 23:36:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:36:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] May UI affect your intended call? Message-ID: Marv wrote: >>>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, [snip] Richard replied: >>While I admire Rubens' skills as an Editor, a bidding >>theorist, and a par contest creator - I do *not* accept >>his advice on current Law, and I do *not* accept his >>eccentric views on what Law "should" be in future. >> >>Nor do I accept, without evidence, what an unnamed ACBL >>official states used to be the opinion of Edgar Kaplan. [snip] Ron continued: >Especially since I recall a sharp exchange of footnotes in >one of Rubens' articles in which Kaplan takes position two. > >Will see if I can find it. Richard reveals: The sharp exchange of footnotes occurred in the February 1993 Master Solvers Club, Problem A. Rubens (director): "Ethical behavior requires *ignoring* illegal information, not trying to compensate for it." Kaplan (footnote): "Well, not exactly. If South has to choose betwen action (a) and action (b), both sensible, when the illegal information suggests that (a) will be more sensible, South is *required* to choose (b) - even if he is sure that he would otherwise have chosen (a)." Rubens (toenote): "Are we discussing bridge or semantics? If South is *sure* that he would have chosen (a) (perhaps he has asked a kibitzer to act for him in an emergency) then, *to South*, (a) and (b) cannot both be sensible." To answer Rubens question, we are discussing *both* bridge *and* semantics. There is a hidden assumption in Rubens' argument - that South's logical alternatives are a matter for South to individually determine. Not so. The WBF Code of Practice defines a logical alternative for an individual South in terms of what a *class* of Souths might do -> "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." While the ACBL has not adopted the specific words of the WBF definition, the ACBL also defines logical alternative by reference to a group of other players. QED, Rubens' argument is false. Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 8 00:03:37 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:03:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F052149.5060705@skynet.be> References: <1118212.1057144299364.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3F052149.5060705@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3F052149.5060705@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> >> >>>The >>>trouble is, of course, that you and Probst would then start opening five >counts. >>>There are those who understand what a rule is, and there are... well, I say no >>>more. >>> >> >> Tim and I have no problem obeying the regulations of St Johns Wood BC, >> and fortunately there is no regulation which stops us using our >> judgement. In other words we have agreements and we depart from them >> from time to time. Our agreements are legal within the framework of St >> Johns Wood BC (as indeed are our agreements within the framework of >> EBU). Where the problem lies is that the EBU seeks to restrain our >> judgement in departing from agreements, and St Johns Wood does not. >> > > >Don't you see what you are doing, John? > >For whatever reason, the EBU has stated that it does not want to see >very weak openings. The EBU has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that >5HCP is too little to open on. >And John and Tim have decided they don't want to follow that rule, >they do want to open 5-pointers. >But John and Tim are actually good guys, and they want to follow the >rules. >So they've decided on the following ploy: >They write on their CC: 6+. But after the first time it occurred we'd alert the opener and explain that partner has been known to depart from out agreements. More to the point is that we don't want to open 6 counts, we want to open hands with 2QT in 3rd seat, which may well be 8- loser hands. I don't think we'd open any non-Ro16 hands in 3rd for example. My pick-up american partner at the YC opened AKxx x xxxxx xxx 1S a couple of years ago, commenting "I've never opened with as little as this before." Neither had I. snip -- 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 Sphboc@aol.com Mon Jul 7 17:35:49 2003 From: Sphboc@aol.com (Sphboc@aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:35:49 EDT Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle Message-ID: <198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65@aol.com> --part1_198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. Specific questions of interest: A. Are bar-coded cards required? If so, do players tend to have a problem with appearance of these? B. What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? How many people does it require to attain this (including putting hands into boards, etc)? C. How is the machine informed of deal content? Manual keying from hand records, as opposed to input from media? If the latter, is it feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring organization? (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation in a provably-secure manner?). D. Are the machines mechanically reliable? How much maintenance tends to be required? Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they are truly feasible. --part1_198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practic= al issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment.

Specific questions of interest:
A.  Are bar-coded cards required?  If so, do players tend to have=20= a problem with appearance of these? 
B.  What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? = How many people does it require to attain this (including putting hands int= o boards, etc)?
C.  How is the machine informed of deal content?  Manual keying fr= om hand records, as opposed to input from media?  If the latter, is it=20= feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring organization?&n= bsp; (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation in a provably= -secure manner?).
D.  Are the machines mechanically reliable?  How much maintenance=20= tends to be required? 

Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they are=20= truly feasible.
--part1_198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jul 7 18:17:23 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:17:23 EDT Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <12.332351c0.2c3b0523@aol.com> --part1_12.332351c0.2c3b0523_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Youshould be getting this on BLML and as a blind copy. I wanted to be sure you saw my comments. Kojak In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:28:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net writes: > > In ACBL events, it is customary to pay the registration fee on site and > those events do start on time. Yeah guys, but ACBL also has a seeding committee working at the selling site so the seeding is far from random. I would gladly compare the running of large ACBL events of high ranking character with any other organization as far as seeding, organization, starting times, duplication, and all the other technical aspects of the TD job are concerned. But, those people are trained, are adequately paid, and do not suffer from creaking "we've always done it that way in XXXXXX......"(read: XXXXXX = where i come from). My concern remains that the WBF has deteriorated in it's services, and is far from a shining example of the best treatment at the highest level. That isno surprise to anyone who has attended thelast fw champinships. It is wrong to rely on what the players are used to in their NCBOs and Zones as being what they can expect at the WBF level. Be it selling on-the-site, pre- registration, table duplication and verification after the first round, seeding during selling, etc., there is no reason why players of international level, who travel frequently to venues that are different from home, have a right to expect that at WBF they will be treated the same way they are at home. Especially when the treatment at home generates the whirlwind of displeasure as apparently EBL has done at Menton, and when modern communications reveals to them that some things are done better elsewherer than "at home." Please spare me the cultural aspects argument, I know of few people who are more cross-culturally trained and oriented than I am -- as those in offical positions in WBF should be. In the only 40 years of working in WBF I have yet to see where the present system of pre-registration did anything but screw up the works at game time. It may be acceptable at Zonal level, as it clearly is not, so it shouldn't even be thought of at World level. Kojak --part1_12.332351c0.2c3b0523_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Youshould be getting this on BLML and as a blind= copy.  I wanted to be sure you saw my comments.  Kojak

In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:28:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net= writes:


In ACBL events, it is customary to pay the registration fee on site and
those events do start on time.


Yeah guys, but ACBL also has a seeding committee working at the selling site= so the seeding is far from random.  I would gladly compare the running= of large ACBL events of high ranking character with any other organization=20= as far as seeding, organization, starting times, duplication, and all the ot= her technical aspects of the TD job are concerned.  But, those people a= re trained, are adequately paid, and do not suffer from  creaking "we'v= e always done it that way in XXXXXX......"(read: XXXXXX =3D where i come fro= m).

My concern remains that the WBF has deteriorated in it's services, and is fa= r from a shining example of the best treatment at the highest level. That is= no surprise to anyone who has attended thelast fw champinships. It is wrong=20= to rely on what the players are used to in their NCBOs and Zones as being wh= at they can expect at the WBF level.  Be it selling on-the-site, pre- r= egistration, table duplication and verification after the first round, seedi= ng during selling, etc., there is no reason why players of international lev= el, who travel frequently to venues that are different from home, have a rig= ht to expect that at WBF they will be treated the same way they are at home.=   Especially when the treatment at home generates the whirlwind of disp= leasure as apparently EBL has done at Menton, and when modern communications= reveals to them that some things are done better elsewherer than "at home."=   Please spare me the cultural aspects argument, I know of few people w= ho are more cross-culturally trained and oriented than I am -- as those in o= ffical positions in WBF should be.

In the only 40 years of working in WBF I have yet to see where the present s= ystem of pre-registration did anything but screw up the works at game time.=20= It may be acceptable at Zonal level, as it clearly is not, so it shouldn't e= ven be thought of at World level.

Kojak



--part1_12.332351c0.2c3b0523_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jul 7 21:56:26 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:56:26 EDT Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: --part1_ba.4276292a.2c3b387a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/2003 2:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > So may be we indeed should give up our idea of failing perfectionism and do > it as Kojak and Henk are describing. We have qualifications, semi-finals and > finals and strong pairs should be able to reach the semi finals anyway and > our fear for protectionism within countries can be dealt with in the > semi-finals. > I protest! What is it tha Henk AND Kojak are proposing? What you have posted there is something that I never would propose, haven't given the light of day to, and is insulting. It also shows that your prime, and strongest consideration for seeding is to minimize the opportunities for the players to cheat. I for one don't believe that our game consists of nationalistic cheats who throw boards to their countrymates. This is particularly ludicrous to me in the early stages of a competition when EVERYBODY wants to qualify for the next stage. Have you any idea of how seeding is done in ACBL, for example? Would you like to discuss that in this open forum? Would you be amenable to learning anything other than the way you want to do things that are not even your resposibility according to the Conditions of Contest and the Laws? ( I have yet to see the CofC for Monte Carlo, perhaps the duties of the CTD have changed). I agree with you on one thing, and that is that Henk and Jaap, whoever they are, could be more courteous in their posting. But then English is probably not their prime language, and I've read and heard emotions overstated -- even by you, for example. Yet I detect an undercurrent in their postings, and that is that they want improvement. In your postings I detect DEFENSE for the way things are now, for errors, for ommisions, and a closed mind to doing anything other than what you think is proper. How many times do we have to continue to live with a system that even by your admission DOESN'T WORK? Are you serious when you use the word perfectionism with the system you advocate? Your bias on TD nationality is also again in the forefront of your statements. I can't help but wonder if duplication disasters would be lessened if you spent the time that you say you do in talking to players about who is a "good" or "bad" player on seeing that duplication is improved. You have all the right in the world not to respond to any further postings of mine, but I sincerely think you owe me, and the TDs of the WBF from wherever they may have been born, a public apology. Kojak --part1_ba.4276292a.2c3b387a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/7/2003 2:51:27 PM Eastern Stan= dard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes:

So may be we indeed should=20= give up our idea of failing perfectionism and do
it as Kojak and Henk are describing. We have qualifications, semi-finals and=
finals and strong pairs should be able to reach the semi finals anyway and our fear for protectionism within countries can be dealt with in the
semi-finals.


I protest!  What is it tha Henk AND Kojak are proposing?  What you= have posted there is  something that I never would propose, haven't gi= ven the light of day to, and is insulting.  It also shows that your pri= me, and strongest consideration for seeding is to minimize the opportunities= for the players to cheat.  I for one don't believe that our game consi= sts of nationalistic cheats who throw boards to their countrymates.  Th= is is particularly ludicrous to me in the early stages of a competition when= EVERYBODY wants to qualify for the next stage.

Have you any idea of how seeding is done in ACBL, for example?  Would y= ou like to discuss that in this open forum? Would you be amenable to learnin= g anything other than the way you want to do things that are not even your r= esposibility according to the Conditions of Contest and the Laws? ( I have y= et to see the CofC for Monte Carlo, perhaps the duties of the CTD have chang= ed).

I agree with you on one thing, and that is that Henk and Jaap, whoever they=20= are, could be more courteous in their posting. But then English is probably=20= not their prime language, and I've read and heard emotions overstated -- eve= n by you, for example. Yet I detect an undercurrent in their postings, and t= hat is that they want improvement.  In your postings I detect DEFENSE f= or the way things are now, for errors, for ommisions, and a closed mind to d= oing anything other than what you think is proper.

How many times do we have to continue to live with a system that even by you= r admission DOESN'T WORK?  Are you serious when you use the word perfec= tionism with the system you advocate? Your bias on TD nationality is also ag= ain in the forefront of your statements. I can't help but wonder if duplicat= ion disasters would be lessened if you spent the time that you say you do in= talking to players about who is a "good" or "bad" player on seeing that dup= lication is improved.

You have all the right in the world not to respond to any further postings o= f mine, but I sincerely think you owe me, and the TDs of the WBF from wherev= er they may have been born, a public apology.

Kojak
--part1_ba.4276292a.2c3b387a_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jul 7 21:58:17 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:58:17 EDT Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle Message-ID: <104.32290c05.2c3b38e9@aol.com> --part1_104.32290c05.2c3b38e9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/2003 2:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > But nobody seems to complain. Wait till I propose such arrangement in the > WBF open pairs final. > Are you kidding? Kojak --part1_104.32290c05.2c3b38e9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/7/2003 2:52:10 PM Eastern Stan= dard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes:

But nobody seems to complai= n. Wait till I propose such arrangement in the
WBF open pairs final.


Are you kidding?

Kojak
--part1_104.32290c05.2c3b38e9_boundary-- From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Jul 8 08:12:18 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:12:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] soft shoe shuffle Message-ID: <004901c34520$45cc6900$1e4565d5@swipnet.se> I am trying to reply to Sphboc. A. yes, you need bard-coded decks or holes in the cards. B. One person can handle about 200 boards an hour. two people - 300 = baords. or were toy asking for something else? C. You need diskettes or the machine makes random deals. D. Yes, the machines are reliable. From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Jul 8 08:18:16 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:18:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] sog shoe shuffle Message-ID: <005101c34521$1a4e9220$1e4565d5@swipnet.se> Reply to Marvin French: In England and Sweden we have different opinions on how many rounds = should be switched in a Mitchell. In Sweden we think one third of the = rounds should be switched. Se the book "Movements". I would be great if the players in some countries could be used to = switching. In Sweden players always ask whether a round should be = switched or not. One of the problems is that ABCLscore does not take = care of arrow switches. But that is only a question of programming. From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 8 08:30:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:30:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65@aol.com> Message-ID: <000801c34522$d6921b90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sphboc@aol.com: Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues arising = out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. SP: Experiences related to the machines made and marketed by = Bridgeteknik Engvall in Sweden ( http://w1.873.telia.com/~u87303923/ ): Specific questions of interest: A.=A0 Are bar-coded cards required?=A0 If so, do players tend to have a = problem with appearance of these?=A0=20 SP: Cards must be coded with either bars or holes (tiny =93invisible=94 = holes at the card center). Bar codes come cheaper and are preferred for several reasons. His newer machine type processes bar codes only. Experience = shows that his =937B=94 code (4 bars with 3 spaces) is not causing any kind of = problem to the players. The older =935B=94 code can appear a bit dominant and = disturbing and is not recommended also because it is a little bit more prone to = erratic decoding. B.=A0 What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine?=A0 = How many people does it require to attain this (including putting hands into = boards, etc)? SP: The machine uses 7 seconds to process a single deck of cards. Experienced operators need between 3 and 5 seconds between each = processing for =93house holding=94; in addition some time will always be lost = because of interruptions for preparing batches, relaxation etc. . Realistic = throughput is between 200 (inexperienced operators) and 300 boards per hour all inclusive. A machine is most effectively operated by a single person. C.=A0 How is the machine informed of deal content?=A0 Manual keying from = hand records, as opposed to input from media?=A0 If the latter, is it = feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring organization?=A0 (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation in a = provably-secure manner?). SP: Any means is possible, the most popular is to use a card dealing = program for making files which is then used to control the card dealing machine. D.=A0 Are the machines mechanically reliable?=A0 How much maintenance = tends to be required?=A0 SP: Yes. The amount of maintenance required depends upon the environment = in which the machine is operated and where the cards are used. A frequent =93problem=94 is card tables covered with cloth causing the cards to = accumulate woolen dust which eventually is deposited in the card dealing machine. A simple regular maintenance is to clean the card path using compressed = air, occasionally also first applying cleansing fluid (spray) for electronic equipment. Heavily used machines should probably receive a more comprehensive preventive and corrective maintenance maybe annually. =20 Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they = are truly feasible. SP: Bottom line is that after more than 15 years experience with card dealing machines in Norway I don=92t think anybody here will consider = manually shuffling and card dealing for serious events an alternative. Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Jul 8 07:27:35 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:27:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle References: <104.32290c05.2c3b38e9@aol.com> Message-ID: <004401c3451e$594bc860$cef8f1c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C3452A.C9077D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes ton In a message dated 7/7/2003 2:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, = t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: But nobody seems to complain. Wait till I propose such arrangement = in the WBF open pairs final. Are you kidding? Kojak=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C3452A.C9077D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes
 
 
ton

In a message = dated 7/7/2003=20 2:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl=20 writes:

But nobody seems to complain. Wait till I propose = such=20 arrangement in the
WBF open pairs = final.


Are you=20 kidding?

Kojak
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C3452A.C9077D00-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Jul 8 07:53:04 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:53:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <004501c3451e$59ad9770$cef8f1c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C3452E.580C9E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/7/2003 2:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, = t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: So may be we indeed should give up our idea of failing perfectionism = and do it as Kojak and Henk are describing. We have qualifications, = semi-finals and finals and strong pairs should be able to reach the semi finals = anyway and our fear for protectionism within countries can be dealt with in the semi-finals. I protest! What is it tha Henk AND Kojak are proposing? What you = have posted there is something that I never would propose, haven't = given the light of day to, and is insulting. It also shows that your = prime, and strongest consideration for seeding is to minimize the = opportunities for the players to cheat. I for one don't believe that = our game consists of nationalistic cheats who throw boards to their = countrymates. This is particularly ludicrous to me in the early stages = of a competition when EVERYBODY wants to qualify for the next stage. You have all the right in the world not to respond to any further = postings of mine, but I sincerely think you owe me, and the TDs of the = WBF from wherever they may have been born, a public apology.=20 Kojak=20 ****Before being able to apologize I need to know for what. I am not = aware of anything I wrote recently being an acceptable explanation for = your outburst.=20 What I said about the TD's in this championship was that they came = from all over Europe and therefore were very helpful in determining the = strength of the players, from Portugal to Russia and from Norway to = Turkey.=20 And I personaly have the experience that in the fourth session of a = qualification when some pairs now already that they don't qualify their = concentration might become less then acceptable. So it is not very = realistic to deny such behaviour. And an organization should try to = solve those problems.=20 ton ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C3452E.580C9E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
In a=20 message dated 7/7/2003 2:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl=20 writes:

So may be we indeed should give up our idea of = failing=20 perfectionism and do
it as Kojak and Henk are describing. We have = qualifications, semi-finals and
finals and strong pairs should be = able to=20 reach the semi finals anyway and
our fear for protectionism = within=20 countries can be dealt with in the
semi-finals.


I protest!  What is it tha Henk AND Kojak are=20 proposing?  What you have posted there is  something that I = never=20 would propose, haven't given the light of day to, and is = insulting.  It=20 also shows that your prime, and strongest consideration for seeding is = to=20 minimize the opportunities for the players to cheat.  I for one = don't=20 believe that our game consists of nationalistic cheats who throw = boards to=20 their countrymates.  This is particularly ludicrous to me in the = early=20 stages of a competition when EVERYBODY wants to qualify for the next=20 stage.
 
 
 
 
You have all the right in the world not to respond to any = further=20 postings of mine, but I sincerely think you owe me, and the TDs of the = WBF=20 from wherever they may have been born, a public apology.

Kojak =
 
 
****Before being able to apologize I need to know for = what. I am=20 not aware of anything I wrote recently being an acceptable = explanation=20 for your outburst.
What I said about the TD's in this championship was that = they=20 came from all over Europe and therefore were very helpful in = determining the=20 strength of the players, from Portugal to Russia and from Norway to = Turkey.=20
And I personaly have the experience that in the fourth = session of=20 a qualification when some pairs now already that they don't qualify = their=20 concentration might become less then acceptable. So it is not=20 very realistic to deny such behaviour.  And an organization = should=20 try to solve those problems.
 
ton
 
 
=
 
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C3452E.580C9E60-- From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Jul 8 08:18:16 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:18:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] sog shoe shuffle Message-ID: <005701c34525$556206e0$1e4565d5@swipnet.se> Reply to Marvin French: In England and Sweden we have different opinions on how many rounds = should be switched in a Mitchell. In Sweden we think one third of the = rounds should be switched. Se the book "Movements". I would be great if the players in some countries could be used to = switching. In Sweden players always ask whether a round should be = switched or not. One of the problems is that ABCLscore does not take = care of arrow switches. But that is only a question of programming. From henk@ripe.net Tue Jul 8 09:31:39 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:31:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <12.332351c0.2c3b0523@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:28:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net > writes: > > In ACBL events, it is customary to pay the registration fee on site and > > those events do start on time. > > Yeah guys, but ACBL also has a seeding committee working at the selling site > so the seeding is far from random. With all due respect for the ACBL seeding committee, but their algorithm (and thus the result) is not that exact either: if a famous pair shows up (where famous means that the TD or committee member recognizes him), their names are put on a list and afterwards divided equally over the sections. The remaining flight A, plus all B and C entries are sold at random. While this ensure that the really strong pairs are divided equally over the sections, it definitely does not ensure that all sections are equally strong. 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 8 11:53:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:53:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030703215229.024d8e90@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <3F03F451.4080609@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702155340.024d2120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030702183633.024e4240@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030703111511.025022f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708124716.01dcd970@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:14 3/07/2003 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >Suppose you are considering opening 2NT, which you limit to 22 HCP. (I am >using this example because the half-point range is common for this >bid.) Here are three possible 20-point hands. > >A: AJTx AKx KQTx Kx >B: AJT AKx KQT9x Kx >C: AQT Axx AQT9x Ax > >If you open 2NT on all three hands, you can mark your card 20-22. If you >open 2NT on B and C but not on A, you can mark your card 20+ to 22. If >you open 2NT on none of the hands, you can mark your card 21-22. AG : isn't there also such a thing as judgment as to what constitutes a "+" hand ? I mean, hand A) is worth more than the usual 20-HCP hand, with its top honors, two good 4-card suits (useful tens) and no negative feature to compensate. An "average" 20-count could perhaps be D) AJTx - KQ9 - KQxx - AJ. If you open 2NT on about 1/4 of 20-counts, then hand A) surely is one of those. I wonder whether there is a difference between "20+" and "good 20", but I usually play "good 20 to so-so 22", and would be glad to open 2NT on each of those three - but not on hand D). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 8 11:59:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:59:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708125532.01dd2e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:06 7/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >There is a tension between giving UI to pard when you > >guess, and giving MI to opponents by not giving them an > >informed guess. > > Tension? Giving MI to opponents is illegal: giving UI to partner is >not. No contest. AG : Right. However, the Laws say that the opponents are entitled to what you know from your agreements and knowledge of partner. Therefore, MI only occurs if you fail to inform opponents of either your agreements or your knowledge of partner's (and the pair's) style. IMOBO, answering "we didn't discuss it, therefore it is natural by our metarule, but I don't know more" should be enough, provided of course that it's true. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 8 12:13:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:13:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708125532.01dd2e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c34541$e9b30440$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > > >There is a tension between giving UI to pard when you > > >guess, and giving MI to opponents by not giving them an > > >informed guess. > > > > Tension? Giving MI to opponents is illegal: giving UI to partner = is > >not. No contest. >=20 > AG : Right. However, the Laws say that the opponents are entitled to = what > you know from your agreements and knowledge of partner. Therefore, MI = only > occurs if you fail to inform opponents of either your agreements or = your > knowledge of partner's (and the pair's) style. > IMOBO, answering "we didn't discuss it, therefore it is natural by our > metarule, but I don't know more" should be enough, provided of course = that > it's true. Please give me a comment on the following incident which appeared to me once: Playing a social bridge party with Arild Torp as a casual partner (top ranked Norwegian player - way above me, deceased many years ago) he "suddenly" made a 5NT bid. We certainly had not discussed our agreements = to this detail, but he trusted me to know the Culbertson "great, free 5NT = bid" which I indeed did (and guessed that was his intention) so we landed in = the correct contract. Now, what would have been my "correct" answer to a request for an explanation of the 5NT bid by partner? No agreement (Your guess is as good as mine)? No agreement, but I believe it must be asking for trump top honors? I have no idea, but I take it to mean ..etc.? (which would have been a = lie; I certainly did have an idea) >From what I generally know of partner's competence and style in Bridge I assume he asks for my top trump honors. >From my own general bridge knowledge with which I believe partner is familiar I assume he asks for .. etc.? Other answers? =20 Regards Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jul 8 12:15:59 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:15:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465C4@hotel.npl.co.uk> Not directly a response to Alain, his is just the latest post. I am surprised this thread has lasted so long (perhaps I'm not). Especially as it is two threads: 1. HCP for regulation 2. HCP for disclosure 1. HCP for regulation HCP is a crude measure for regulation: on its own or combined with the sum of the lengths of the longest two suits. But it is a measure that is understood by players and regulators. Some want to improve this measure by allowing judgement, for me this allows players to make the regulation unenforceable. If you feel compromised by a regulation that restricts opening bids to 19 or more opening points because your judgement tells you that some 18 opening point hands are better than some 19 opening point hands, then don't agree to open 19 opening points hands. Instead agree to open all hands that are worth 20 opening points (or 21), setting the minimum so your judgement will not upgrade hands with less than 19 opening points. (Similarly with 9HCP 1NT openers.) If you feel that any minimum restriction for opening bids (e.g. in third position) is bad for bridge then campaign to get it changed. IMHO many players would be surprised at the minimum hands allowed already and would not expect to have to deal with opponents opening such hands. These are the players that the regulators are seeking to protect (rightly or wrongly). 2. HCP for disclosure HCP is a crude measure for disclosure, on its own or combined with "+", "-", "1/2", or ".8"s. What we write on our convention cards and tell opponents is an attempt to explain our agreements based on HCP adjusted by judgement. It is impossible for this to be very accurate and we can only do the best we can. If we suspect that opponents are Walruses then we should say that we may include/exclude hands outside/inside our stated range based on judgement or refined evaluation. If we playing against a field of Walruses, we could write something like that on our convention card. I don't think we will agree what constitutes a "bad 12", "14+", "20 1/2". Robin -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] Sent: 08 July 2003 11:53 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] HCP At 22:14 3/07/2003 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >Suppose you are considering opening 2NT, which you limit to 22 HCP. (I am >using this example because the half-point range is common for this >bid.) Here are three possible 20-point hands. > >A: AJTx AKx KQTx Kx >B: AJT AKx KQT9x Kx >C: AQT Axx AQT9x Ax > >If you open 2NT on all three hands, you can mark your card 20-22. If you >open 2NT on B and C but not on A, you can mark your card 20+ to 22. If >you open 2NT on none of the hands, you can mark your card 21-22. AG : isn't there also such a thing as judgment as to what constitutes a "+" hand ? I mean, hand A) is worth more than the usual 20-HCP hand, with its top honors, two good 4-card suits (useful tens) and no negative feature to compensate. An "average" 20-count could perhaps be D) AJTx - KQ9 - KQxx - AJ. If you open 2NT on about 1/4 of 20-counts, then hand A) surely is one of those. I wonder whether there is a difference between "20+" and "good 20", but I usually play "good 20 to so-so 22", and would be glad to open 2NT on each of those three - but not on hand D). Best regards, Alain. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jul 8 12:33:29 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:33:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465C5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Possible responses: Nobody: Why are you asking? Can't you wait till the auction is over. Marvin: No special agreement (GSF is general not special agreement) Herman: Grand slam force, asking for trump honours (a guess, not explained as a guess, to avoid UI) Me (following Sven): From my own general bridge knowledge with which I believe partner is familiar (and I believe partner believes I am familiar), I assume he asks for trump honours. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 08 July 2003 12:13 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) > Alain Gottcheiner > David Stevenson wrote: > > > >There is a tension between giving UI to pard when you > > >guess, and giving MI to opponents by not giving them an > > >informed guess. > > > > Tension? Giving MI to opponents is illegal: giving UI to partner is > >not. No contest. > > AG : Right. However, the Laws say that the opponents are entitled to what > you know from your agreements and knowledge of partner. Therefore, MI only > occurs if you fail to inform opponents of either your agreements or your > knowledge of partner's (and the pair's) style. > IMOBO, answering "we didn't discuss it, therefore it is natural by our > metarule, but I don't know more" should be enough, provided of course that > it's true. Please give me a comment on the following incident which appeared to me once: Playing a social bridge party with Arild Torp as a casual partner (top ranked Norwegian player - way above me, deceased many years ago) he "suddenly" made a 5NT bid. We certainly had not discussed our agreements to this detail, but he trusted me to know the Culbertson "great, free 5NT bid" which I indeed did (and guessed that was his intention) so we landed in the correct contract. Now, what would have been my "correct" answer to a request for an explanation of the 5NT bid by partner? No agreement (Your guess is as good as mine)? No agreement, but I believe it must be asking for trump top honors? I have no idea, but I take it to mean ..etc.? (which would have been a lie; I certainly did have an idea) >From what I generally know of partner's competence and style in Bridge I assume he asks for my top trump honors. >From my own general bridge knowledge with which I believe partner is familiar I assume he asks for .. etc.? Other answers? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jul 8 13:20:50 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:20:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <000001c34541$e9b30440$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708125532.01dd2e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708141043.01dc5d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:13 8/07/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Please give me a comment on the following incident which appeared to me >once: > >Playing a social bridge party with Arild Torp as a casual partner (top >ranked Norwegian player - way above me, deceased many years ago) he >"suddenly" made a 5NT bid. We certainly had not discussed our agreements to >this detail, but he trusted me to know the Culbertson "great, free 5NT bid" >which I indeed did (and guessed that was his intention) so we landed in the >correct contract. > >Now, what would have been my "correct" answer to a request for an >explanation of the 5NT bid by partner? > >No agreement (Your guess is as good as mine)? # as has been said before, it is seldom true : your guess is usually betterthan theirs unless a) you don't know anything about partner, eg he came as a substitute b) you(re playing against two of his regular partners/teammates >No agreement, but I believe it must be asking for trump top honors? # seems to be correct in this case. >I have no idea, but I take it to mean ..etc.? (which would have been a lie; >I certainly did have an idea) # you're right : one always has some idea > >From what I generally know of partner's competence and style in Bridge I >assume he asks for my top trump honors. # I would have accepted this. It describes your state of mind pretty well. This is similar to citing some metarule, or using an analogy with some other sequence. It's often the best you can make when the bid is undiscussed. > >From my own general bridge knowledge with which I believe partner is >familiar I assume he asks for .. etc.? # if this was the only reason, you would not be compelled to say it is. >Other answers? # "No specific agreement ; since many use it as asking for trump honors, I'll assume he does." From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 8 13:30:26 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:30:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465C4@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708142305.01ddaa30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:15 8/07/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >I am surprised this thread has lasted so long (perhaps I'm not). >Especially as it is two threads: > 1. HCP for regulation > 2. HCP for disclosure > >1. HCP for regulation > >HCP is a crude measure for regulation: on its own or combined with >the sum of the lengths of the longest two suits. But it is a >measure that is understood by players and regulators. Some want to >improve this measure by allowing judgement, for me this allows >players to make the regulation unenforceable. > >If you feel compromised by a regulation that restricts opening bids >to 19 or more opening points because your judgement tells you that >some 18 opening point hands are better than some 19 opening point >hands, then don't agree to open 19 opening points hands. Instead >agree to open all hands that are worth 20 opening points (or 21), >setting the minimum so your judgement will not upgrade hands with >less than 19 opening points. (Similarly with 9HCP 1NT openers.) > >If you feel that any minimum restriction for opening bids (e.g. in >third position) is bad for bridge then campaign to get it changed. >IMHO many players would be surprised at the minimum hands allowed >already and would not expect to have to deal with opponents opening >such hands. These are the players that the regulators are seeking >to protect (rightly or wrongly). > > >2. HCP for disclosure > >HCP is a crude measure for disclosure, on its own or combined with >"+", "-", "1/2", or ".8"s. What we write on our convention cards >and tell opponents is an attempt to explain our agreements based >on HCP adjusted by judgement. It is impossible for this to be very >accurate and we can only do the best we can. If we suspect that >opponents are Walruses then we should say that we may include/exclude >hands outside/inside our stated range based on judgement or refined >evaluation. If we playing against a field of Walruses AG : IIRC, this is called a rookery. >, we could >write something like that on our convention card. AG : we should do it anyway, because present Laws induce TDs and ACs to judge your explanations in a Walrus-like manner. This mention could fit into the "general principles" zone. > I don't think >we will agree what constitutes a "bad 12", "14+", "20 1/2". AG : this seems to me to be a very good synthesis. One thing remains unexplained, however : Why on Earth would one accept a player's judgement in some cases (eg opening 2NT) but not in the other (eg opening a mini NT) ? Some will tell us that this is because in one case they indeed use judgement, while in the other they're getting round the Law, but I can't accept this preconception. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 8 13:31:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:31:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465C5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708143042.01dc4320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:33 8/07/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >Possible responses: > >Nobody: Why are you asking? Can't you wait till the auction is over. # AG : in my case, the auction *was* over. From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jul 8 13:50:36 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:50:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465C7@hotel.npl.co.uk> Alain writes: > One thing remains unexplained, however : > Why on Earth would one accept a player's judgement in some cases > (eg opening 2NT) but not in the other (eg opening a mini NT) ? Because an opening 2NT could be described as showing 'some "balanced-ish" in the range 18-24 HCP - hands we judge are balanced "good 20" to "poor 22".' Whereas an opening 1NT which is 'some balanced hands in the range 9-13 HCP - hands we judge are balanced and 10-12' is a 9-13 NT and subject to restriction. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] Sent: 08 July 2003 13:30 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] HCP At 12:15 8/07/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >I am surprised this thread has lasted so long (perhaps I'm not). >Especially as it is two threads: > 1. HCP for regulation > 2. HCP for disclosure > >1. HCP for regulation > >HCP is a crude measure for regulation: on its own or combined with >the sum of the lengths of the longest two suits. But it is a >measure that is understood by players and regulators. Some want to >improve this measure by allowing judgement, for me this allows >players to make the regulation unenforceable. > >If you feel compromised by a regulation that restricts opening bids >to 19 or more opening points because your judgement tells you that >some 18 opening point hands are better than some 19 opening point >hands, then don't agree to open 19 opening points hands. Instead >agree to open all hands that are worth 20 opening points (or 21), >setting the minimum so your judgement will not upgrade hands with >less than 19 opening points. (Similarly with 9HCP 1NT openers.) > >If you feel that any minimum restriction for opening bids (e.g. in >third position) is bad for bridge then campaign to get it changed. >IMHO many players would be surprised at the minimum hands allowed >already and would not expect to have to deal with opponents opening >such hands. These are the players that the regulators are seeking >to protect (rightly or wrongly). > > >2. HCP for disclosure > >HCP is a crude measure for disclosure, on its own or combined with >"+", "-", "1/2", or ".8"s. What we write on our convention cards >and tell opponents is an attempt to explain our agreements based >on HCP adjusted by judgement. It is impossible for this to be very >accurate and we can only do the best we can. If we suspect that >opponents are Walruses then we should say that we may include/exclude >hands outside/inside our stated range based on judgement or refined >evaluation. If we playing against a field of Walruses AG : IIRC, this is called a rookery. >, we could >write something like that on our convention card. AG : we should do it anyway, because present Laws induce TDs and ACs to judge your explanations in a Walrus-like manner. This mention could fit into the "general principles" zone. > I don't think >we will agree what constitutes a "bad 12", "14+", "20 1/2". AG : this seems to me to be a very good synthesis. One thing remains unexplained, however : Why on Earth would one accept a player's judgement in some cases (eg opening 2NT) but not in the other (eg opening a mini NT) ? Some will tell us that this is because in one case they indeed use judgement, while in the other they're getting round the Law, but I can't accept this preconception. Best regards, Alain. _______________________________________________ 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 mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jul 8 08:59:58 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:59:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle References: <198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65@aol.com> Message-ID: <001701c34526$ed866eb0$3d682452@mikeamos> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3452F.4F248A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sphboc@aol.com=20 To: mfrench1@san.rr.com ; blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle=20 Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues = arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. Specific questions of interest: A. Are bar-coded cards required? =20 Yes (but not in new machines currently being developed (non barcodes = will be slower) If so, do players tend to have a problem with appearance of these?=20 No =20 B. What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? =20 My machine duplimates at approaching 250 -280 boards an hour - with = two operators and sorters probably higher end possible =20 In practical terms I set myself 200 an hour to include coffee biscuit = and comfort stops How many people does it require to attain this (including putting = hands into boards, etc)? C. How is the machine informed of deal content? Manual keying from = hand records, as opposed to input from media? If the latter, is it = feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring = organization? (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation = in a provably-secure manner?). Machine needs to be connected to PC - (many use old machines or = laptop) Look at Windup - the software on Jannersten's site which can generate = hands or allows input - many do not trust the "randomness" of these = deals so use other hand generating software eg Bid Deal There are many many ways of dealing hands D. Are the machines mechanically reliable?=20 well they are machines and they do break down - probably need two = machines for large scale operation How much maintenance tends to be required? =20 I guess annual - but experienced operators can fix spares -- which for = Jannerstemn Duplimate TM machines are pretty expensive - serviced and = overhauled machines read cards more accuratelt Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if = they are truly feasible.=20 Of course they are feasible - the EBU will duplimate all the boards = for its ten day festival in Brighton in August - well in excess of = 30,000 boards I guess The recent EBL tournament in Menton used duplimate boards - many clubs = in Scandanavia use them routinely for barometer events - the Australians = have used predealt boards for years - ok there has been the odd hiccup = but thats nearly always down to sloppy procedures rather than machine or = software problems Even in a small club - having a hand record at the end of the evening = invreases player involvement and education mike ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3452F.4F248A00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sphboc@aol.com
To: mfrench1@san.rr.com ; blml@rtflb.org
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 = 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe = shuffle=20

Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the = practical=20 issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar=20 equipment.

Specific questions of interest:
A.  Are = bar-coded=20 cards required? 
 
Yes (but = not in new=20 machines currently being developed (non barcodes will be = slower)
 
If so, do players=20 tend to have a problem with appearance of = these? 
 
No
 
B.  What is the = realistically-attainable=20 throughput of a machine? 
 
My machine duplimates at approaching = 250 -280=20 boards an hour - with two operators and sorters probably higher end=20 possible 
In practical terms I set myself 200 = an hour to=20 include coffee biscuit and comfort stops
 
How many people=20 does it require to attain this (including putting hands into boards,=20 etc)?

C.  How is the machine informed of deal content?  = Manual=20 keying from hand records, as opposed to input from media?  If the = latter,=20 is it feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring=20 organization?  (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal = generation=20 in a provably-secure manner?).
 
Machine needs to be connected to PC - (many use old machines or=20 laptop)
 
Look at Windup - the software on Jannersten's site which can = generate=20 hands or allows input -  many do not trust the "randomness" of = these=20 deals so use other hand generating software eg Bid Deal
 
There are many many ways of dealing hands

D.  Are the machines mechanically reliable? 
 
well they are machines and they do break down - probably need two = machines for large scale operation
 
 How much maintenance tends to be required? 
 
I guess annual - but experienced operators can fix spares -- = which for=20 Jannerstemn Duplimate TM machines are pretty expensive - serviced and=20 overhauled machines read cards more accuratelt

Bottom line, it = would=20 appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they are truly = feasible.
=20
 
Of course they are feasible - the EBU will = duplimate all the=20 boards for its ten day festival in Brighton in August - well in excess = of=20 30,000 boards I guess
The recent EBL tournament in Menton used duplimate = boards -=20 many clubs in Scandanavia use them routinely for barometer events - = the=20 Australians have used predealt boards for years  - ok there has = been the=20 odd hiccup but thats nearly always down to sloppy procedures rather = than=20 machine or software problems
 
Even in a small club - having a hand record at the = end of=20 the evening invreases player involvement and education
 
mike
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3452F.4F248A00-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Jul 8 13:57:59 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:57:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708142305.01ddaa30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 01:30 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Why on Earth would one accept a player's judgement in some cases (eg > opening 2NT) but not in the other (eg opening a mini NT)? We allow players to use their judgement, but we don't allow them to use that as a justification for breaking the regulations. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 8 19:08:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:08:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <513F93E6-B16F-11D7-A928-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jul 8, 2003, at 08:57 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > We allow players to use their judgement, but we don't allow them to > use that as a justification for breaking the regulations. > We allow players to use their judgment, except when we don't allow players to use their judgment. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Jul 8 19:17:56 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:17:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3062D3CD-B16F-11D7-A928-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <7F5D04E6-B170-11D7-A00B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Jul 8, 2003, at 08:57 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> We allow players to use their judgement, but we don't allow them to >> use that as a justification for breaking the regulations. >> > We allow players to use their judgment, except when we don't allow > players to use their judgment. Well sure, it would be perfectly reasonable to allow people to open whatever they want, but since the restriction exists it seems pointless to allow "judgement" to overrule it - else why bother having the rule? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 8 19:30:07 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:30:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] sog shoe shuffle References: <005701c34525$556206e0$1e4565d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000901c3457e$f7514480$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Hans-Olof Hall=E9n" >Reply to Marvin French: >In England and Sweden we have different opinions on how many rounds shou= ld be switched in a Mitchell. In Sweden we think one third of the rounds sho= uld be switched. Se the book "Movements". >It would be great if the players in some countries could be used to switching. In Sweden players always ask whether a round should be switche= d or not. One of the problems is that ABCLscore does not take care of arrow switches. But that is only a question of programming. Or changing the Mitchell movement by hand to reflect the switches, a bit cumbersome but doable I found when I tried it. The Howell movements provi= ded by ACBLscore are mostly garbage, but you can change them manually. Actual= ly any movement can be user-defined via the EDM (Edit Movement) instruction. The Balance Report and guide cards include the effect of any changes. I presume that custom movements can be saved for repeated use. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 8 21:09:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:09:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <7F5D04E6-B170-11D7-A00B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <06648300-B180-11D7-A928-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jul 8, 2003, at 14:17 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Well sure, it would be perfectly reasonable to allow people to open > whatever they want, but since the restriction exists it seems > pointless to allow "judgement" to overrule it - else why bother having > the rule? Oh, you have an excellent point there, Gordon. Except... The rule we are discussing is an ACBL "end run" around the laws to allow the powers that be in that organization to circumvent the spirit, if not the letter, of the laws. IMO at least. It's that end run that I (and others) find unpalatable. From David Stevenson Tue Jul 8 13:49:16 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:49:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re:Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <00e701c344cd$84e9b8c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00e701c344cd$84e9b8c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French writes > >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> Marvin French wrote: >> >> > A couple of arrow switches per session would help too, but they are >> > taboo in >> > ACBL-land. >> >> Which seems incredibly short-sighted to me. >> >People tend to fear the unknown. Those who might recommend this are confused >by the various approaches to arrow-switching, which is not surprising. When >I mentioned to one of them that switching about 1/8 of the rounds (thanks >for that guideline, John Probst) would tend to balance out an imbalance in >the lines, I was looked at as if I had lost my mind. > >Actually, the seeding in NABC finals is so well done that there isn't likely >to be a significant imbalance. Since frequent arrow switches (to equalize >comparisons) are said to spoil the balance, perhaps the ACBL is right to >forego arrow switching. In an event any method which sharply reduces the number of pairs you compete with seems wrong. Balance is not everything. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Jul 8 13:51:33 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:51:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] OT: ACBL and Duplimate machines .... was: Soft shoe shuffle (was Menton) In-Reply-To: <000401c344c9$ff362680$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030707100809.01facc60@incoming.verizon.net> <000401c344c9$ff362680$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >Walt >......... >> Certainly shuffle and deal is faster, poses fewer problems for the >> directors, and is cheaper than buying more Duplimate machines. I think the >> ACBL has plenty of reasons for running team games the way that they do. >> >> That said, hand records are always a great thing to have and I sure would >> love to have them. I doubt that a movement to get team games Duplimated >> would be successful and duplicating from hand records for team games seems >> possible but inefficient. >> >> I'd love to hear contrary opinions and/or suggestions relating to this. > >I can only speak from experience, but that much said I cannot remember any >serious event in Norway for many years now where the players have been >instructed to shuffle and deal the cards. Teams or pairs, Imps or match >points make no difference. The point about duplimate dealing is that the players love it, so as they get used to it you can survive without it less and less. Now the EBU uses duplimate for Swiss Teams I remember my disgust at playing a Swiss Teams and dealing. -- 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 Tue Jul 8 14:43:37 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:43:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65@aol.com> References: <198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65@aol.com> Message-ID: writes > Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues > arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. > > Specific questions of interest: > A.  Are bar-coded cards required?  If so, do players tend to have a > problem with appearance of these?  Very few people do. At least one of my American friends, who reads BLML, thinks they are awful, but once used to them only about one person in two thousand has any difficulty with the bar codes. [s] > Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if > they are truly feasible. If they were not feasible they would not be used in all Scandinavian and Australian events, and with many other countries going the same way. -- 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 rwilley@mit.edu Tue Jul 8 21:57:08 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:57:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <06648300-B180-11D7-A928-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <06648300-B180-11D7-A928-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1057697828.3f0b30244f200@webmail.mit.edu> The longer I consider this topic, the more I am drawn to a simple solutio= n: Suppose that you are playing in balliwick of the ACBL and, god forbid, yo= u want=20 to play a 10 - 12 HCP 1NT opening while apply judgement to upgrade an=20 appropriate 9 count. My suggestion: Ignore the ACBL rules and open what= ever=20 you think is appropriate. This likely to lead to a director's call and=20 possibly an adjusted score. To this I say "Who cares". I'm not playing = for=20 the matchpoints. I can easily adjust my own "mental" version of the resu= lts. End result: Everyone is happy. 1. The ACBL gets its money 2. The whiney little plonker who called the director gets the average plu= s that=20 he so obviously craves. 3. You get to play bridge. Admittedly, the situation isn't perfect. I expect the ACBL to face some=20 cognitive dissonance between their desire to collect as much money as pos= sible=20 and their desire to avoid director=92s call. With luck, this will simply= result=20 in local districts deciding to ignore ACBL directives. [Case in point,=20 District 25 has long refused to enforce parts of the GCC convention chart= that=20 it believes to be =93misguided=94] I would feel bad if gifting the plonker with an Average + affected the ov= erall=20 tournament results, however, you can=92t make an omlette without breaking= some=20 eggs. Richard There are 10 types of people in the world.=09 Those who understand binary and those who don't. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 8 23:04:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:04:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Edgar Kaplan and Law 70C Message-ID: The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: NORTH K53 KQ32 KJ85 74 WEST EAST T86 97 AJ95 T84 6 QT97432 98532 6 SOUTH AQJ42 76 A AKQJT Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then a heart to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to his ace, the two of spades to dummy's king - and now faces his cards, saying only, "The rest are mine." How would you rule? Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 8 23:32:31 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle Message-ID: <200307082232.SAA18121@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > SP: the most popular is to use a card dealing program > for making files which is then used to control the card dealing machine. Let me add that a program such as Big Deal is appropriate in today's world. Read the website for explanations. The program is free, and it is hard to imagine an excuse using an inferior program, whether dealing is by machine or by humans from hand records. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 8 23:38:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:38:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Faust among equals (was HCP) Message-ID: Richard Willey suggested: [snip] >My suggestion: Ignore the ACBL rules and open whatever >you think is appropriate. This likely to lead to a >director's call and possibly an adjusted score. To >this I say "Who cares". I'm not playing for the >matchpoints. I can easily adjust my own "mental" >version of the results. > >End result: Everyone is happy. > >1. The ACBL gets its money >2. The whiney little plonker who called the director >gets the average plus that he so obviously craves. >3. You get to play bridge. > >Admittedly, the situation isn't perfect. [snip] Richard Hills countered: Indeed, the situation is not perfect. You are *not* playing bridge if you deliberately infract Law 80F, and are consequently making a grave infraction of Law 72B2: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." My suggestion, to the Richard Willey's of this world, is to invite them to establish their own Sponsoring Organisations, where the SO regs will be to their own taste. Such a move happened a decade ago in Canberra. When the Canberra Bridge Club introduced a regulation banning smoking in the playing area, nicotinist bridge players did *not* simply light up at the table, and await the forthcoming TD call. Instead, they founded a smokers' bridge club at another venue. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 8 23:52:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:52:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam Message-ID: >From the thread Soft Shoe Shuffle: [snip] >In an event any method which sharply reduces >the number of pairs you compete with seems >wrong. Balance is not everything. > >-- >David Stevenson I disagree with the DWS generalisation about the wrong seam of sharply reducing the number of contestants you compete with. While DWS has stated a fine rule-of-thumb, there are many exceptions to this rule. For example, an unexpectedly low number of 9 teams entered a Sunday Swiss in Canberra. The standard format was to run the event as 6 x 8-board matches, using the WBF VP scale. Since such a movement would have over-Swissed the event, the TD opted, instead, for a sharp reduction of contestants competed against, by choosing to have 4 x 14-board matches. Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 8 23:56:36 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <200307082256.SAA18222@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Schoderb@aol.com > I agree with you on one thing, and that is that Henk and Jaap, whoever they > are, could be more courteous in their posting. I have never seen a message from Henk that displays less than perfect courtesy. And for those who don't know who he is, it should be enough to know that his efforts make BLML possible. I, for one, am very grateful to him and don't like to see him wrongly accused. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 9 00:02:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:02:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Edgar Kaplan and Law 70C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c345a4$fd4a8ba0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........ > NORTH > K53 > KQ32 > KJ85 > 74 > WEST EAST > T86 97 > AJ95 T84 > 6 QT97432 > 98532 6 > SOUTH > AQJ42 > 76 > A > AKQJT >=20 > Against South's six-spade contract, West > leads ace of hearts, then a heart to dummy's > queen. Declarer plays the three of spades > to his ace, the two of spades to dummy's > king - and now faces his cards, saying only, > "The rest are mine." >=20 > How would you rule? Well, let me see: We must assume (according to Law 70C1) that South may = have miscounted his trumps because he did not mention anything about the last outstanding trump. So is there any legal line of play in which that trump can take a trick = as the cards lie? Yes, there are in fact two ways this can happen: After cashing his Ace of Diamonds he can play his smallest trump to a = higher small trump on the table and West gets his ten of trumps immediately, or = he can play his clubs and use his last trump on the table on one of them = after which he plays his King of diamonds. Both these lines of play are LEGAL, but are they "normal" within the = meaning of the laws? As he has absolutely no use for the King of Diamonds = (South's hand is high now!) I would rule both legal lines of play that will set = the contract to be too exotic to be considered "normal" (including = careless); and thus the contract made. But it is a close one, particularly how we = were told to rule in 1982 here in Norway. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 8 20:40:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <7F5D04E6-B170-11D7-A00B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000d01c345a5$e788d2d0$d739e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, Jul 8, 2003, at 08:57 US/Eastern, Gordon > > Rainsford wrote: > > > >> We allow players to use their judgement, but we don't > >> allow them to use that as a justification for breaking the > >> regulations. > >> > > We allow players to use their judgment, except when > > we don't allow players to use their judgment. > > Well sure, it would be perfectly reasonable to allow > people to open whatever they want, but since the > restriction exists it seems pointless to allow "judgement" > to overrule it - else why bother having the rule? > +=+ "Do you suppose", the Walrus said, "That they could get it clear?" "I doubt it", said the Carpenter, And shed a bitter tear. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 9 00:12:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:12:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <200307082256.SAA18222@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002701c345a6$7aa77b70$d739e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > I agree with you on one thing, and that is that > > Henk and Jaap, whoever they are, could be more > > courteous in their posting. > > I have never seen a message from Henk that > displays less than perfect courtesy. And for those > who don't know who he is, it should be enough > to know that his efforts make BLML possible. I, for > one, am very grateful to him and don't like to see > him wrongly accused. > +=+ I agree. Kojak has confused himself here. +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 8 23:39:53 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:39:53 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Wrong seam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > of contestants you compete with. While DWS > has stated a fine rule-of-thumb, there are > many exceptions to this rule. But this isn't one. > For example, an unexpectedly low number of 9 > teams entered a Sunday Swiss in Canberra. The > standard format was to run the event as 6 x > 8-board matches, using the WBF VP scale. > > Since such a movement would have over-Swissed > the event, the TD opted, instead, for a sharp > reduction of contestants competed against, by > choosing to have 4 x 14-board matches. To me, an 8x6 or 8x7 round robin seems obvious. Would never have occurred to me to deliberately shorten the match like that, just to "make it more Swisslike and less round-robin-like." There are still some odd effects in the late rounds when people play to the scores - as there are in any game - but it doesn't get better, balance-wise, that round robin teams or Howell (with directions assigned properly) pairs. GRB From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 02:18:25 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:18:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam References: Message-ID: > > [snip] > > >In an event any method which sharply reduces > >the number of pairs you compete with seems > >wrong. Balance is not everything. > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > I disagree with the DWS generalisation about > the wrong seam of sharply reducing the number > of contestants you compete with. While DWS > has stated a fine rule-of-thumb, there are > many exceptions to this rule. > > For example, an unexpectedly low number of 9 > teams entered a Sunday Swiss in Canberra. The > standard format was to run the event as 6 x > 8-board matches, using the WBF VP scale. > > Since such a movement would have over-Swissed > the event, the TD opted, instead, for a sharp > reduction of contestants competed against, by > choosing to have 4 x 14-board matches. > > Best wishes > > Richard > Hi all, I think I understood David correctly that he wasn't talking about a 9-table club event.... As a player, when I enter a large event (I mean a "real"event) - it is a definite plus IMO to have a balanced field and play against as many opponents as possible. Kaima From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 9 06:58:28 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:58:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam References: Message-ID: <001801c345df$2070e900$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "DRD" > I think I understood David correctly that he wasn't talking about a 9-table > club event.... As a player, when I enter a large event (I mean a > "real"event) - it is a definite plus IMO to have a balanced field and play > against as many opponents as possible. Matchpoint pairs is a game of comparisons, not of face-to-face meetings. It is much more important to compare with a rival pair on 26 boards than to face them on two boards and compare with them only half the time. The desirable goal would therefore seem to be that each pair compare with every other pair an equal number of times, not to have all pairs meet. However, I am told that arrow switches aiming toward that goal tend to produce comparison fields for each set of boards that are not of equal strength. As Dr. Ross Moore of Sydney, Australia put it, "Too many arrow switches spoil the balance." The term "balance" has now been used in three different ways: (1) comparison fields of equal strength, (2) equal numbers of comparisons among pairs (the meaning used by ACBLscore for its "Balance Report" for a movement), and (3) having all pairs meet face to face. We should stick with (1), as that is usually what is meant by "balance." Actually the ideal is to have each pair compare with all rival pairs on every board, which means not meeting at all. My proposal for a two-session final that would achieve this ideal was turned down this year by the ACBL. In it, the top 26 pairs from the quals of a big six-session event sit in the same direction in a straight Mitchell, facing the next 26, who are playing for rankings 27-52. The latter switch sections for the second session, with the result that competing pairs have played the same hands, have met the same opponents, and have compared with each other on every board, QED. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 9 07:37:40 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:37:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <000301c3440c$190c5200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F0BB834.8000206@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Oh dear, oh dear! > Just for the record I am responsible for all logistics with boards for 44 > different tournaments during the Norwegian championships during the last > week of July. > > That means preparing computer card files for a total of 2020 different > boards and issuing instructions to 8 different card duplication centers on > their advance preparation of 38 thousand boards. In addition we shall need > some 8800 boards which will be duplicated on the spot during the week. > > And from my experience with the same job in 2001 and 2002 I seriously do not > expect any duplication error problem that we cannot fix without the > contestants noticing any irregularity! > > You should really consider deploying card dealing machines and the > associated routines! > The EBL staff (Italian) duplicated around 50,000 boards - and they have done this for numerous tournaments. And then there is one mistake! If you think you can do better? > Regards Sven > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>Gordon Bower >>Sent: 6. juli 2003 21:40 >>Cc: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships >> >> >> >>On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>MISDUPLICATION AGAIN >>> >>>By the way dear Ton. In Menton once again there were some serious >>> >>problems >> >>>caused by misduplication. Do you feel guilty this time ? Or is nobody to >>>blame as usual. How often does this have to happen before you or whoever >>> >>is >> >>>in charge defines some simple basic procedures which makes big time >>>misduplication impossible (I am not discussing minor errors, like >>> >>switching >> >>>two boards, which are hard to avoid completely). It is not that >>> >>difficult >> >>>you know. Let all matches play with one physical set. If not and at >>> >>pairs >> >>>let the TD's or someone check some hands of every series when >>> >>dispatching >> >>>from the duplication area. Isn't this what they call quality control in >>>operational management ? >>> >>You may be interested to know that, at the last big ACBL tournament I >>attended, there were also problems with misduplication at the first pairs >>game of the week. Starting the next afternoon, and for the rest of the >>week, we had a new policy: hand records were distributed for the >>duplication and collected, the first round was played, players were told >>not to move for the second round, then hand records were distributed once >>again and everyone had to check that they had held the proper cards in >>round 1 before moving for round 2. It was a little annoying to me, >>actually -- it slowed down the game by about 5 minutes for what should be >>quite a rare problem, and it causes more averages to be awaed, instead of >>just factoring a board after a whole section plays it -- but it did serve >>exactly the purpose it was intended to, and was easy enough to implement >>on the fly. >> >>(For non-ACBL players: Duplimate machines and barometer pairs games are >>almost unknown here... team matches are shuffle-and-deal, pairs games are >>played in 14 table sections, you make two boards (the ones you miss in a >>Skip Mitchell) from printed records, then play the other 26.) >> >>GRB >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 9 07:41:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:41:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> Jaap, you are going too far: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Dear Ton, > > > > Ton: > > > It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both events started. > > > > This is not true. Certain events started at least half an hour late. > yes-no-yes-no - hardly the way to conduct a discussion. > > > Ton: > > > Players seem to accept such delay > > > > Players hate it Of course they do - and yet they accept it. Or do you really believe you can start a 400 pair tournament at the precise starting time? > you self-satisfied fool. That's one. But whenever we want to play > EBL or WBF championship we know we have to suffer amateuristic > organisation That's two. so we have no choice. In that sense we seem to accept it. > But when waiting we all curse those incompetent idiots who are That's three. > responsible for the mess and never seem to improve. And don't worry, so > does the lower ranking staff as well as long as the fat cats are not > listening in. > That's four. Henk, I really believe this poster needs a lesson in etiquette. Please take the appropriate measures. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Jul 8 15:08:20 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:08:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <001701c34526$ed866eb0$3d682452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <001301c3455a$62bbe4c0$2e3d81d9@rui> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C34562.C4804CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For what is worth, my club upgraded over the years from the old hand-shuffle style to full-duplimated, scoring sheets pre-printed, hand records in the end and in the Internet. I own a machine from Curt Engvall, and the output Mike Amos mentions is realistic (extra time to arrange boards, stretch, etc.) =20 Other clubs in Portugal rent my boards (four clubs now) and the output from the machine is around 25000 boards/year, so far without problems that I could not solve by myself. =20 The general impression from players is enthusiastically favourable (great service).=20 =20 Rui Marques Portugal -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of mamos Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 8 de Julho de 2003 9:00 To: Sphboc@aol.com Cc: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle=20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sphboc@aol.com=20 To: mfrench1@san.rr.com ; blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle=20 Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. Specific questions of interest: A. Are bar-coded cards required? =20 =20 Yes (but not in new machines currently being developed (non barcodes will be slower) =20 If so, do players tend to have a problem with appearance of these?=20 =20 No B. What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? =20 =20 My machine duplimates at approaching 250 -280 boards an hour - with two operators and sorters probably higher end possible =20 In practical terms I set myself 200 an hour to include coffee biscuit and comfort stops =20 How many people does it require to attain this (including putting hands into boards, etc)? C. How is the machine informed of deal content? Manual keying from hand records, as opposed to input from media? If the latter, is it feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring organization? (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation in a provably-secure manner?). =20 Machine needs to be connected to PC - (many use old machines or laptop) =20 Look at Windup - the software on Jannersten's site which can generate hands or allows input - many do not trust the "randomness" of these deals so use other hand generating software eg Bid Deal =20 There are many many ways of dealing hands D. Are the machines mechanically reliable?=20 =20 well they are machines and they do break down - probably need two machines for large scale operation =20 How much maintenance tends to be required? =20 =20 I guess annual - but experienced operators can fix spares -- which for Jannerstemn Duplimate TM machines are pretty expensive - serviced and overhauled machines read cards more accuratelt Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they are truly feasible.=20 =20 Of course they are feasible - the EBU will duplimate all the boards for its ten day festival in Brighton in August - well in excess of 30,000 boards I guess The recent EBL tournament in Menton used duplimate boards - many clubs in Scandanavia use them routinely for barometer events - the Australians have used predealt boards for years - ok there has been the odd hiccup but thats nearly always down to sloppy procedures rather than machine or software problems =20 Even in a small club - having a hand record at the end of the evening invreases player involvement and education =20 mike ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C34562.C4804CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
For=20 what is worth, my club upgraded over the years from the old hand-shuffle = style=20 to full-duplimated, scoring sheets pre-printed, hand records in the end = and in=20 the Internet. I own a machine from Curt Engvall, and the output Mike = Amos=20 mentions is realistic (extra time to arrange boards, stretch,=20 etc.)
 
Other=20 clubs in Portugal rent my boards (four clubs now) and the output from = the=20 machine is around 25000 boards/year, so far without problems that I = could not=20 solve by myself.
 
The=20 general impression from players is enthusiastically favourable (great = service).=20
 
Rui=20 Marques
Portugal
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of=20 mamos
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 8 de Julho de 2003 = 9:00
To:=20 Sphboc@aol.com
Cc: blml@rtflb.org
Subject: Re: = [blml] Soft=20 shoe shuffle

 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sphboc@aol.com=20
To: mfrench1@san.rr.com ; blml@rtflb.org
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 = 5:35=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe = shuffle=20

Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the = practical=20 issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar=20 equipment.

Specific questions of interest:
A.  Are = bar-coded=20 cards required? 
 
Yes (but = not in new=20 machines currently being developed (non barcodes will be=20 slower)
 
If so, do=20 players tend to have a problem with appearance of=20 these? 
 
No

B. =20 What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? =20
 
My machine duplimates at = approaching 250 -280=20 boards an hour - with two operators and sorters probably higher end=20 possible 
In practical terms I set myself 200 = an hour to=20 include coffee biscuit and comfort stops
 
How many people=20 does it require to attain this (including putting hands into boards, = etc)?

C.  How is the machine informed of deal content?  = Manual=20 keying from hand records, as opposed to input from media?  If = the=20 latter, is it feasible to obtain media-format hand records from = sponsoring=20 organization?  (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal=20 generation in a provably-secure manner?).
 
Machine needs to be connected to PC - (many use old machines or = laptop)
 
Look at Windup - the software on Jannersten's site which can = generate=20 hands or allows input -  many do not trust the "randomness" of = these=20 deals so use other hand generating software eg Bid Deal
 
There are many many ways of dealing hands

D.  Are the machines mechanically = reliable? 
 
well they are machines and they do break down - probably need = two=20 machines for large scale operation
 
 How much maintenance tends to be required? 
 
I guess annual - but experienced operators can fix spares -- = which for=20 Jannerstemn Duplimate TM machines are pretty expensive - serviced = and=20 overhauled machines read cards more accuratelt

Bottom line, = it would=20 appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they are truly = feasible.
=20
 
Of course they are feasible - the EBU will = duplimate all=20 the boards for its ten day festival in Brighton in August - well in = excess=20 of 30,000 boards I guess
The recent EBL tournament in Menton used = duplimate boards=20 - many clubs in Scandanavia use them routinely for barometer events = - the=20 Australians have used predealt boards for years  - ok there has = been=20 the odd hiccup but thats nearly always down to sloppy procedures = rather than=20 machine or software problems
 
Even in a small club - having a hand record at = the end of=20 the evening invreases player involvement and education
 
mike
= ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C34562.C4804CC0-- From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 8 15:39:13 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:39:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <198.1ce1e700.2c3afb65@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C345B2.864E9CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am absolutely amazed that the most (supposedly) technically advanced nation on Earth doesn't use predealt boards! Incredible. As Richard says, even the most insignificant country (hick even) MP Pairs and Swiss Teams use predealt boards here in Aus! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sphboc@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:36 AM To: mfrench1@san.rr.com; blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. Specific questions of interest: A. Are bar-coded cards required? If so, do players tend to have a problem with appearance of these? B. What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? How many people does it require to attain this (including putting hands into boards, etc)? C. How is the machine informed of deal content? Manual keying from hand records, as opposed to input from media? If the latter, is it feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring organization? (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation in a provably-secure manner?). D. Are the machines mechanically reliable? How much maintenance tends to be required? Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if they are truly feasible. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C345B2.864E9CE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I am=20 absolutely amazed that the most (supposedly) technically advanced nation = on=20 Earth doesn't use predealt boards!
 
Incredible.  As Richard says, even the = most=20 insignificant country (hick even) MP Pairs and Swiss Teams use = predealt=20 boards here in Aus!
 
regards,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of=20 Sphboc@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:36=20 AM
To: mfrench1@san.rr.com; = blml@rtflb.org
Subject: Re:=20 [blml] Soft shoe shuffle

Would be "quite = interesting" to=20 hear about the practical issues arising out of the use of "Duplimate" = or=20 similar equipment.

Specific questions of interest:
A.  = Are=20 bar-coded cards required?  If so, do players tend to have a = problem with=20 appearance of these? 
B.  What is the = realistically-attainable=20 throughput of a machine?  How many people does it require to = attain this=20 (including putting hands into boards, etc)?
C.  How is the = machine=20 informed of deal content?  Manual keying from hand records, as = opposed to=20 input from media?  If the latter, is it feasible to obtain = media-format=20 hand records from sponsoring organization?  (Or, alternatively, = to=20 accomplish "local" deal generation in a provably-secure = manner?).
D. =20 Are the machines mechanically reliable?  How much maintenance = tends to be=20 required? 

Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to = use such=20 machines, if they are truly feasible.
=
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C345B2.864E9CE0-- From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 9 07:46:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:46:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <08F8FE02-AD73-11D7-8E3A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F0BBA44.9000406@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> So it's not a "mistaken bid". So it's a systemic one - OK? >> What more do you want me to say? > > > If by "systemic" you mean they have an agreement to open on nine counts, > then no, not okay. > Well, what do you want? One player tells me that he will always open a particular hand, and the other tells me he has no agreement that his partner does so. Can you not see that this second statement contradicts the first? That the second statement is made only so as to try and not make the system illegal? That this second statement serves no purpose whatsoever? That it could be just no more than a lie? >> Yes of course, that is exactly what this discussion is all about. A >> system in which a hand that falls below a particular value (in this >> case 10HCP) can be opened in a particular manner (1NT) is a forbidden >> system. You have just admitted that you might well rule that this >> opening, for this player, is not a mistaken bid - so it is systemic, >> so that system is forbidden. Again, what more do you need? > > > You are completely missing the point, Herman. > You are completely missing the point, Ed. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 9 07:47:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:47:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F0BBA7F.8050507@skynet.be> Tim, please. Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>For whatever reason, the EBU has stated that it does not want to see >>very weak openings. >> > > The EBU may state this as a desire but they have no business issuing > regulations about it unless the openings in question are more than a king > below average strength. > And yet the EBU does this. Take that discussion elsewhere. The regulation exists. Let's deal with it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 9 07:54:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:54:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <778C8CA4-AD70-11D7-8E3A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F0BBC19.8020304@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:16 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. > > > If it's fruitless, why are you attempting to prolong it? :-) > We are both guilty of that one ... >> What evidence? >> >> How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about >> other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? > > > Sorry Herman. You give a strong impression, even if you didn't say so > outright, that you would take *one* instance of a player opening 1NT on > a 9 count as "proof" that he has an illegal agreement (in the ACBL). Not > just "evidence", but *conclusive* evidence. It is that to which I object. > Yes indeed, I do. >> I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but >> you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always wrong in >> ruling as I do - how can you do that? > > > I'm not. I'm saying that, a priori, you don't know what the story is - > and the fact a player opens on a nine count is not sufficient evidence > to convict. You need more, one way or t'other. > And I'm saying that you don't know what the story is either. You are the one who is unwilling to concede that such more evidence might exist. That the fact that a guy tells you "I'm counting extra for these tens" IS extra evidence. That players are quite often unwilling to provide you with such extra evidence and that this means that the absence of conflicting evidence is a strong indication that there is "sufficient" evidence. >> Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary >> evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would >> always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you >> accept that you can rule against this player? > > > If a player tells me that he frequently opens 1NT on a nine count, *and* > his CC or other evidence says his agreements include any conventional > bids after 1NT, then yes, I'll rule against him. But the whole point in > this thread, unless I completely missed it, is that the ACBL has, or at > least many folks here in ACBL land (including TDs) think it has, made an > interpretation of their regulation that says "you may not open 1NT on a > 9 count". Period. And I have often said that this is a misinterpretation. And it is not my interpretation. My interpretation is that such an opening is "evidence" of an agreement, and that I shall look at other evidences which may or may not change my mind. You seem to say that the mere fact of opening is not even evidence. So they rule "illegal use of convention" whenever a > player opens on a nine count. "Other evidence", whatever it may be, > becomes irrelevant. Except it's not irrelevant. Quite the contrary. > That's pretty much all I've been trying to say. I think. It's nearly 5 > AM here, and I'm pretty tired. :-) > Well, it's exactly what I've also been saying. It seems to me you've been argueing against the wrong poster. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 9 07:55:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:55:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <200307041717.NAA08644@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3F0BBC4A.1090701@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > >>Do you believe it would be accepted by any Court ? >> > > Yes, if there is no other evidence, and the standard is "preponderance > of the evidence," as in most civil cases and in score adjustment cases > in bridge. Of course in real cases, both bridge and otherwise, there > will usually be other evidence. > If there is NO other evidence, the PROPONDERANCE of evidence is pretty damning. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From toddz@att.net Wed Jul 9 07:56:07 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:56:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam In-Reply-To: <001801c345df$2070e900$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin French > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:58 AM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong seam > > My proposal for a two-session > final that would achieve this ideal was turned down > this year by the ACBL. > In it, the top 26 pairs from the quals of a big > six-session event sit in the > same direction in a straight Mitchell, facing the next > 26, who are playing > for rankings 27-52. The latter switch sections for the > second session, with > the result that competing pairs have played the same > hands, have met the > same opponents, and have compared with each other on > every board, QED. Except when pair 27 wins the event because they're so much better than the rest of their group than anyone stands out among pairs 1-26. Or do you mean pair 27 can't place higher than 27th in the event? Who wants to play that? After playing straight two days, I want out of the event or the chance to win! -Todd From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 9 08:05:08 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:05:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam References: <001801c345df$2070e900$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006401c345ea$1e91c7c0$ae83b6d4@LNV> Marvin: > > The term "balance" has now been used in three different ways: (1) comparison > fields of equal strength, (2) equal numbers of comparisons among pairs (the > meaning used by ACBLscore for its "Balance Report" for a movement), and (3) > having all pairs meet face to face. We should stick with (1), as that is > usually what is meant by "balance." Not in my country and not in a discussion about the use of arrow switches. Then meaning number 2 is the one to strive for. Why when you are prepared to play 26 rounds in a final can't you bring up the concession to make it 25 and play the final among the 26 best pairs in a two session event? Yes you need to prepare some boards, but the players will love it. I wouldn't have followed your suggestion either, though it is a fair movement indeed. You let them shuffle their own board and ask them to duplicate once. And you get a champion of the lesser troop. ton From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 9 08:23:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:23:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <002901c345eb$0fc1dc20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: Noel > I am absolutely amazed that the most (supposedly) technically advanced > nation on Earth doesn't use predealt boards! > > Incredible. As Richard says, even the most insignificant country (hick > even) MP Pairs and Swiss Teams use predealt boards here in Aus! > The ACBL has boards predealt with Duplimates for the more important pair sessions at its North American Bridge Championships. For lesser games hands are made up by the players from hand records. Our local units (San Diego area) have boards preduplicated by hand for pair events (not for Swiss teams) in Sectional Championships. I don't know how common that practice is, and I haven't seen preduplicated boards at the higher-level Regional Championships that i attend (southwest USA). Why aren't duplicating machines used universally in North America? "Not made here" is one reason, and the other is that I haven't seen any salesmen from Europe or Australia coming around to promote the product. It is not enough to sell just to the ACBL, which only runs three tournaments a year. There are a huge number of district and unit (lowest level) organizations whose officers have probably never seen a deal-duplicating machine and don't know about them. Here's an opportunity for some young salesman. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 9 08:45:33 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:45:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam References: Message-ID: <003201c345ee$155c2840$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > From: Marvin French > > > > My proposal for a two-session > > final that would achieve this ideal was turned down > > this year by the ACBL. > > In it, the top 26 pairs from the quals of a big > > six-session event sit in the > > same direction in a straight Mitchell, facing the next > > 26, who are playing > > for rankings 27-52. The latter switch sections for the > > second session, with > > the result that competing pairs have played the same > > hands, have met the > > same opponents, and have compared with each other on > > every board, QED. > > Except when pair 27 wins the event because they're so much better > than the rest of their group than anyone stands out among pairs > 1-26. Your sytax is confusing. They are not playing the same hands as 1-26 on the final day, so their performance can't be compared with them. > Or do you mean pair 27 can't place higher than 27th in the > event? Who wants to play that? After playing straight two days, > I want out of the event or the chance to win! You had your chance in the quals, and failed, so you play for ranking of 27th at best. Go ahead and drop out, others will be glad to move up in your place. With the great reduction of fields necessary to end with a two-section final, being in the 27-52 group is nothing to be ashamed of. I get this objection often. In the finals of our big pair events there are many pairs who have no chance to win ("after two days") because of low carryovers. Still, they play their hearts out to rise as high as they can in the rankings. In a Swiss team event there are many teams out of contention when the final two rounds come around. They play hard, nevertheless. You are probably a player who expects to win, and wants to drop out when that is not possible. The vast majority of us do not expect to win, we just want to do as well as we can. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 9 08:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465C5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: What is wrong with "The actual sequence is undiscussed, would you like to tell you what I think it may be?" Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 9 08:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <005801c3441d$142c6520$1b3387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > On the subject generally under discussion in this > thread, one should always observe the difference > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > and one that says "players may not have agreements > to do". This is complete Grattanesque twaddle. Any regular partnership of competent players that professes "not to have an understanding" about what they each do should be drummed out of the game. One just can not play with somebody for any length of time *without* developing such an understanding. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 9 09:07:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:07:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c345f1$2ad4f460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > What is wrong with "The actual sequence is undiscussed, would you like = to > tell you what I think it may be?" When I (and I believe most players) ask for an explanation of a call the interest is to receive "full explanation" of the call and not any = extraneous information. Of course uncertainty can in many cases be a valuable additional = information (and it is anyway UI to the player who made the call), so if the = explaining player is really in doubt then I think the above answer is in order. But when the player to explain a call is more than say 50% certain he = has understood the call correct I shall prefer him to give the explanation directly in response to my question with only a remark to the effect = that for some reason there is a slight possibility that he may be wrong.=20 Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 9 08:53:47 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:53:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <000301c3440c$190c5200$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F0BB834.8000206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008601c345f1$de307b60$ae83b6d4@LNV> Herman: > The EBL staff (Italian) duplicated around 50,000 boards - and they > have done this for numerous tournaments. > And then there is one mistake! > If you think you can do better? Let us be fair, this particular mistake should not have happened. And the procedures are such that it shouldn't have happened. We are aware of the dangers when duplication is done with 5 or 6 duplimates simultaneously and the job gets overloaded. The organization was too ambitious, I had to cut down the numbers of boards to be duplicated since it was physically impossible to get it done. It was 37 degrees in that room as well. And when the girls, yes almost all of them are nice Italian girls (reading this another insult is born, there is one man, not a not nice Italian girl), do duplicate they can't check boards. So when the procedures are not followed till the last detail Murphy strikes. I read Kojak's suggestion that I should check all the boards myself instead of striving for groups of equal strength in the various events. We should try to refrain from easy remarks, when details are unknown and not available either. The circumstances were abonimable, many people worked very hard during a fortnight or even longer. When everybody at last celebrated the end of the event these nice girls on the Saturday evening were still duplicating a couple of thousands of boards to be used in the junior world pairs to be held in Hungary a week later. Even most staff members are not aware of the enormous task their collegues in other departments do have and players or others at the side line have plenty of remarks and honest complaints, but could be somewhat more careful. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 9 09:12:33 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:12:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008701c345f1$de7e7450$ae83b6d4@LNV> > Jaap, you are going too far: > Henk, I really believe this poster needs a lesson in etiquette. > Please take the appropriate measures. > Herman DE WAEL Don't worry about me, I became member of the Stevenson school: ignoring. I seem to create some tension once in while. Read the last response of my dear friend Kojak, which suggests awful remarks from my side I am not waware of. I know that my style has some irony in it (a word we can't use anymore since Berlusconi did), but I really try to control it. Forgive me, forgive me, when I fail. Hang me, hang me when I fail organizational wise, but do it gently and try to understand the facts first. ton From anna@ecats.co.uk Wed Jul 9 09:32:37 2003 From: anna@ecats.co.uk (Anna Gudge) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:32:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Monaco Conditions of Contest Message-ID: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC481417@bruce.ecats.co.uk> I have posted these on my website - go to www.ecatsbridge.com and the link to the Monaco Championships is on the front page. I will be posting information about the event as it becomes available now, and informing people via the Email Information Service I have set up. If you want to register for the Service, you can to go http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b2/mailinglist/postings.asp And register yourself, or email me, anna@ecats.co.uk and I will do it for you - but please don't just reply to this post, as I don't always read [blml] on a regular basis - I know, I know, that is probably shocking, but then I am far from being a TD or being involved in Law Making in any aspect other than trying to typset the beastly things!! anna From henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org Wed Jul 9 09:38:41 2003 From: henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:38:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:17:15 -0700 From: Marvin French To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org Subject: I think I broke the law In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when I was dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I could make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the hand because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) by my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done something wrong. L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid strength bid was UI to me. But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is the normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side with a mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not UI, surely. How would you folks rule? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org Wed Jul 9 09:47:23 2003 From: henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:47:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: People, Moderator's hat on and responding to various mails in various inboxes. Now that we're back from Menton in our airconditioned offices, let's all cool down and discuss bridge laws again. Things have gone wrong in Menton, things can be improved, but there is no need to all each other names. Moderator's hat off. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk@rtflb.org BLML List Moderator WWW: http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 9 09:58:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:58:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c345f8$34c00030$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Marvin French > To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org > Subject: I think I broke the law >=20 > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when = I > was > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with >=20 > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 >=20 > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in = this > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I > could > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing = the > hand > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, = anyway) > by > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > something wrong. >=20 > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to = L16C2, > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening = bid > strength bid was UI to me. >=20 > But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is = the > normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side = with > a > mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not = UI, > surely. >=20 > How would you folks rule? There is certainly a point in looking at Law 16C2 but I would allow your call anyway. When opponents do not accept your partner's call out of turn they also = know the position you are brought into and should be aware that they can = expect any kind of "disturbing" calls from you. You didn't bring all the hands but my guess is that had they accepted = the pass out of turn and let the auction continue normally they might = probably have found their game contract in spades. This is the kind of gamble they have to live with; they chose not to = accept your partner's call out of turn and lost (partly?) because of that = choice. Regards Sven From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Jul 10 11:55:42 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:55:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <000701c345f8$34c00030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002301c346d1$ce9c8820$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Hello everybody ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:17:15 -0700 > From: Marvin French > To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org > Subject: I think I broke the law > > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when I was > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with > > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I could > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the hand > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) by > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > something wrong. > > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid > strength bid was UI to me. L16C2 : "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information." But in french : "Pour le camp fautif, l'information provenant de toute action retirée n'est pas autorisée, qu'elle soit de sa propre action ou de l'action du camp non fautif. Un joueur du camp fautif n'est pas autorisé, parmi les différentes possibilités d'action, d'en choisir une qui aurait pu indiscutablement avoir été suggérée, parmi d'autres, par l'information non autorisée." The difference : in english : "among logical alternative actions", but in french : "among the possible actions" > > But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is the > normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side with a > mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not UI, > surely. The fact that partner must pass is not UI, but the meaning of his withdrawn call is ! Without the UI that partner has less than an opening bid strength, nobody would take the risk of missing a game because of a 3H opening in first seat. IMO 3H in first seat is not a LA. The choice among LA is between pass, 1H, or a preempt at 2H or equivalent. With the french version of the Laws, I would consider that a wild preempt may have been suggested by the withdrawn call, and I would forbid it. With the english version, if an action is not a LA, would it be allowed even if it is clearly suggested by an UI ? Thank you for your advices Roger Eymard Orsay France > > How would you folks rule? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:58 AM Subject: RE: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > From: Marvin French > To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org > Subject: I think I broke the law > > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when I > was > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with > > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I > could > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the > hand > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) > by > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > something wrong. > > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid > strength bid was UI to me. > > But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is the > normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side with > a > mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not UI, > surely. > > How would you folks rule? There is certainly a point in looking at Law 16C2 but I would allow your call anyway. When opponents do not accept your partner's call out of turn they also know the position you are brought into and should be aware that they can expect any kind of "disturbing" calls from you. You didn't bring all the hands but my guess is that had they accepted the pass out of turn and let the auction continue normally they might probably have found their game contract in spades. This is the kind of gamble they have to live with; they chose not to accept your partner's call out of turn and lost (partly?) because of that choice. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 9 12:20:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:20:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <000601c345f1$2ad4f460$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030709131353.01dcdb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:07 9/07/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Tim West-Meads > > What is wrong with "The actual sequence is undiscussed, would you like to > > tell you what I think it may be?" > >When I (and I believe most players) ask for an explanation of a call the >interest is to receive "full explanation" of the call and not any extraneous >information. > >Of course uncertainty can in many cases be a valuable additional information >(and it is anyway UI to the player who made the call), so if the explaining >player is really in doubt then I think the above answer is in order. > >But when the player to explain a call is more than say 50% certain he has >understood the call correct I shall prefer him to give the explanation >directly in response to my question with only a remark to the effect that >for some reason there is a slight possibility that he may be wrong. AG : this is a goos idea in theory only. When such an explanation is given, and the explanation happens not to match it, what should the TD do ? a) Insist on the fact that the player was not certain, so that there was no MI. If this was the case, you would see a sudden increase of "uncertain" explanations, because the players would have found a way to avoid MI penalties cheaply. b) take the provisional explanation as if it were firm, and rule MI - then the player's interest would be not to tell you anything when one's uncertain. To this, I prefer letting the player giving full explanation, that is, "undiscussed", while offering matters of style (metarules) as a possible explanation (possibly Tim's way) . Yes, this could create UI, but that's their fault. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 9 12:42:38 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:42:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <002301c346d1$ce9c8820$270cfea9@tjgo.com> References: <000701c345f8$34c00030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030709132421.01dd27a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:55 10/07/2003 +0200, Roger Eymard wrote: > > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > > > > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this > > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I >could > > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the >hand > > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) >by > > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > > something wrong. > > > > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, > > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid > > strength bid was UI to me. < snip> >The fact that partner must pass is not UI, but the meaning of his withdrawn >call is ! >Without the UI that partner has less than an opening bid strength, nobody >would take the risk of missing a game because of a 3H opening in first seat. >IMO 3H in first seat is not a LA. The choice among LA is between pass, 1H, >or a preempt at 2H or equivalent. AG : not really. You can't open a Multi 2D, since partner would be compelled to pass. For this reason, we have to decide whether a 2H bid would be allowed when the pair doesn't play it as natural. It would be based on the knowledge that partner had to pass, which is UI. Ans L23 doesn't apply, because at the time of partner's POOT, he couldn't know it would help us play 2H. Now assume that the pair plays weak 2s. This hand is no more a weak 2 than it is a 3-bid. If one is to be disallowed, then the other should be, too. Speaking of strategy, there are only two possibilities : - have a bash at 4H, possibbly doubled and heavily down, but also with some hope of scoring a "normal" game ; - trying to get at a partial while simultaneously impeding opponents, ie bidding 2H or 3H. 1H is a no-win bid. I would be curious to look at the results of a hand generator here, but my feeling is that the "average expectancy" of a 2H or 3H bid is higher than that of a 4H bid. For the following reasons : - if partner has the average 10-count semi-misfit, we can make a partial in hearts, but no game ; - 2H or 3H will seldom be doubled ; and partner won't raise your atrocious 3-bid to a strange game, doubled and down ; - I've got some spades (okay, here it din't prevent them from having a game, but in other case it could). If I had to place my money on the right contract for our pair, without knowing of partner's pass, I would guess 2H or perhaps 3H. The loss from all those unsound 4H contracts overwhelms the loss from some missed games. This is surely true at Matchpoints, YMMV at IMPs. Yes, the pass suggests this a little more. But it also suggests that partner doesn't hold a weak hand with long clubs or diamonds (in my very loose preemptive style), which would be worse news. For all those reasons, I would say that the suggestion of a 3H bid vs a 4H bid is very mild, and surely not "demonstrable". Best regards, Alain. >With the french version of the Laws, I would consider that a wild preempt >may have been suggested by the withdrawn call, and I would forbid it. >With the english version, if an action is not a LA, would it be allowed even >if it is clearly suggested by an UI ? > >Thank you for your advices > >Roger Eymard >Orsay France > > > > > > > How would you folks rule? > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:58 AM >Subject: RE: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > > > From: Marvin French > > To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org > > Subject: I think I broke the law > > > > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when I > > was > > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with > > > > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > > > > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this > > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I > > could > > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the > > hand > > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) > > by > > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > > something wrong. > > > > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, > > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid > > strength bid was UI to me. > > > > But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is the > > normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side with > > a > > mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not UI, > > surely. > > > > How would you folks rule? > >There is certainly a point in looking at Law 16C2 but I would allow your >call anyway. > >When opponents do not accept your partner's call out of turn they also know >the position you are brought into and should be aware that they can expect >any kind of "disturbing" calls from you. > >You didn't bring all the hands but my guess is that had they accepted the >pass out of turn and let the auction continue normally they might probably >have found their game contract in spades. > >This is the kind of gamble they have to live with; they chose not to accept >your partner's call out of turn and lost (partly?) because of that choice. > >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 From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 9 12:24:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:24:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030709131353.01dcdb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c3460c$a83fef20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 9. juli 2003 13:20 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) >=20 > At 10:07 9/07/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >Tim West-Meads > > > What is wrong with "The actual sequence is undiscussed, would you = like > to > > > tell you what I think it may be?" > > > >When I (and I believe most players) ask for an explanation of a call = the > >interest is to receive "full explanation" of the call and not any > extraneous > >information. > > > >Of course uncertainty can in many cases be a valuable additional > information > >(and it is anyway UI to the player who made the call), so if the > explaining > >player is really in doubt then I think the above answer is in order. > > > >But when the player to explain a call is more than say 50% certain he = has > >understood the call correct I shall prefer him to give the = explanation > >directly in response to my question with only a remark to the effect = that > >for some reason there is a slight possibility that he may be wrong. >=20 > AG : this is a goos idea in theory only. > When such an explanation is given, and the explanation happens not to > match > it, what should the TD do ? > a) Insist on the fact that the player was not certain, so that there = was > no > MI. If this was the case, you would see a sudden increase of = "uncertain" > explanations, because the players would have found a way to avoid MI > penalties cheaply. > b) take the provisional explanation as if it were firm, and rule MI - = then > the player's interest would be not to tell you anything when one's > uncertain. >=20 > To this, I prefer letting the player giving full explanation, that is, > "undiscussed", while offering matters of style (metarules) as a = possible > explanation (possibly Tim's way) . Yes, this could create UI, but = that's > their fault. I may be alone with this view but frankly I see no problem. If a player gets a full explanation of opponent's auction and the information is correct then everything is OK, if not then he has been misinformed. Any remark by the responder to the effect that he is unsure, doesn't = know, is guessing or whatever is extraneous and not answering the question. It should be taken as a warning that the confidence in the reply is not = 100% and it may influence the Director's judgment on damage (if the requestor = is deemed to have put undue trust on the explanation to the effect that his action becomes wild or gambling), but it can not influence the judgment = of whether a "full explanation" has been given or not. Let me add that in my opinion the "explanation": "No agreement" (or = similar) with no further information is NOT an explanation as requested in Law = 75C unless the meaning of the unexplained call should be so obvious that it really doesn't need any explanation at all. But then I also maintain the opinion that misinformation shall not automatically lead to an adjusted score. (Although it may result in a = PP) Regards Sven=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 9 13:07:44 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:07:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Faust among equals (was HCP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030709075815.009f6430@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 PM 7/8/03, richard.hills wrote: >Indeed, the situation is not perfect. You are *not* >playing bridge if you deliberately infract Law 80F, and >are consequently making a grave infraction of Law 72B2: > >"A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if >there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." It's hair-splitting, of course, but this is not technically correct. A player cannot "infract" L80F, which pertains to (the "duties and powers" of) sponsoring organizations, not players. L72B2 forbids infringement of "a law", but is silent regarding infringment of a supplementary SO regulation. Indeed, one could argue that if the SO has violated L80F by issuing an illegal supplementary regulation that conflicts with "these Laws", it is the player's obligation under L72F2 to ignore it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 9 13:07:26 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:07:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708142305.01ddaa30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F0C057E.6000207@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:15 8/07/2003 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > > > AG : this seems to me to be a very good synthesis. > One thing remains unexplained, however : > Why on Earth would one accept a player's judgement in some cases (eg > opening 2NT) but not in the other (eg opening a mini NT) ? > > Some will tell us that this is because in one case they indeed use > judgement, while in the other they're getting round the Law, but I can't > accept this preconception. > Because we are judging two different regulations. If you choose to open a 19HCP as a 2NT which your CC lists as 20-22, then the only rule you are breaking is that of full disclosure. You should actually have disclosed it as "some 19HCP are judged 20" and this may well be understood as being general bridge knowledge. But if you open a 9HCP as a 1NT which your CC lists as 10-12, not only are you breaking the full disclosure rule (with the same proviso that this may not be a grave infraction), but also you are suggesting that some 9HCP hands are opened 1NT (notice I'm being very careful here). That may mean that you have a systemen which enables you to open 1NT on 9HCP, which may be forbidden in the area you are playing in. So the difference is simply one of which regulation we are looking at. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 9 13:23:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:23:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: <005801c3441d$142c6520$1b3387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030709081759.028aac60@pop.starpower.net> At 03:46 AM 7/9/03, twm wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > On the subject generally under discussion in this > > thread, one should always observe the difference > > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > > and one that says "players may not have agreements > > to do". > >This is complete Grattanesque twaddle. Any regular partnership of >competent players that professes "not to have an understanding" about >what >they each do should be drummed out of the game. One just can not play >with somebody for any length of time *without* developing such an >understanding. Our laws and regulations, however, apply to first-time partnerships as well as regular ones, and to incompetent players as well as competent ones. Deviations from one's explicit agreements may be pure matters of judgment, or may involve implicit agreements derived from experience. The case for an automatic presumption either way cannot be made; each case must be judged on its own merits, based on the "preponderance of the evidence". If the alleged offenders are a "regular partnership of competent players", that is evidence to be considered. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@att.net Wed Jul 9 17:39:55 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:39:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam In-Reply-To: <003201c345ee$155c2840$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin French > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong seam > > I get this objection often. Is there no acceptable movement that doesn't have this problem? > In the finals of our big pair events there are > many pairs who have no chance to win ("after two days") > because of low > carryovers. Still, they play their hearts out to rise > as high as they can in the rankings. Pair 27 has no chance to rise. Pair 28 doesn't have much. etc. Pairs 26 and 52 have no where to go but up. I prefer the probable no-chance-to-win to its absolute sibling. The consolation pairs are supposed to be in the next room over. > In a Swiss team event there are many teams out of > contention when the final > two rounds come around. They play hard, nevertheless. They've also already paid their card fees for those rounds. There's no other event for them to switch to. And it kills the time between then and the post-game socializing. > You are probably a player who expects to win, and wants > to drop out when that is not possible. If this were true I'd have died of disappointment long ago. -Todd From David Stevenson Wed Jul 9 13:35:44 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:35:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708125532.01dd2e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030708125532.01dd2e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 18:06 7/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >There is a tension between giving UI to pard when you >> >guess, and giving MI to opponents by not giving them an >> >informed guess. >> >> Tension? Giving MI to opponents is illegal: giving UI to partner is >>not. No contest. > >AG : Right. However, the Laws say that the opponents are entitled to what >you know from your agreements and knowledge of partner. Therefore, MI only >occurs if you fail to inform opponents of either your agreements or your >knowledge of partner's (and the pair's) style. >IMOBO, answering "we didn't discuss it, therefore it is natural by our >metarule, but I don't know more" should be enough, provided of course that >it's true. That's obviously correct if true. The danger is that some people say "no agreement" when they partnership experience covering the position. But we must get out of this linking with UI. If you are required to inform opponents you should not be considering UI at all. Considering what you should tell them is reasonable, of course. -- 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 Wed Jul 9 14:02:18 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:02:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000701c345f8$34c00030$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c345f8$34c00030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >> From: Marvin French >> To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org >> Subject: I think I broke the law >> How would you folks rule? > >There is certainly a point in looking at Law 16C2 but I would allow your >call anyway. > >When opponents do not accept your partner's call out of turn they also know >the position you are brought into and should be aware that they can expect >any kind of "disturbing" calls from you. > >You didn't bring all the hands but my guess is that had they accepted the >pass out of turn and let the auction continue normally they might probably >have found their game contract in spades. > >This is the kind of gamble they have to live with; they chose not to accept >your partner's call out of turn and lost (partly?) because of that choice. I am surprised at this answer: you seem to be suggesting that a player can ignore L73C *because* his opponents have taken a "gamble", yet that gamble is to do the absolutely standard and routine action of not accepting and thus legalising a call out of turn. It is very rare for accepting a call out of turn to be the correct action, and the non-offenders should never lose any of their rihghts because they take this normal action. Players should do their best to avoid taking advantage of UI. The fact that the NOs have made a reasonable decision should never affect this. -- 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 Wed Jul 9 13:55:57 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:55:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal writes > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:17:15 -0700 >From: Marvin French >To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org >Subject: I think I broke the law > >In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when I was >dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with > >S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > >With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this >situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I could >make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the hand >because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) by >my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done >something wrong. > >L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, >which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid >strength bid was UI to me. > >But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is the >normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side with a >mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not UI, >surely. > >How would you folks rule? How would I rule, I am not sure. I would poll this one around a lot. But the methodology is clear. It is a UI situation under L16C2, so follow the normal rules: [1] Were there LAs to 3H, given that partner is known to be forced to pass? [2] Assuming there were LAs to 3H, does the knowledge that partner intended to pass suggest 3H rather than one of the LAs? [3] Were the opponents damaged by the 3H? Might they have got a better score by you choosing one of the LAs? So, if the answer to all three questions is Yes, then adjust. Incidentally, while you may have broken the Law in a technical sense, I would never refer to someone who has misjudged a UI situation as breaking the law unless they have clearly broken L73C. That is not the case here. -- 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 9 19:07:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:07:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wrong seam References: Message-ID: <001e01c34646$552be160$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > From: Marvin French > > I get this objection often. > > Is there no acceptable movement that doesn't have this problem? Of course not. In every game there are contestants who have no chance to win during the final rounds. Nothing wrong with that. > > > In the finals of our big pair events there are > > many pairs who have no chance to win ("after two days") > > because of low > > carryovers. Still, they play their hearts out to rise > > as high as they can in the rankings. > > Pair 27 has no chance to rise. Pair 28 doesn't have much. etc. > Pairs 26 and 52 have no where to go but up. I prefer the probable > no-chance-to-win to its absolute sibling. The consolation pairs > are supposed to be in the next room over. We need 26 very strong consolation pairs to face the 26 finalists. What does it matter if they do that or play next door? However their considerable accomplishment in the quals should give this group more prestige than those in the usual consolation event. This is recognized by giving them an overall ranking in the finals, albeit that they are limited to places 27 thru 52. As recognition, even 52 gets a nice number of masterpoints for reaching the finals. > > > In a Swiss team event there are many teams out of > > contention when the final > > two rounds come around. They play hard, nevertheless. > > They've also already paid their card fees for those rounds. > There's no other event for them to switch to. And it kills the > time between then and the post-game socializing. Some of us like to play bridge. The great fullback Larry Csonka of the Miami Dolphins was asked if he minded playing a summer game against the college All-Stars (at one time required of the NFL champs), with nothing much at stake. "it's a football game," he replied. "I like playing football." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 9 19:27:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:27:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c34647$cba004b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ......... > >There is certainly a point in looking at Law 16C2 but I would allow = your > >call anyway. > > > >When opponents do not accept your partner's call out of turn they = also > know > >the position you are brought into and should be aware that they can > expect > >any kind of "disturbing" calls from you. > > > >You didn't bring all the hands but my guess is that had they accepted = the > >pass out of turn and let the auction continue normally they might > probably > >have found their game contract in spades. > > > >This is the kind of gamble they have to live with; they chose not to > accept > >your partner's call out of turn and lost (partly?) because of that > choice. >=20 > I am surprised at this answer: you seem to be suggesting that a = player > can ignore L73C *because* his opponents have taken a "gamble", yet = that > gamble is to do the absolutely standard and routine action of not > accepting and thus legalising a call out of turn. >=20 > It is very rare for accepting a call out of turn to be the correct > action, and the non-offenders should never lose any of their rihghts > because they take this normal action. >=20 > Players should do their best to avoid taking advantage of UI. The > fact that the NOs have made a reasonable decision should never affect > this. I did certainly not attempt to indicate that anybody may ignore any law; = and I regret it if I can be understood that way. However, in cases like this = NOS are offered a variety of alternatives (well, only two on calls out of = turn) with different consequences tied to each of their allowed choices. And the consequences are in some cases such that there is no way the existing partnership agreements make any sense. For instance you do not = make any kind of transfer, demand or asking bid when you know that partner = must pass. This is one of the things NOS must take into their consideration when selecting among their options after an irregularity: If they impose a = forced pass on one opponent they can no longer demand the other opponent to = stick to his agreements. And in the case that started this thread I feel that our "friend" cannot = be denied making what appears to be a fair gamble in the situation into = which he has found himself. The situation is very often such that he has no alternative to gamble for the luckiest call he can guess. I need some convincing argument that he must have used UI in this situation when selecting his gamble before I adjust. I am not convinced that this is = the case from the information we received here. Regards Sven From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Jul 10 12:04:05 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:04:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law Message-ID: <003f01c346d2$fa945f10$270cfea9@tjgo.com> C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C346E3.BDDB9230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everybody ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:17:15 -0700 > From: Marvin French > To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org > Subject: I think I broke the law > > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when = I was > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with > > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in = this > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I could > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing = the hand > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, = anyway) by > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > something wrong. > > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to = L16C2, > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening = bid > strength bid was UI to me. L16C2 : "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn = action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical = alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by = the unauthorised information." But in french : "Pour le camp fautif, l'information provenant de toute action retir=E9e = n'est pas autoris=E9e, qu'elle soit de sa propre action ou de l'action du camp = non fautif. Un joueur du camp fautif n'est pas autoris=E9, parmi les = diff=E9rentes possibilit=E9s d'action, d'en choisir une qui aurait pu indiscutablement = avoir =E9t=E9 sugg=E9r=E9e, parmi d'autres, par l'information non = autoris=E9e." The difference : in english : "among logical alternative actions", but = in french : "among the possible actions" > > But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is = the > normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side = with a > mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not = UI, > surely. The fact that partner must pass is not UI, but the meaning of his = withdrawn call is ! Without the UI that partner has less than an opening bid strength, = nobody would take the risk of missing a game because of a 3H opening in first = seat. IMO 3H in first seat is not a LA. The choice among LA is between pass, = 1H, or a preempt at 2H or equivalent. With the french version of the Laws, I would consider that a wild = preempt may have been suggested by the withdrawn call, and I would forbid it. With the english version, if an action is not a LA, would it be allowed = even if it is clearly suggested by an UI ? Thank you for your advices Roger Eymard Orsay France ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C346E3.BDDB9230 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello everybody


----- = Original Message=20 -----
From: "Henk Uijterwaal" <henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org= >
To:=20 <blml@rtflb.org>
Sent: = Wednesday,=20 July 09, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law=20 (fwd)


>
> ---------- Forwarded message = ----------
>=20 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:17:15 -0700
> From: Marvin French <mfrench1@san.rr.com>
> = To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org
> = Subject: I=20 think I broke the law
>
> In the recent Las Vegas regional, = my=20 partner inadvertently passed when I
was
> dealer. The pass was = not=20 accepted and I had to decide what to bid with
>
> S- A105 = H-AQ10964=20 D-752 C-9
>
> With partner forced to pass on the next round, = the=20 usual tactic in this
> situation is to close your eyes and bid = game, but I=20 felt it unlikely I
could
> make game opposite a passing = partner. So I=20 bid 3H, making, stealing the
hand
> because the opponents had a = spade=20 game made unbiddable (for them, anyway)
by
> my 3H bid. = Afterwards, I=20 had an uneasy feeling that I may have done
> something=20 wrong.
>
> L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has = a=20 reference to L16C2,
> which perhaps says it was not okay because = partner's=20 lack of opening bid
> strength bid was UI to me.

L16C2 = :
"For=20 the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn = action
and=20 from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. = A
player of=20 the offending side may not choose from among logical = alternative
actions one=20 that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by = the
unauthorised=20 information."

But in french :
"Pour le camp fautif, = l'information=20 provenant de toute action retir=E9e n'est
pas autoris=E9e, qu'elle = soit de sa=20 propre action ou de l'action du camp non
fautif. Un joueur du camp = fautif=20 n'est pas autoris=E9, parmi les diff=E9rentes
possibilit=E9s = d'action, d'en choisir=20 une qui aurait pu indiscutablement avoir
=E9t=E9 sugg=E9r=E9e, parmi = d'autres, par=20 l'information non autoris=E9e."

The difference : in english : = "among=20 logical alternative actions", but in
french : "among the possible=20 actions"

>
> But did partner's pass suggest an = unorthodox 3H bid=20 by me, when 1H is the
> normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I = really=20 expected to hang our side with
a
> mere 1H or 2H bid? After = all, the=20 fact that partner must pass is not UI,
> surely.

The fact = that=20 partner must pass is not UI, but the meaning of his withdrawn
call is = !
Without the UI that partner has less than an opening bid strength,=20 nobody
would take the risk of missing a game because of a 3H opening = in first=20 seat.
IMO 3H in first seat is not a LA. The choice among LA is = between pass,=20 1H,
or a preempt at 2H or equivalent.

With the french version = of the=20 Laws, I would consider that a wild preempt
may have been suggested by = the=20 withdrawn call, and I would forbid it.
With the english version, if = an action=20 is not a LA, would it be allowed even
if it is clearly suggested by = an UI=20 ?

Thank you for your advices

Roger Eymard
Orsay=20 France



------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C346E3.BDDB9230-- From Schoderb@aol.com Wed Jul 9 13:26:29 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:26:29 EDT Subject: [blml] Apology to Henk Message-ID: <7f.39da78fb.2c3d63f5@aol.com> --part1_7f.39da78fb.2c3d63f5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a post of mine I unfairly included Henk in my response as lacking courtesy in his postings about Menton, etal. I was thinking of Jaap, but for no reason that I can divine included Henk. I am sorry for any distress this may have caused you, Henk, and ask your forgiveness for a stupid error. I will proofread my postings more carefully from here on, and will not conveniently retreat into using advancing age as an excuse for such an egregious error. Not to minimize my chagrin, but to explain, the thrust of my sentence was that the underlying purpose of Henk, and even Jaap, seems to be one of striving to improve our services to the bridge playing public, as opposed to those who staunchly defend our creaky performances. I hope this clarifies my thinking, and again, Henk, sorry for the error. Kojak --part1_7f.39da78fb.2c3d63f5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a post of mine I unfairly included Henk in my&nb= sp; response as lacking courtesy in his postings about Menton, etal.  I= was thinking of Jaap, but for no reason that I can divine included Henk.
I am sorry for any distress this may have caused you, Henk, and ask your for= giveness for a stupid error.  I will proofread my postings more careful= ly from here on, and will not conveniently retreat into using advancing age=20= as an excuse for such an egregious error.

Not to minimize my chagrin, but to explain, the thrust of my sentence was th= at the underlying purpose of Henk, and even Jaap, seems to be one of strivin= g to improve our services to the bridge playing public, as opposed to those=20= who staunchly defend our creaky performances.

I hope this clarifies my thinking, and again, Henk, sorry for the error.

Kojak
--part1_7f.39da78fb.2c3d63f5_boundary-- From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 9 19:32:28 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:32:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Grattan wrote: > > > On the subject generally under discussion in this > > thread, one should always observe the difference > > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > > and one that says "players may not have agreements > > to do". > > This is complete Grattanesque twaddle. Any regular partnership of > competent players that professes "not to have an understanding" about what > they each do should be drummed out of the game. One just can not play > with somebody for any length of time *without* developing such an > understanding. > "This does not centre on the point I was making. I was saying that the one regulation prevents exercise of judgement - the action is totally forbidden whatever - the other allows that something may happen in those circumstances where a breach of partnership agreement (of which partner is unaware) is permitted. Of course between experienced players such understandings as you cite do develop; whenever have I suggested otherwise? ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 9 20:37:49 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) Message-ID: <200307091937.PAA13154@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Roger Eymard" > Without the UI that partner has less than an opening bid strength, nobody > would take the risk of missing a game because of a 3H opening in first seat. As David S. points out, the bridge judgment of this case is not easy. Despite that, I find it very hard to accept this judgment of Roger's. > With the english version, if an action is not a LA, would it be allowed even > if it is clearly suggested by an UI ? This, at least, BLML has discussed at great length. Various lines of reasoning have been proposed, but the universal(?) opinion is that any action made more attractive by UI is forbidden unless it is the only LA. In my opinion, the simplest line of reasoning is to notice L73C. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > For this reason, we have to decide whether a 2H bid would be allowed when > the pair doesn't play it as natural. It would be based on the knowledge > that partner had to pass, which is UI. Huh? Since when is knowledge that partner has to pass UI? I thought there was universal agreement that this is AI. Of course any facts suggested about partner's hand are UI. In this case, it is UI that partner cannot have an opening bid. > Speaking of strategy, there are only two possibilities : > - have a bash at 4H, possibbly doubled and heavily down, but also with some > hope of scoring a "normal" game ; > - trying to get at a partial while simultaneously impeding opponents, ie > bidding 2H or 3H. > 1H is a no-win bid. This looks closer to my own bridge judgment, but I can see some merit in 1H. There is also the possibility of a deliberately misleading bid. And 3NT must also be considered. In the ACBL, any bid of 4H or below is probably a LA (possibly excepting 2NT), and pass is a LA as well. (Perhaps the opponents will reach a doomed 3NT, not knowing of the long heart suit.) The difficult part is deciding which LA's are "demonstrably" suggested by knowledge that partner cannot have an opening bid. That surely depends on opening style, both preemptive and constructive, among other things. > From: "Sven Pran" > And the consequences are in some cases such that there is no way the > existing partnership agreements make any sense. For instance you do not make > any kind of transfer, demand or asking bid when you know that partner must > pass. > > This is one of the things NOS must take into their consideration when > selecting among their options after an irregularity: If they impose a forced > pass on one opponent they can no longer demand the other opponent to stick > to his agreements. Indeed so. Even if a pair plays multi, the NOS cannot expect 2D to show an unspecified major if the player's partner is barred. L23 and 72B1 cover cases where a player may have seen an advantage in barring his partner, but as Alain said, they don't apply when a player bars himself. The NOS are must play the odds when choosing whether to penalize, but some of the time the OS will reach an unusual contract that will turn out well for them. However, the OS are not allowed to use UI to reach a good contract. In my view, it would be good if the next Laws avoided mixing UI and mechanical penalties. Either make the POOT UI and no one is barred, or the passer is barred and everything is AI to everyone (and we look at 72B1 for the POOT to take care of the villains). I may have written something along these lines before. :-) From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 9 21:09:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: Message-ID: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > How would I rule, I am not sure. I would poll > this one around a lot. > > But the methodology is clear. It is a UI situation > under L16C2, so follow the normal rules: > > [1] Were there LAs to 3H, given that partner > is known to be forced to pass? > > [2] Assuming there were LAs to 3H, does the > knowledge that partner intended to pass suggest > 3H rather than one of the LAs? > > [3] Were the opponents damaged by the 3H? > Might they have got a better score by you > choosing one of the LAs? > > So, if the answer to all three questions is Yes, > then adjust. > > Incidentally, while you may have broken the > Law in a technical sense, I would never refer to > someone who has misjudged a UI situation as > breaking the law unless they have clearly > broken L73C. That is not the case here. > +=+ As far as it goes I concur in David's "methodology". However, I have my doubts that 73C does not apply, the position being such that the action taken might be adjudged more likely to succeed because of the limitation on partner's strength. (Did not the player himself admit to recognizing this possibility, post facto anyway?) Action under Law 72B1 should also be considered (see Law 30A); if third hand's strength is particularly pitiful I would be increasingly thoughtful as to the underlying inferences. Among the LAs I consider Pass should be included, at least for partnerships that do not play Weak Twos. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Jul 9 21:41:43 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: from "Steve Willner" at Jul 09, 2003 03:37:49 PM Message-ID: <200307092041.h69Kfhhg017057@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> I can see one additional argument for 1H being a LA. If you have a lead-directional suit, much like a hand you might make a lead- directing overcall on, you might want to get that in. Remember, lead-penalties would be against the offending hand, not against the partner of the offending hand. So, if you suspect that LHO might be declarer, or you think that you might need a switch in the hand, you still need to get your lead-directing bid in. I would think that any hand in the 6-13 HCP range might have lead- directional reasons for bidding 1H or at least enough to make 1H a LA. So I would amend Steve's LA list to include 1-4 H bids and 3NT. -Ted. > From: Steve Willner > Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:37:49 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > Of course any facts suggested about partner's hand are UI. In this > case, it is UI that partner cannot have an opening bid. > > > Speaking of strategy, there are only two possibilities : > > - have a bash at 4H, possibbly doubled and heavily down, but also with some > > hope of scoring a "normal" game ; > > - trying to get at a partial while simultaneously impeding opponents, ie > > bidding 2H or 3H. > > 1H is a no-win bid. > > This looks closer to my own bridge judgment, but I can see some merit > in 1H. There is also the possibility of a deliberately misleading > bid. And 3NT must also be considered. In the ACBL, any bid of 4H or > below is probably a LA (possibly excepting 2NT), and pass is a LA as well. > (Perhaps the opponents will reach a doomed 3NT, not knowing of the long > heart suit.) > > The difficult part is deciding which LA's are "demonstrably" suggested > by knowledge that partner cannot have an opening bid. That surely > depends on opening style, both preemptive and constructive, among other > things. > From rwilley@mit.edu Wed Jul 9 21:56:44 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:56:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Movements yet again Message-ID: <1057784204.3f0c818c752dd@webmail.mit.edu> Another quick question about bridge movements. Has anyone ever seen Bridge movements analyzed as a satistical sampling problem? Suppose that I have X pairs competing in a tournament. Each pair's true strength is represented by a point on [0,1]. Presumably pair strength is distributed normally. The tournament can be treated as a satistical sampling problem that is attempting to produce as accurate as possible a ranking for the pairs. As Marv has pointed out, there are going to be problems with most movement schemes. Tournament organizers have the option of running a relatively large number of relatively small sections. This type of structure has the advantage of producing relatively accurate rankings within a section, with the obvious caveat that making comparisons across sections is much less accurate. Alternatively, there is the option of running a small number of large sections. This allows direct comparison between many more pairs, however, it also introduces much more luck and decreases the accuracy of the comparisons. It seems to me that this topic could be analyzed mathematically. Potentially, it might even be possible to define characteristics for an ideal movement. John Probst was good enough to point out that the EBU movements booklet discusses design goals for an ideal movement. I was curious whether they took the next step. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 9 21:57:42 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:57:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003601c3465c$bf61d060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > On the subject generally under discussion in this > > > thread, one should always observe the difference > > > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > > > and one that says "players may not have agreements > > > to do". > > When a regulation says that a player "should" do something, does BLML regard that as optional, or mandatory? A regulation is not a law, remember. E.g., an ACBL regulation says a player "should" use the Stop card before making a skip bid, but our ACBL TD department is saying that the "should" makes the practice optional. Players must use it with every skip bid, or with none, but its use is optional. Many top players are not using the Stop card, which unfairly puts all of the onus on LHO to do the right thing. I don't see the purpose of having a Stop card regulation, or any other regulation, that is optional, except perhaps for club games. The regulation also says that "experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo" when RHO makes a skp bid, even if the Stop card is not used. "Are expected"? What does that mean? What makes a player "experienced"? Aren't all players subject to L16A?? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 9 22:49:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:49:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0BBA44.9000406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3EE8B3C5-B257-11D7-850C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 02:46 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, what do you want? > One player tells me that he will always open a particular hand, and > the other tells me he has no agreement that his partner does so. > Can you not see that this second statement contradicts the first? No, for it does not. Not in itself. > That the second statement is made only so as to try and not make the > system illegal? No. What if it's true? > That this second statement serves no purpose whatsoever? Now you contradict yourself. > That it could be just no more than a lie? Oh, certainly it "could be" no more than a lie. So could the statement in your .sig that you're located in Antwerp. But I doubt the latter is, and there's no evidence other than that you wish it to be so that the former is. > You are completely missing the point, Ed. Heh. Well, one of us certainly is. I'm still not convinced it's me. :-) From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 9 22:49:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > " The gentle mind by gentle deeds is known, > For a man by nothing is so well bewrayed. > As by his manners." > 'The Faerie Queen' [Edmund Spenser] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > On the subject generally under discussion in this > > > thread, one should always observe the difference > > > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > > > and one that says "players may not have agreements > > > to do". > > > > This is complete Grattanesque twaddle. Any regular partnership of > > competent players that professes "not to have an understanding" about > > what > > they each do should be drummed out of the game. One just can not play > > with somebody for any length of time *without* developing such an > > understanding. > > > "This does not centre on the point I was making. I was saying > that the one regulation prevents exercise of judgement - the > action is totally forbidden whatever - the other allows that > something may happen in those circumstances where a breach > of partnership agreement (of which partner is unaware) is > permitted. Of course between experienced players such > understandings as you cite do develop; whenever have I > suggested otherwise? Are you then saying that, even in a regular partnership where a degree of mutual understanding has been achieved, there remains a difference between "players may not do" and "players may not have an agreement to do"? If there is a difference how should the understanding that partner will occasionally breach agreements best be disclosed to the opposition? Thank you, Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 9 22:49:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > Among the LAs I consider Pass should be included, > at least for partnerships that do not play Weak Twos. I can't see how playing weak twos or not makes a difference. Nobody with an Acol 2 opener is going to open 2H when partner is barred (Ok they might but it would be a psyche), and nobody will expect a 2H bid to mean anthying but "This is an attempt to play a contract I judge reasonable in the circumstances". No matter what "system" is ostensibly being played all bets are off once pard is barred. Of course combining UI restrictions with the one round barring makes it mandatory to bid 3N on any balanced 12+ hand. Nasty situation to put people in. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 9 22:42:11 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:42:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> <003601c3465c$bf61d060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c34664$0ddd0b90$ae1ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: [blml] Stop card continued > > > > > When a regulation says that a player "should" do something, > does BLML regard that as optional, or mandatory? A regulation is not a law, remember. > +=+ Regulations made under the laws have the force of law. +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 9 22:55:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:55:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0BBC19.8020304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <02A4FB0B-B258-11D7-850C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 02:54 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, it's exactly what I've also been saying. It seems to me you've > been argueing against the wrong poster. Heh. Well, maybe we oughta just drop it, then. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 9 23:01:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:01:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <002901c345eb$0fc1dc20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 03:23 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Why aren't duplicating machines used universally in North America? > "Not made > here" is one reason, and the other is that I haven't seen any salesmen > from > Europe or Australia coming around to promote the product. It is not > enough > to sell just to the ACBL, which only runs three tournaments a year. > There > are a huge number of district and unit (lowest level) organizations > whose > officers have probably never seen a deal-duplicating machine and don't > know > about them. Here's an opportunity for some young salesman. Heh. I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine, a sometime partner (we got knocked out of the first round of the KO teams at the Syracuse regional last night) who is also on the BoD of the local bridge association (Rochester Area Bridge Association, not the whole unit, just part of it). He surprised me when he told me that there was a move afoot to get one of these machines for RABA, and asked me to see what I could find out about price and availability. I guess I have some net searching to do. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 9 23:10:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:10:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1D0CD675-B25A-11D7-850C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 03:46 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Any regular partnership of competent players that professes "not to > have > an understanding" about what they each do should be drummed out of the > game. One just can not play with somebody for any length of time > *without* > developing such an understanding. Oh, aye. But... are we limiting the discussion to regular partnerships? Last night and this morning I played with a friend of mine with whom I haven't played since before he took up "2/1" which we agreed to play. We hadn't discussed it, and fortunately it didn't come up, but I was surprised, during the post-mortem in the car this afternoon to hear him say that in the auction 1D-(p)-2C-(p), the 2C bid is not "2/1 game forcing", since that principle "only applies after a major suit opening". I'm no expert, and much of what I know, or think I know, about 2/1 comes from reading about it (primarily Mike Lawrence's and Max Hardy's books), but I never heard of that idea before - or else it's in one or another of those books and I've completely forgotten it. So... had it come up, partner would have insisted that it was not 2/1, and I would have been equally certain (though perhaps not as insistent :) that it was. Did we have an agreement? Or even an understanding? Or is the question irrelevant because we are not a regular partnership? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 9 23:14:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:14:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 03:46 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > What is wrong with "The actual sequence is undiscussed, would you like > to > tell you what I think it may be?" My general reaction to the title of this thread is that *demanding* a guess is wrong for several reasons. Equally so, I think offering one is also wrong - if it's purely a guess. If you know something about partner's tendencies (and in a regular partnership you do, although in an irregular one you may not) then it's not a pure guess, and you should disclose what, from your experience with this partner, you know. And you should, as Nike used to put it, "just do it", not ask if they would like you to do it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 9 23:23:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:23:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 04:38 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when > I was > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid Heh. At last night's KOs (Syracuse Regional) LHO passed when RHO was dealer. RHO bid 1D with a hand similar to yours, passed out. She made 5. We got 10 IMPs. It was the *only* board in that match in which we got IMPs. Sometimes I hate this game. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 10 01:06:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:06:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4C0D9196-B26A-11D7-850C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 18:11 US/Eastern, Gordon Bower wrote: > Is that better or worse than being told that 1D-P-2C-P-2H is "not a > reverse"? :) Well, not worse, I think. After all, the 2H bid in your sequence is a reverse *by* *definition*, and what people really mean when they say it's "not a reverse" is that it doesn't show extras. Whereas 2C in my sequence is certainly a "2/1" bid, but it may or may not be game forcing. Our (my partner's and I) disagreement was about the latter, not the former. > it's not the strangest odd thing I have heard (and not even too insane > of > an agreement, really... I actually play 1D-2C as an 'inverted minor > non-raise' with some partners, showing 11+, asking for stoppers, and > when > we don't have stoppers we wait and see who is willing to retreat to his > partner's minor first) - that honour goes to the people who play > 1D-P-1NT > as forcing one round, I think. Heh. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty odd. But only in that it's evidence they probably haven't thought about *why* a 1NT response should be forcing (or not). > But, no, it's not a normal part of 2/1 either. Hm. Looks like I have some rereading to do. >> So... had it come up, partner would have insisted that it was not 2/1, >> and I would have been equally certain (though perhaps not as insistent >> :) that it was. Did we have an agreement? Or even an understanding? Or >> is the question irrelevant because we are not a regular partnership? > > Seems to me that this is what we have "when you can't tell if it is a > mistaken bid or mistaken explantion, assume mistaken explanation" for. I'm not so sure. There is clearly evidence that we would have been having a misunderstanding *because* we didn't have an agreement, it seems to me. And if that's the case, I daresay any explanation cannot be "mistaken", because such assumes the existence of an agreement. And the law doesn't say "when you can't tell" it says "in the absence of evidence" - and here, there is evidence. From David Stevenson Thu Jul 10 01:16:10 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:16:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000f01c34647$cba004b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c34647$cba004b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >And in the case that started this thread I feel that our "friend" cannot be >denied making what appears to be a fair gamble in the situation into which >he has found himself. The situation is very often such that he has no >alternative to gamble for the luckiest call he can guess. I need some >convincing argument that he must have used UI in this situation when >selecting his gamble before I adjust. I am not convinced that this is the >case from the information we received here. When you make a gamble opposite a partner forced to pass I would say that it is common for some of your choices to be clearly better than others if you *know* that partner is limited to less than an opening bid. You still seem to think it is unlikely that UI will affect a call here, while I think it very likely. Consider a 6-card heart suit and twelve points. Before the auction starts what is your most likely result? Probably a small plus in a heart part-score. Game in hearts will occur with more frequency than the opponents having a game on. But the moment your partner passes all this changes: game becomes very unlikely for you, and pre-emption becomes much more desirable. So if partner was silenced but you do not know why 4H would be a reasonable gamble: if you knew he did not have an opening bid 2H or 3H dependent on vulnerability become much better bids. That is based on UI. When a player passes originally out of turn and is silenced then it is the norm for his partner to have UI problems. -- 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 Jul 10 01:21:31 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:21:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Incidentally, while you may have broken the >> Law in a technical sense, I would never refer to >> someone who has misjudged a UI situation as >> breaking the law unless they have clearly >> broken L73C. That is not the case here. >+=+ As far as it goes I concur in David's "methodology". >However, I have my doubts that 73C does not apply, >the position being such that the action taken might be >adjudged more likely to succeed because of the >limitation on partner's strength. (Did not the player >himself admit to recognizing this possibility, post facto >anyway?) Of course L73C may apply, but that is not the same as "clearly broken". If the bidding goes 1H X 4H ..X P 4S then a player who has bid 4S with a 5=0=4=4 hand may be said to have not followed L73C. But he has not clearly broken it: he has just misjudged the situation. On the other hand a person who bids this way with a 5=2=3=3 hand has taken advantage of the UI, and has clearly broken L73C. I would refer to him as having broken the Law, and would consider a PP as well as an adjustment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 10 01:03:53 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:03:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: Message-ID: <006a01c3467a$ec9e5620$1313e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > Grattan wrote: > > > Among the LAs I consider Pass should be included, > > at least for partnerships that do not play Weak Twos. > > I can't see how playing weak twos or not makes a > difference. Nobody with > > is barred (Ok they > might but it would be a psyche), and nobody will > expect a 2H bid to mean > anthying but "This is an attempt to play a contract > I judge reasonable in > the circumstances". No matter what "system" is > ostensibly being played > all bets are off once pard is barred. > +=+ Yes. I wrote the statement without the qualification at first, and was probably wrong to add it. I have in mind that for a partnership that does play weak twos *maybe* Pass is not an LA on the hand. ~ G ~ +=+ > Of course combining UI restrictions with the one round > barring makes it mandatory to bid 3N on any balanced > 12+ hand. Nasty situation to put people in. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 10 01:30:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:30:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <006b01c3467a$ed80edf0$1313e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan Endicott > =============================== > > " The gentle mind by gentle deeds is known, > > For a man by nothing is so well bewrayed. > > As by his manners." > > 'The Faerie Queen' [Edmund Spenser] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > On the subject generally under discussion in this > > > > thread, one should always observe the difference > > > > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > > > > and one that says "players may not have agreements > > > > to do". > > > > > > This is complete Grattanesque twaddle. Any regular partnership of > > > competent players that professes "not to have an understanding" about > > > what > > > they each do should be drummed out of the game. One just can not play > > > with somebody for any length of time *without* developing such an > > > understanding. > > > > > "This does not centre on the point I was making. I was saying > > that the one regulation prevents exercise of judgement - the > > action is totally forbidden whatever - the other allows that > > something may happen in those circumstances where a breach > > of partnership agreement (of which partner is unaware) is > > permitted. Of course between experienced players such > > understandings as you cite do develop; whenever have I > > suggested otherwise? > > Are you then saying that, even in a regular partnership where a degree of > mutual understanding has been achieved, there remains a difference between > "players may not do" and "players may not have an agreement to do"? > > If there is a difference how should the understanding that partner will > occasionally breach agreements best be disclosed to the opposition? > > Thank you, > > Tim > +=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. Players are not permitted to have an understanding about breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain external to partner's expectations or they become part of the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to the system regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 10 03:57:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:57:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <30922AE3-B282-11D7-850C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 20:40 US/Eastern, Gordon Bower wrote: > Maybe I was unclear. I meant 1D-2C= GF is normal, and "1D-2C isnt a > 2/1" > is unusual. It seems *I* was unclear. What partner said was that 2C is not forcing to game in that auction. And it seems he's, um, laboring under a misapprehension. :-) > If you explain "it means X" instead of "No agreement", that seems like > a > misexplanation to me.... not a malicious one, by any means... Hm. If partner had bid it, and an opponent had asked me, I would have said it's game forcing. If I had bid it, and they asked him, he would have said it's not. In either case, whichever one of us had made the bid would have called the director at the appropriate time. How would he rule? Well, this is the ACBL. I'd bet a donut he'd rule it a mistaken explanation in *both* cases, without either (a) reading the law from the book or (b) thinking much at all about what was really going on. But is he right? Maybe. I dunno. Or maybe I'm just biased. :-) From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jul 10 07:18:22 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Ruling from this evening Message-ID: <200307100618.h6A6IMP8030927@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Ok, this evening, I had round-robin match going on at my regular club game. This team match had the following situation: North opened 1NT which was announced 12-14 and West was not paying attention. East doubled. West alerted and when asked, explained that it was a pinpoint double which shows a 4-card major and longer (5+) minor, or long single-suited minor. South redoubled for runout. West bid 2C which was not alerted. East-West ended up in 2NT by East. Before the opening lead, East said that West incorrectly alerted the double. East said that the double was penalty, to which West replied, "Oh? That was a weak NT?" The system was confirmed that vs weak NT, the double would be penalty oriented. South asked what 2C was and was told that it should be natural and long clubs. South then asked what 2C would have meant if the NT had been strong and the double had been pinpoint. At this point, East called me to the table on a point of information and said he thought they were not entitled to the information of what 2C would have meant had double been pinpoint, only to the information of what 2C meant over a penalty double. I thought that L75A entitled North-South to the information of what 2C was intended as, since West clearly thought that the double was pinpoint. East offered the information, but wanted to find out whether this was true. I said I'd check with other sources...so, were North-South entitled to the information about what 2C meant over a pinpoint double? -Ted. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 10 09:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 03:46 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > What is wrong with "The actual sequence is undiscussed, would you > > like to tell you what I think it may be?" > > My general reaction to the title of this thread is that *demanding* a > guess is wrong for several reasons. Equally so, I think offering one is > also wrong - if it's purely a guess. If you know something about > partner's tendencies (and in a regular partnership you do, although in > an irregular one you may not) then it's not a pure guess, and you > should disclose what, from your experience with this partner, you know. > And you should, as Nike used to put it, "just do it", not ask if they > would like you to do it. Of course if there is relevant partnership experience that should be disclosed automatically. I was thinking more about the situation where one is playing pick-up. For example I have agreed to play weak 2s and pard responds 2N to my 2S. Given the club in which I play it is more likely to be Ogust than a feature ask (but opps almost certainly know that). I do not wish to deny them the knowledge that it is probably Ogust but nor to I want to create the UI that removes any ambiguity for partner. I have a feeling that if I say "Probably Ogust" he will be obliged to treat my response as a "feature" even though he intended his 2N as Ogust. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 10 09:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <006b01c3467a$ed80edf0$1313e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not > do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any > circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement > or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. > If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do > something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership > agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach > of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding > does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be > considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. > Players are not permitted to have an understanding about > breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain > external to partner's expectations or they become part of > the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to > the system regulations. So effectively a regular partnership may *never* open non Ro19 hands? Even a new partnership would be ruled against in the following situation. Hand 1 partner opens 1N (12-14) on AJTx,K97x,Tx,Kxx. Hand 2 in 3rd seat he opens 1S on AQ8543,Kxx,x,Jxx. What do you *expect* him to open if, on hand 4 in 3rd seat, he is dealt AJT9xx,KTx,x,JTx? Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 12:52:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:52:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710134925.01dcba70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:49 9/07/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott > =============================== > > " The gentle mind by gentle deeds is known, > > For a man by nothing is so well bewrayed. > > As by his manners." > > 'The Faerie Queen' [Edmund Spenser] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > On the subject generally under discussion in this > > > > thread, one should always observe the difference > > > > between a regulation that says "players may not do" > > > > and one that says "players may not have agreements > > > > to do". > > > > > > This is complete Grattanesque twaddle. Any regular partnership of > > > competent players that professes "not to have an understanding" about > > > what > > > they each do should be drummed out of the game. One just can not play > > > with somebody for any length of time *without* developing such an > > > understanding. > > > > > "This does not centre on the point I was making. I was saying > > that the one regulation prevents exercise of judgement - the > > action is totally forbidden whatever - the other allows that > > something may happen in those circumstances where a breach > > of partnership agreement (of which partner is unaware) is > > permitted. Of course between experienced players such > > understandings as you cite do develop; whenever have I > > suggested otherwise? > >Are you then saying that, even in a regular partnership where a degree of >mutual understanding has been achieved, there remains a difference between >"players may not do" and "players may not have an agreement to do"? > >If there is a difference how should the understanding that partner will >occasionally breach agreements best be disclosed to the opposition? AG : Yesterday, I ran across a pair whose convention card mentioned, at a prominent place : "point ranges are good indications, but we feel free to adapt". Isn't that the right way, when it's the truth ? BTW, Herman was umpiring, and he didn't see any harm in it. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 13:21:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:21:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] how far does 75C extend ? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710141541.01dcf160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I vaguely remember that this subject was covered in the past, but can't find it back. The topic is : what's the limit between "knowledge of system and partner" and "general knowledge of bridge" in L75C ? All four players have good knowledge of funny systems. E S W N 2Ca p 2Sa p p 2C : al erted, South looks at CC, which says "either weak with 44+ majors or ... "(a whole array of very strong hands). This is the second time this opening happens in this particular match. 2S : alerted, asked, explained as "to play facing the weak version". Is Easts' pass alertable ? Why ? Thank you for your help. Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 10 13:14:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:14:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <006b01c3467a$ed80edf0$1313e150@endicott> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030710080426.009f6820@pop.starpower.net> At 08:30 PM 7/9/03, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not >do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any >circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement >or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. > If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do >something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership >agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach >of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding >does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be >considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. >Players are not permitted to have an understanding about >breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain >external to partner's expectations or they become part of >the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to >the system regulations. Regulations that forbid you from having an agreement to do something are authorized -- and significantly constrained -- by L40. Regulations that forbid you from doing it in the absence of an agreement are authorized -- and constrained -- by L80. A regulation made under L80 may not contradict the constraints of L40 ("not in conflict with these Laws"). There is a rather large class of "somethings" for which agreements may be regulated but unilateral actions may not. It is not merely a matter of the SO deciding arbitrarily which it wants to do. That the WBF has chosen to look the other way when conflicts arise between L40 and an SO's action under L80, rather than take proactive steps to determine whether the regulation is legal and take action if it isn't, is not the same thing as the regulation being necessarily legal. 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 Jul 10 13:44:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:44:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling from this evening In-Reply-To: <200307100618.h6A6IMP8030927@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710144001.01dd0240@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:18 10/07/2003 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: >Ok, this evening, I had round-robin match going on at my regular >club game. This team match had the following situation: > >North opened 1NT which was announced 12-14 and West was not paying >attention. East doubled. West alerted and when asked, explained >that it was a pinpoint double which shows a 4-card major and >longer (5+) minor, or long single-suited minor. South redoubled >for runout. West bid 2C which was not alerted. East-West ended >up in 2NT by East. Before the opening lead, East said that West >incorrectly alerted the double. East said that the double was >penalty, to which West replied, "Oh? That was a weak NT?" The >system was confirmed that vs weak NT, the double would be penalty >oriented. South asked what 2C was and was told that it should be >natural and long clubs. South then asked what 2C would have meant >if the NT had been strong and the double had been pinpoint. > >At this point, East called me to the table on a point of information >and said he thought they were not entitled to the information of >what 2C would have meant had double been pinpoint, only to the >information of what 2C meant over a penalty double. > >I thought that L75A entitled North-South to the information of what >2C was intended as, since West clearly thought that the double was >pinpoint. East offered the information, but wanted to find out >whether this was true. > >I said I'd check with other sources...so, were North-South entitled >to the information about what 2C meant over a pinpoint double? AG : I would stick to the letter of the law (shouldn't one always ?). Opponents are entitled to knowledge of the meaning of : - calls that were made in the present situation ; - inferences from bids that could have been made in the present situation but weren't. Here, a pinpoint double was not one of #2's options, therefore all sequences beginning with this call are irrelevant. Defenses vs a strong NT must no more be explained, on this deal, as defenses to, say, a 2H opening. However, opponents are allowed to know what 2C meant in the actual situation. And they also know there was a mixup, so they can't claim being misinformed. Best regards, Alain. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jul 10 13:44:21 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:44:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling from this evening In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710144001.01dd0240@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3AC36904-B2D4-11D7-98DC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 01:44 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 02:18 10/07/2003 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: > >> Ok, this evening, I had round-robin match going on at my regular >> club game. This team match had the following situation: >> >> North opened 1NT which was announced 12-14 and West was not paying >> attention. East doubled. West alerted and when asked, explained >> that it was a pinpoint double which shows a 4-card major and >> longer (5+) minor, or long single-suited minor. South redoubled >> for runout. West bid 2C which was not alerted. East-West ended >> up in 2NT by East. Before the opening lead, East said that West >> incorrectly alerted the double. East said that the double was >> penalty, to which West replied, "Oh? That was a weak NT?" The >> system was confirmed that vs weak NT, the double would be penalty >> oriented. South asked what 2C was and was told that it should be >> natural and long clubs. South then asked what 2C would have meant >> if the NT had been strong and the double had been pinpoint. >> >> At this point, East called me to the table on a point of information >> and said he thought they were not entitled to the information of >> what 2C would have meant had double been pinpoint, only to the >> information of what 2C meant over a penalty double. >> >> I thought that L75A entitled North-South to the information of what >> 2C was intended as, since West clearly thought that the double was >> pinpoint. East offered the information, but wanted to find out >> whether this was true. >> >> I said I'd check with other sources...so, were North-South entitled >> to the information about what 2C meant over a pinpoint double? > > AG : I would stick to the letter of the law (shouldn't one always ?). > > Opponents are entitled to knowledge of the meaning of : > - calls that were made in the present situation ; > - inferences from bids that could have been made in the present=20 > situation but weren't. > > Here, a pinpoint double was not one of #2's options, therefore all=20 > sequences beginning with this call are irrelevant. > Defenses vs a strong NT must no more be explained, on this deal, as=20 > defenses to, say, a 2H opening. > > However, opponents are allowed to know what 2C meant in the actual=20 > situation. And they also know there was a mixup, so they can't claim=20= > being misinformed. > > Best regards, > > Alain. 20F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own=20 turn to call, may request=A0 a full explanation of the opponents' = auction=20 (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant=20 calls available but not made); Does "available" mean "available in the system" or "available to be=20 used at that moment"? A pinpoint double was available in the system, and it's meaning is=20 relevant to the situation under discussion. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From luis@fuegolabs.com Thu Jul 10 14:14:35 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:14:35 -0300 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: Message-ID: <01cf01c346e5$359db950$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> I want to ask a question: If your opponent opens "pass" out of turn, isn't it better to accept the pass than to force your other opp to make a guess of their best contract based on his holding? I understand that is logical to refuse an OOT opening different than pass but why would you reject a pass? If you allow the pass you should be better positioned in the bidding than the rest of the field because you can open before the player that might have an opening bid. If you force your opp to bid you will probably be facing an ackward problem that other players didn't have like the 3h opening in this hand. Based on this if you don't accept the pass then I should assume that you don't have an opening bid... is that UI to pd? Interesting points here.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:38 AM Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:17:15 -0700 > From: Marvin French > To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org > Subject: I think I broke the law > > In the recent Las Vegas regional, my partner inadvertently passed when I was > dealer. The pass was not accepted and I had to decide what to bid with > > S- A105 H-AQ10964 D-752 C-9 > > With partner forced to pass on the next round, the usual tactic in this > situation is to close your eyes and bid game, but I felt it unlikely I could > make game opposite a passing partner. So I bid 3H, making, stealing the hand > because the opponents had a spade game made unbiddable (for them, anyway) by > my 3H bid. Afterwards, I had an uneasy feeling that I may have done > something wrong. > > L72A5 seems to say my 3H bid was okay, but it has a reference to L16C2, > which perhaps says it was not okay because partner's lack of opening bid > strength bid was UI to me. > > But did partner's pass suggest an unorthodox 3H bid by me, when 1H is the > normal action and 2H a good LA? Am I really expected to hang our side with a > mere 1H or 2H bid? After all, the fact that partner must pass is not UI, > surely. > > How would you folks rule? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 14:50:05 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:50:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <01cf01c346e5$359db950$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710154551.01de1500@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:14 10/07/2003 -0300, Luis Argerich wrote: >I want to ask a question: If your opponent opens "pass" out of turn, isn't >it better to accept the pass than to force >your other opp to make a guess of their best contract based on his holding? >I understand that is logical to refuse >an OOT opening different than pass but why would you reject a pass? > >If you allow the pass you should be better positioned in the bidding than >the rest of the field because you can open >before the player that might have an opening bid. If you force your opp to >bid you will probably be facing an ackward >problem that other players didn't have like the 3h opening in this hand. >Based on this if you don't accept the pass then I should assume that you >don't have an opening bid... is that UI to pd? AG : I would say no. The fact that there was a POOT is AI to partner, as is the fact that you're a clever player and able to reason the way you just did. If the bidding goes : 1C 1S 1D, and after having summoned the TD and been explained the ruling you decide to accept the 1D bid and now bid 1S, there is an inference that your hand isn't exactly worth a 2S raise, but you wish to raise anyway (live case). Since you're the NOS, no inference arising from the opponents' error is unauthorized. Same is true here. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 10 14:37:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:37:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F0D6C17.5070504@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >>> >>"This does not centre on the point I was making. I was saying >>that the one regulation prevents exercise of judgement - the >>action is totally forbidden whatever - the other allows that >>something may happen in those circumstances where a breach >>of partnership agreement (of which partner is unaware) is >>permitted. Of course between experienced players such >>understandings as you cite do develop; whenever have I >>suggested otherwise? >> > > Are you then saying that, even in a regular partnership where a degree of > mutual understanding has been achieved, there remains a difference between > "players may not do" and "players may not have an agreement to do"? > > If there is a difference how should the understanding that partner will > occasionally breach agreements best be disclosed to the opposition? > Look, there is a huge difference: If, even when playing 10-12, a player opens a three-pointer, this is (probably) clearly not an agreement. "players may not" does not apply. But when the same person opens a 9-pointer, the 'players may not have an agreement" does translate into "may not". For the life of me I cannot tell the difference between "we open 9-12" and "we open 10-12 but we occcasionally count 9s as 10s". Which is why, yes indeed, the regulation translates to "players may not" in a number of cases. > Thank you, > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 10 14:39:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:39:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> <5.1.0.14.0.20030710134925.01dcba70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F0D6CAE.1030108@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : Yesterday, I ran across a pair whose convention card mentioned, at > a prominent place : > "point ranges are good indications, but we feel free to adapt". > Isn't that the right way, when it's the truth ? > BTW, Herman was umpiring, and he didn't see any harm in it. > Of course not, why should I? But when this combines with sub-Ro18 openings, I will see harm. By their very admission, any opening which is close to the announced range is "systemic". > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 10 17:26:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <200307101626.MAA12322@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > There is clearly evidence that we would have been > having a misunderstanding *because* we didn't have an agreement, it > seems to me. And if that's the case, I daresay any explanation cannot > be "mistaken", because such assumes the existence of an agreement. Claiming you have an agreement when you don't is just as much MI as the reverse. In your example, a correct explanation would have been that you agreed to play 2/1 but had not specifically discussed the sequence 1D-P-2C. You should add any books or experience you have in common, if you know of any. But _either_ "game-forcing" or "not game-forcing" is MI; you have no such agreement. In Tim's example (2H-P-2NT, undiscussed), a correct explanation might be something like "We're a first time partnership. We agreed on weak two's but did not discuss responses. In this club, Ogust is probably the majority agreement, but feature-asking is also popular." Of course that last sentence assumes you and your partner play in the same club, and the opponents do not. You might instead mention agreements in another partnership if you have one in common. If there's nothing on which you can base a guess, the sentence should be omitted. The opponents are entitled to your agreements, including implicit ones, but not to your guesses. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 10 17:35:53 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Ruling from this evening Message-ID: <200307101635.MAA12799@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ted Ying > I said I'd check with other sources...so, were North-South entitled > to the information about what 2C meant over a pinpoint double? As it happens, EK wrote a BW editorial on exactly this subject. Of course his example was different, but the substance was the same. His answer was yes, the opponents are entitled to an explanation. I recall two lines of reasoning, but I'm not sure which one was in the specific editorial or whether both were. Both lead to the same conclusion. They are: 1. In principle, the opponents are entitled to a complete description of your agreements, just as if they had studied your system notes for themselves. Of course there are practical restrictions on asking irrelevant questions, but anything relevant to the deal in progress must be disclosed. 2. If your opponents had happened to know how pinpoint doubles work, they would have known what 2C means. All of your opponents are entitled to be in "this happy position." (I think those last three words are a direct quote from the editorial, but my memory may not be 100% reliable.) Perhaps someone else can locate the editorial in question. I think I'd guess mid-1980's, but this is a vague guess at best. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 10 17:56:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:56:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6F31B886-B2F7-11D7-87A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jul 10, 2003, at 04:35 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Of course if there is relevant partnership experience that should be > disclosed automatically. I was thinking more about the situation where > one is playing pick-up. For example I have agreed to play weak 2s and > pard responds 2N to my 2S. Given the club in which I play it is more > likely to be Ogust than a feature ask (but opps almost certainly know > that). I do not wish to deny them the knowledge that it is probably > Ogust > but nor to I want to create the UI that removes any ambiguity for > partner. > I have a feeling that if I say "Probably Ogust" he will be obliged to > treat my response as a "feature" even though he intended his 2N as > Ogust. I think the relevant point here is the parenthetical expression in the fourth sentence. It would seem to be common knowledge in that club that the bid is likely to be Ogust. I haven't looked, but I suspect EBU alerting regs contribute to your dilemma here, since I suspect both meanings are alertable. In the ACBL, neither meaning is alertable. That has its own problems, but that's a different thread. :-) In the EBU, I would alert and if asked say simply that it's undiscussed. In this particular case, given the parentheses, I think that's sufficient. But that's just me. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 10 18:22:12 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:22:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <200307101626.MAA12322@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <0B05D46A-B2FB-11D7-87A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jul 10, 2003, at 12:26 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > Claiming you have an agreement when you don't is just as much MI as the > reverse. Um. I take your point, but I object to your wording. It smacks of "you did it deliberately". :( > In your example, a correct explanation would have been that > you agreed to play 2/1 but had not specifically discussed the sequence > 1D-P-2C. You should add any books or experience you have in common, if > you know of any. But _either_ "game-forcing" or "not game-forcing" is > MI; you have no such agreement. Perhaps I'm not quick-witted enough to play bridge - this line of reasoning would not have occurred to me at the table. > The opponents are entitled to your agreements, including implicit > ones, but > not to your guesses. On that, we agree. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 10 18:21:54 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:21:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ As far as it goes I concur in David's "methodology". > >However, I have my doubts that 73C does not apply, > >the position being such that the action taken might be > >adjudged more likely to succeed because of the > >limitation on partner's strength. (Did not the player > >himself admit to recognizing this possibility, post facto > >anyway?) > > Of course L73C may apply, but that is not the same as > "clearly broken". > +=+ The hand in question was a fairly ordinary 10 count with a six card suit - a weak two if the range includes 10HCP, a possible one opener in some players' hands at times. However, for anyone to open it at the three level, in the absence of UI, though legitimate, would be an action at the low end of probability - done maybe when the player wished to stir things up. In the case discussed to choose to open at the three level smacks of taking advantage of the UI, even if done without malice - and the possibility of awareness is not to be discounted when such things happen. The 30A x-ref to 72B1 was added in consequence of my reporting English L&EC experience of occasions where a player had passed when partner was dealer (and had not called), and the passer had shown up with a balanced exiguity of HCP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 10 19:13:34 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:13:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> <003601c3465c$bf61d060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c34664$0ddd0b90$ae1ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <000801c3470e$fbbeb700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > From: "Marvin French"> > > > > > > > > When a regulation says that a player "should" do something, > > does BLML regard that as optional, or mandatory? A regulation > is not a law, remember. > > > +=+ Regulations made under the laws have the force of law. +=+ Then, I presume, the use of "should" accords with what the Preface says about the word: "...failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." When the Stop card regulation was first enacted, players could lose the right of redress for UI damage after an opposing break in tempo if they failed to use the Stop card. After a while this opinion changed. At the St Louis NABC in 1997 one AC decided accordingly and another did not. As of now, Stop card usage is considered irrelevant in tempo cases. You're "expected" to wait before acting over a skip bid, Stop card or no Stop card. So, failure to use the Stop card does not jeoparidize one's rights, and never incurs a procedural penalty. The ACBL is therefore in violation of the Laws. So what else is new? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 10 19:20:15 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:20:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] how far does 75C extend ? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710141541.01dcf160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001601c3470f$ea03b960$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > I vaguely remember that this subject was covered in the past, but can't > find it back. > The topic is : what's the limit between "knowledge of system and partner" > and "general knowledge of bridge" in L75C ? > > All four players have good knowledge of funny systems. > > E S W N > 2Ca p 2Sa p > p > > 2C : al erted, South looks at CC, which says "either weak with 44+ majors > or ... "(a whole array of very strong hands). This is the second time this > opening happens in this particular match. > 2S : alerted, asked, explained as "to play facing the weak version". > > Is Easts' pass alertable ? Why ? > No Alert. East's pass has already been explained adequately. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 10 19:35:12 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:35:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle References: Message-ID: <001d01c34712$007ecfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Marvin French wrote: > > > Why aren't duplicating machines used universally in North America? > > "Not made > > here" is one reason, and the other is that I haven't seen any salesmen > > from > > Europe or Australia coming around to promote the product. It is not > > enough > > to sell just to the ACBL, which only runs three tournaments a year. > > There > > are a huge number of district and unit (lowest level) organizations > > whose > > officers have probably never seen a deal-duplicating machine and don't > > know > > about them. Here's an opportunity for some young salesman. > > Heh. I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine, a sometime partner > (we got knocked out of the first round of the KO teams at the Syracuse > regional last night) who is also on the BoD of the local bridge > association (Rochester Area Bridge Association, not the whole unit, > just part of it). He surprised me when he told me that there was a move > afoot to get one of these machines for RABA, and asked me to see what I > could find out about price and availability. I guess I have some net > searching to do. :-) Start with jeff.johnston@acbl.org. The ACBL has some older models of Duplimate available. I ordered one, and I assume there are more. The price was $1000, with no warranty available. Jeff is throwing in an old 286 computer, saying that the software has problems with newer computers/operating systems. Bar-coded cards are available from the ACBL for $2.70 a pack. The older machine does not deal directly into specially-designed boards, as the new models do. It deals into four pockets from which the hands must be removed and inserted into boards. If you take delivery at an NABC, whatever you buy is shipped to the NABC along with all other supplies and equipment, so there is no shipping charge. I'm getting mine at the Long Beach NABC, where Jeff will give several of us a little demo on how to use it. As to someone's question of why duplicators are not more generally used in techie North America, I'll ask a queston back: How come computer scoring and pickup slips are not in general use elsewhere, as they are here? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From bbickford@charter.net Thu Jul 10 20:15:18 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:15:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle References: Message-ID: <000d01c34717$9a232400$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle > Heh. I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine, a sometime partner > (we got knocked out of the first round of the KO teams at the Syracuse > regional last night) who is also on the BoD of the local bridge > association (Rochester Area Bridge Association, not the whole unit, > just part of it). He surprised me when he told me that there was a move > afoot to get one of these machines for RABA, and asked me to see what I > could find out about price and availability. I guess I have some net > searching to do. :-) > > I don't know what the advantages are, but according to Jannersten's web page, the 1,000 model is refurbished and runs with DOS with significantly fewer features. The more advanced model, which runs with windows or Mac. See http://www.jannersten.se/html/duplimate.html. Cheers............................/Bill Bickford > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 10 20:03:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:03:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030710080426.009f6820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007601c34719$3c708f30$c555e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > That the WBF has chosen to look the other way when conflicts arise > between L40 and an SO's action under L80, rather than take > proactive steps to determine whether the regulation is legal and > take action if it isn't, is not the same thing as the regulation being > necessarily legal. > > +=+ The position is not that the WBF has looked "the other way". It has determined that the restriction not allowing regulations "in conflict with these laws" applies to regulations under Law 80F; this restriction is not universal to all regulations: those made under other Laws such as 80E, 40D, 40E, 78D,are enabled by, and subject to the terms of, the respective law and the powers it gives. There are several references to this in the Minutes of the WBFLC, the most comprehensive stating (1 Sep 1998) that "The Committee again acknowledged the Geneva ruling that the condition in Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F but not to regulations made under Laws 40D, 80E, or other powers to regulate granted in the Laws." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 10 20:06:35 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:06:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <007701c34719$3d3da330$c555e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not > > do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any > > circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement > > or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. > > If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do > > something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership > > agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach > > of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding > > does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be > > considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. > > Players are not permitted to have an understanding about > > breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain > > external to partner's expectations or they become part of > > the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to > > the system regulations. > > So effectively a regular partnership may *never* open > non Ro19 hands? Even a new partnership would be ruled > against in the following situation. Hand 1 partner opens > 1N (12-14) on AJTx,K97x,Tx,Kxx. Hand 2 in 3rd seat > he opens 1S on AQ8543,Kxx,x,Jxx. What do you *expect* ? him to open if, on hand 4 in 3rd seat, he is dealt > AJT9xx,KTx,x,JTx? > +=+ Under what regulations? The EBU regulations, which it is not for me to defend, specify what minimum strengths may be *agreed*. They do not prohibit, in my reading of them, opening - in breach of partnership agreement - hands of lesser strength; however, if partner is found to be catering for sub-minimum hands it will lead to the conclusion that the partnership agreement encompasses opening such hands. No doubt one or more Davids will confirm or modify my understanding of the Orange Book on the subject, and will respond with authority on what is expected where the OB applies. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 10 21:31:15 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:31:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <79224CBB-B25D-11D7-850C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F0DCD13.2080201@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 9, 2003, at 08:07 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> If you choose to open a 19HCP as a 2NT which your CC lists as 20-22, >> then the only rule you are breaking is that of full disclosure. You >> should actually have disclosed it as "some 19HCP are judged 20" and >> this may well be understood as being general bridge knowledge. > > > If it is general bridge knowledge, then how is putting 20-22 on your > card breaking the rule of full disclosure? That rule does not require > disclosing things which are general bridge knowledge, as I understand it. > yes, and I was saying something like it - and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. >> But if you open a 9HCP as a 1NT which your CC lists as 10-12, not only >> are you breaking the full disclosure rule (with the same proviso that >> this may not be a grave infraction), but also you are suggesting that >> some 9HCP hands are opened 1NT (notice I'm being very careful here). >> That may mean that you have a systemen which enables you to open 1NT >> on 9HCP, which may be forbidden in the area you are playing in. > > > Maybe. Not, by the words of the regulation, in the ACBL though. What is > forbidden is having an agreement to open 1NT on 9 point hands *and* to > play any conventional responses thereafter. > Well, yes, I know that - and I am using illegal as a shorthand for that whole sentence up there; and that has nothing to do with the discussion either. > And if the fact that one might evaluate certain 19 point hands upward to > 20 is general bridge knowledge, then so is the fact that one might > evaluate certain 9 point hands upward to 10. Or so it seems to me. > And you would be right - as far as full disclosure is concerned. But general bridge knowledge or not - the opening can be deemed systemic, and then that system is illegal (shorthand for ...). > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 10 22:08:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:08:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling from this evening In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710144001.01dd0240@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200307100618.h6A6IMP8030927@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030710164727.0228edd0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:44 AM 7/10/03, Alain wrote: >At 02:18 10/07/2003 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: > >>Ok, this evening, I had round-robin match going on at my regular >>club game. This team match had the following situation: >> >>North opened 1NT which was announced 12-14 and West was not paying >>attention. East doubled. West alerted and when asked, explained >>that it was a pinpoint double which shows a 4-card major and >>longer (5+) minor, or long single-suited minor. South redoubled >>for runout. West bid 2C which was not alerted. East-West ended >>up in 2NT by East. Before the opening lead, East said that West >>incorrectly alerted the double. East said that the double was >>penalty, to which West replied, "Oh? That was a weak NT?" The >>system was confirmed that vs weak NT, the double would be penalty >>oriented. South asked what 2C was and was told that it should be >>natural and long clubs. South then asked what 2C would have meant >>if the NT had been strong and the double had been pinpoint. >> >>At this point, East called me to the table on a point of information >>and said he thought they were not entitled to the information of >>what 2C would have meant had double been pinpoint, only to the >>information of what 2C meant over a penalty double. >> >>I thought that L75A entitled North-South to the information of what >>2C was intended as, since West clearly thought that the double was >>pinpoint. East offered the information, but wanted to find out >>whether this was true. >> >>I said I'd check with other sources...so, were North-South entitled >>to the information about what 2C meant over a pinpoint double? > >AG : I would stick to the letter of the law (shouldn't one always ?). > >Opponents are entitled to knowledge of the meaning of : >- calls that were made in the present situation ; >- inferences from bids that could have been made in the present >situation but weren't. > >Here, a pinpoint double was not one of #2's options, therefore all >sequences beginning with this call are irrelevant. >Defenses vs a strong NT must no more be explained, on this deal, as >defenses to, say, a 2H opening. > >However, opponents are allowed to know what 2C meant in the actual >situation. And they also know there was a mixup, so they can't claim >being misinformed. But what is "the letter of the law"? I suspect Alain is looking at L20, which addresses itself only to requests about the actual auction. But L75 is much broader, and has no such restriction: "Special partnership agreements... must be fully and freely available to the opponents." Period. The ACBL has said, as part of its "active ethics" campaign, that when a player is asked about his methods, he should be as forthcoming and helpful as possible; to me, that seems like the way we are supposed to play the game. For someone to refuse to answer the question in Ted's scenario is a blatant attempt to squeeze through the loophole created by the apparently contradictory wording of these laws to gain an (unsportsmanlike?) advantage, and strikes me as blatant "bridge-lawyering". One's opponents should not be placed at a disadvantage just because all of one's agreements don't fit onto a convention card. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From David Stevenson Thu Jul 10 16:01:31 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:01:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <01cf01c346e5$359db950$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <01cf01c346e5$359db950$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Luis Argerich writes >I want to ask a question: If your opponent opens "pass" out of turn, isn't >it better to accept the pass than to force >your other opp to make a guess of their best contract based on his holding? >I understand that is logical to refuse >an OOT opening different than pass but why would you reject a pass? If you wish to, feel free. But they can now bid normally rather than have to guess. Suppose the bidding [N/S silent] would have gone, West dealer: 2C 2D 2S 3S 4C 4H 4N 5D 7S P Now, suppose East passes out of turn. If you accept the pass the bidding will go P 2C 2D 2S 3S 4C 4H 4N 5D 7S P If you refuse the pass the bidding will go {P} 3N P >If you allow the pass you should be better positioned in the bidding than >the rest of the field because you can open >before the player that might have an opening bid. If you force your opp to >bid you will probably be facing an ackward >problem that other players didn't have like the 3h opening in this hand. >Based on this if you don't accept the pass then I should assume that you >don't have an opening bid... is that UI to pd? No, because it is illogical, so pd will not assume this! -- 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 Jul 10 16:11:57 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:11:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] how far does 75C extend ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710141541.01dcf160@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710141541.01dcf160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes > >I vaguely remember that this subject was covered in the past, but can't >find it back. >The topic is : what's the limit between "knowledge of system and partner" >and "general knowledge of bridge" in L75C ? > >All four players have good knowledge of funny systems. > > E S W N > 2Ca p 2Sa p > p > >2C : al erted, South looks at CC, which says "either weak with 44+ majors >or ... "(a whole array of very strong hands). This is the second time this >opening happens in this particular match. >2S : alerted, asked, explained as "to play facing the weak version". > >Is Easts' pass alertable ? Why ? Alerting is different from country to country. Whether this pass is alertable depends on the regs of the SO in which you are playing. If your question is whether it is alertable *in Belgium* the basic alerting regs say [unless they have been updated and Hermy has not passed me the new version]: ===================================================================== 1) To conform to these regulations it is important that : - before play begins at a table, both pairs are informed about the basic principles of their opponent's system; - that during the game opponent's attention is drawn to every call which, by agreement, transmits to partner some information that differs from the natural meaning usually attributed to the call, including all agreed derived meanings. In other words every call must be seen as conventional not just when it does not have a natural meaning, but also every call which at face value is natural but can indirectly, by agreement, exclude certain meanings that the strict natural meaning could have. 2) Definition of natural calls Every call is considered natural, if its meaning corresponds exactly to the description given in the Standard Natural Bidding Systems of Belgium (SNBB - dutch and english abbreviation are the same - HDW)(see the official description of these systems), namely Majors 5 and Basic Acol ===================================================================== Presumably the 2C bid is not part of SNBB, so it is alertable if the pass "differs from the natural meaning usually attributed to the call". Given that the 2C shows 44+ majors or very strong, and that is to play opposite the weak version, then in my view the pass is not alertable if it shows any 44+ majors hand, weak - in Belgium. To answer your more general question >The topic is : what's the limit between "knowledge of system and partner" >and "general knowledge of bridge" in L75C ? the difference, where alerting is concerned, depends on the regs of the SO. -- 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 Jul 11 03:04:34 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:04:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <001d01c34712$007ecfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001d01c34712$007ecfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <$aAR2mDyshD$EwKR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Marvin French writes >As to someone's question of why duplicators are not more generally used in >techie North America, I'll ask a queston back: How come computer scoring and >pickup slips are not in general use elsewhere, as they are here? What makes you think we do not use computer scoring? What century do you think this is, Marv? Anyway, I have played at an NABC, remember, and the Swiss Teams was not computer assigned!!! Little pieces of paper would you believe!!!! Pickup slips is a different matter: they are not necessarily best. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jul 11 03:21:59 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:21:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued In-Reply-To: <000801c3470e$fbbeb700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> <003601c3465c$bf61d060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c34664$0ddd0b90$ae1ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030710220822.00b5f1b8@mail.vzavenue.net> At 02:13 PM 7/10/2003, Marvin French wrote: >Then, I presume, the use of "should" accords with what the Preface says >about the word: > >"...failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his >rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." > >When the Stop card regulation was first enacted, players could lose the >right of redress for UI damage after an opposing break in tempo if they >failed to use the Stop card. After a while this opinion changed. At the St >Louis NABC in 1997 one AC decided accordingly and another did not. As of >now, Stop card usage is considered irrelevant in tempo cases. You're >"expected" to wait before acting over a skip bid, Stop card or no Stop card. > >So, failure to use the Stop card does not jeoparidize one's rights, and >never incurs a procedural penalty. The ACBL is therefore in violation of the >Laws. So what else is new? Failure to use a stop card may jeopardize your rights against less experienced opponents. Consider an auction like this: W N E S 1H 1S 2D 2S 3D 4S X P (X is made two seconds after 4S) P P The fast double gives UI, and thus if 5D was a LA to passing for West, and 5D and 4Sx are both down, the score should be adjusted. However, if North didn't use the stop card, and E-W are intermediate-level players, I would be inclined not to rule against them. This is not a normal stop-card situation, and East needs to be reminded of the tempo issues, particularly since he has many other things to think about. I would thus rule that North contributed to the problem. If E-W are experts, I would rule against them even if North neglected to use the stop card. In more normal situations, failure to use a stop card should not normally jeopardize rights. A player whose RHO opens 3H, with or without a stop card, and who passes quickly, is likely to get an adverse ruling if the UI causes problems. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 11 04:32:22 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) Message-ID: <200307110332.XAA00809@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ The hand in question was a fairly ordinary 10 count > with a six card suit - a weak two if the range includes > 10HCP, a possible one opener in some players' hands at > times. Yes. Or multi, if they play it. Or a transfer preempt. (This was the ACBL, so they probably don't play any such thing, but we are discussing the principle.) > However, for anyone to open it at the three level, > in the absence of UI, though legitimate, would be an > action at the low end of probability But how about when partner is barred? Are you saying that partner being barred is UI? If so, would you force a player to open 2D multi with the hand, if multi is what they play? I am really very surprised by this point of view. After several days of consideration, I am inclined to think that the UI that partner lacks an opening bid demonstrably suggests "keep the bidding low." It also suggests "psych to interfere with the opponents." If this reasoning is correct, the legal bids are 3NT and 4H. I don't see why either of these is suggested over the other. It will not, however, be difficult to persuade me that my bridge judgment is flawed. Of course neither bid would be likely if partner were not barred. The fact that it has taken me several days to work this out -- and the fact that no one will be surprised if my reasoning receives less than unanimous approval -- suggests how difficult it can be for players to apply the UI rules at the table. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 11 06:10:43 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: [blml] A dinkum diamond? Message-ID: <200307110510.BAA06743@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Skjaran, Harald" [very old message but new topic coming up] > [Norway's] 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 position. [plus three more] It seems Kaplan-Sheinwold is HUM in Norway. Surprising. (For those not familiar with the system, it is natural with 5cM but uses sound openings in the minors along with light openings in the majors. This matches criterion 2. A 13 HCP hand with a primary minor and few quick tricks will be passed. I bet I could construct a 14 HCP hand that some KS'ers would pass. K QJ KQJ Qxxxxxx looks like a clear pass to me; maybe 3C for some players if NV. In fact, I don't think adding C-J makes it an opener, so that's 15 HCP.) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jul 11 06:28:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:28:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued References: <000c01c3464d$31cf4840$c6b5193e@4nrw70j> <003601c3465c$bf61d060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c34664$0ddd0b90$ae1ce150@endicott> <5.1.1.6.0.20030710220822.00b5f1b8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <001a01c3476d$cd37cf20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David J. Grabiner" > > However, if North didn't use the stop card, and E-W are intermediate-level > players, I would be inclined not to rule against them. This is not a > normal stop-card situation, and East needs to be reminded of the tempo > issues, particularly since he has many other things to think about. I > would thus rule that North contributed to the problem. If E-W are experts, > I would rule against them even if North neglected to use the stop card. I don't feel obligated to remind others of tempo issues, and don't see why a ruling would be based on my not doing so when stop-card use is optional. Remember, I have to use it all the time, not just when an opponent "needs to be reminded," if I use it at all. > Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jul 11 06:39:59 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:39:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle References: <001d01c34712$007ecfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <$aAR2mDyshD$EwKR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001b01c3476e$e424d6a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin French writes > > >As to someone's question of why duplicators are not more generally used in > >techie North America, I'll ask a queston back: How come computer scoring and > >pickup slips are not in general use elsewhere, as they are here? > > What makes you think we do not use computer scoring? What century do > you think this is, Marv? General use, I said. The descriptions I have seen of Butler scoring over there sound like the scoring was being done by hand. Players get the datums and pick off their scores while the scorers are doing the rest of their work? Surely both datums and scores come out together if a computer is being used. Perhaps things have changed since then; technology does spread fast. > > Anyway, I have played at an NABC, remember, and the Swiss Teams was > not computer assigned!!! Little pieces of paper would you believe!!!! The computer must have been out of order. It has been many years since i have seen manual assignments in a Swiss at any level. Even in the lowliest Swisses, like the one tonight at our club, computers are used to record scores and determine matchups. > > Pickup slips is a different matter: they are not necessarily best. > Oh? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From luis@fuegolabs.com Thu Jul 10 14:05:19 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:05:19 -0300 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0192_01C346CA.C4A4F930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageWe use predealt boards here in Argentina :-) and we are not = advanced at all and=20 we have a big problem since imported resources are really expensive a = BigMac combo costs here U$S 2. I'm playing a national pairs tournament with predealt boards and I would = have really hated to deal them... ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Noel and Pamela=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle I am absolutely amazed that the most (supposedly) technically advanced = nation on Earth doesn't use predealt boards! Incredible. As Richard says, even the most insignificant country = (hick even) MP Pairs and Swiss Teams use predealt boards here in Aus! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf = Of Sphboc@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:36 AM To: mfrench1@san.rr.com; blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle=20 Would be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues = arising out of the use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment. Specific questions of interest: A. Are bar-coded cards required? If so, do players tend to have a = problem with appearance of these? =20 B. What is the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine? = How many people does it require to attain this (including putting hands = into boards, etc)? C. How is the machine informed of deal content? Manual keying from = hand records, as opposed to input from media? If the latter, is it = feasible to obtain media-format hand records from sponsoring = organization? (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal generation = in a provably-secure manner?). D. Are the machines mechanically reliable? How much maintenance = tends to be required? =20 Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to use such machines, if = they are truly feasible.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0192_01C346CA.C4A4F930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
We use predealt boards here in = Argentina :-) and we=20 are not advanced at all and
we have a big problem since imported = resources are=20 really expensive a BigMac = combo costs=20 here U$S 2.
I'm playing a national pairs tournament = with=20 predealt boards and I would have really hated to deal = them...
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Noel and = Pamela=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 = 11:39=20 AM
Subject: RE: [blml] Soft shoe=20 shuffle

I am=20 absolutely amazed that the most (supposedly) technically advanced = nation on=20 Earth doesn't use predealt boards!
 
Incredible.  As Richard says, even the = most=20 insignificant country (hick even) MP Pairs and Swiss Teams use = predealt=20 boards here in Aus!
 
regards,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: blml-admin@rtflb.org=20 [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of=20 Sphboc@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:36=20 AM
To: mfrench1@san.rr.com; = blml@rtflb.org
Subject: Re:=20 [blml] Soft shoe shuffle

Would=20 be "quite interesting" to hear about the practical issues arising = out of the=20 use of "Duplimate" or similar equipment.

Specific questions = of=20 interest:
A.  Are bar-coded cards required?  If so, do = players=20 tend to have a problem with appearance of these? 
B.  = What is=20 the realistically-attainable throughput of a machine?  How many = people=20 does it require to attain this (including putting hands into boards, = etc)?
C.  How is the machine informed of deal content?  = Manual=20 keying from hand records, as opposed to input from media?  If = the=20 latter, is it feasible to obtain media-format hand records from = sponsoring=20 organization?  (Or, alternatively, to accomplish "local" deal=20 generation in a provably-secure manner?).
D.  Are the = machines=20 mechanically reliable?  How much maintenance tends to be=20 required? 

Bottom line, it would appear "preferable" to = use=20 such machines, if they are truly feasible.
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0192_01C346CA.C4A4F930-- From Sphboc@aol.com Thu Jul 10 14:29:57 2003 From: Sphboc@aol.com (Sphboc@aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:29:57 EDT Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. Message-ID: <19a.17b23456.2c3ec455@aol.com> --part1_19a.17b23456.2c3ec455_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It appears that there would be significant practical complications. Assume a 200-table Swiss Team; typically, every team plays 8 seven-board matches. Under the "shuffle and deal" arrangement (current ACBL practice), each set of (36) boards is shared among five matches/ten tables; 20 sets of boards, and only one deck of cards per board, are needed. With Duplimates, appears clear that a "considerably greater" quantity of boards and cards would be required; also that use of "several" machines would be required to keep up with the 700-board-per-hour requirement. I'd be interested in hearing from those who have been involved in running of such events. Specific questions of interest: A. To minimize required hourly board production, is duplication begun well prior to start of play? To minimize number of required boards, does such duplication stop at the point of having dealt the hands (and, is any form of "curtain card" employed). How many machines tend to be used, as a practical matter, to support 200 tables? B. During play, do boards tend to be "relayed" among adjoining tables? What precautions are taken to ensure that, at least in a given match, the relevant versions of a given board are IDENTICAL? C. Would appear that, to keep dealer and vulnerability identical, 200 tables would require 100 sets of 1-7 (or 9-15), and another of 17-23 (or 25-31). Are ordinary "boards", or some simplified form of "wallet", employed? At least the foregoing (and possibly others such as security) would need to be resolved. Steve Haver --part1_19a.17b23456.2c3ec455_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It appears that there would be significant practical c= omplications.  Assume a 200-table Swiss Team; typically, every team pla= ys 8 seven-board matches. 

Under the "shuffle and deal" arrangement (current ACBL practice), each set o= f (36) boards is shared among five matches/ten tables; 20 sets of boards, an= d only one deck of cards per board, are needed.  With Duplimates, appea= rs clear that a "considerably greater" quantity of boards and cards would be= required; also that use of "several" machines would be required to keep up=20= with the 700-board-per-hour requirement.

I'd be interested in hearing from those who have been involved in running of= such events.  Specific questions of interest:

A.  To minimize required hourly board production, is duplication begun=20= well prior to start of play?  To minimize number of required boards, do= es such duplication stop at the point of having dealt the hands (and, is any= form of "curtain card" employed).  How many machines tend to be used,=20= as a practical matter, to support 200 tables?
B.  During play, do boards tend to be "relayed" among adjoining tables?=   What precautions are taken to ensure that, at least in a given match,= the relevant versions of a given board are IDENTICAL? 
C.  Would appear that, to keep dealer and vulnerability identical, 200=20= tables would require 100 sets of 1-7 (or 9-15), and another of 17-23 (or 25-= 31).  Are ordinary "boards", or some simplified form of "wallet", emplo= yed?

At least the foregoing (and possibly others such as security) would need to=20= be resolved.

Steve Haver     
--part1_19a.17b23456.2c3ec455_boundary-- From emu@atrax.net.au Fri Jul 11 03:31:40 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation and LAs In-Reply-To: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000001c34754$902b07f0$404726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C347A8.61D717F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This happened last night: =20 AKQ742 5 AJ KT98 =20 93 T8 Q3 JT72 Q9732 KT85 J632 754 =20 J65 AK9864 64 AQ =20 Dlr: S Vul: N/S =20 1H P 1S(1) P 2H P 2S(2)(3) P 4S(4) P 4NT(5) P 5H(6) P 6S(7) Passed out =20 (1) Long pause - out of tempo, at least 10 secs longer than necessary (2) Longer pause - 15 secs+, went to bid, stopped, then bid 2S (3) Systemically shows 5-9 with 5 spades, not forcing - I make no = apology for incompetent opponents (4) Is this a LA? (5) RKCB in Spades (6) 2, no Q (7) Another hesitation, probably thinking about 7, but more likely = dreaming of electric sheep! =20 Making all 13 on a Spade lead. I don't know what North was thinking = about. As East, I asked before I led, whether 2S was forcing and received the = reply documented.=20 =20 This is a non ABF club so the attitude to hesitations, inferences and = LAs is quite laid back - keeping the punters happy. [In fact some players get = VERY upset...] =20 What are South's LAs after the hesitations? 3S, Pass, anything else? =20 Informally, after the session, we discussed it with the Director - he is = a friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't actually called him. This = raised the question of Illogical Alternatives (ILA). Is 4S logical or = illogical? What about 6C say? If South chooses an ILA, what does this mean for the purposes of Law 16? =20 regards, Noel =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C347A8.61D717F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
This=20 happened last night:
 
       &nbs= p;      =20 AKQ742
       &nbs= p;      =20 5
       &nbs= p;      =20 AJ
       &nbs= p;      =20 KT98
 
93       &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           =20 T8
Q3       &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           JT72=
Q9732       = ;            =       =20 KT85
J632       =             &= nbsp;        =20 754
 
       &nbs= p;      =20 J65
       &nbs= p;      =20 AK9864
       &nbs= p;      =20 64
       &nbs= p;      =20 AQ
 
Dlr:=20 S
Vul:=20 N/S
 
1H      =20 P     = 1S(1)        =20  P
2H      =20 P     2S(2)(3)     =20 P
4S(4)   P    =20 4NT(5)        P
5H(6)   P    =20 6S(7)         Passed=20 out
 
(1)  Long pause - out of tempo, at = least 10=20 secs longer than necessary
(2)  Longer pause - 15 secs+, went to = bid,=20 stopped, then bid 2S
(3)  Systemically shows 5-9 with 5 = spades, not=20 forcing - I make no apology for incompetent = opponents
(4)  Is this a LA?
(5)  RKCB in Spades
(6)  2, no Q
(7)  Another hesitation, probably = thinking about=20 7, but more likely dreaming of electric sheep!
 
Making=20 all 13 on a Spade lead.  I don't = know what=20 North was thinking about.  As East, I asked before I led, whether = 2S was=20 forcing and received the reply = documented. 
 
This=20 is a non ABF club so the attitude to hesitations, inferences and LAs is = quite=20 laid back - keeping the punters happy. [In fact some players get VERY=20 upset...]
 
What=20 are South's LAs after the hesitations?  3S, Pass, anything=20 else?
 
Informally, after the session, we discussed = it with the=20 Director - he is a friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't actually = called=20 him.  This raised the question of Illogical Alternatives = (ILA).  Is 4S=20 logical or illogical?  What about 6C say?  If South chooses an = ILA,=20 what does this mean for the purposes of Law 16?
 
regards,
Noel
 
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C347A8.61D717F0-- From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 07:39:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:39:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030710220822.00b5f1b8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000601c34777$4029fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David J. Grabiner ......... > >"...failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize = his > >rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." > > > >When the Stop card regulation was first enacted, players could lose = the > >right of redress for UI damage after an opposing break in tempo if = they > >failed to use the Stop card. After a while this opinion changed. At = the > St > >Louis NABC in 1997 one AC decided accordingly and another did not. As = of > >now, Stop card usage is considered irrelevant in tempo cases. You're > >"expected" to wait before acting over a skip bid, Stop card or no = Stop > card. > > > >So, failure to use the Stop card does not jeoparidize one's rights, = and > >never incurs a procedural penalty. The ACBL is therefore in violation = of > the > >Laws. So what else is new? >=20 > Failure to use a stop card may jeopardize your rights against less > experienced opponents. Consider an auction like this: >=20 > W N E S > 1H 1S 2D 2S > 3D 4S X P (X is made two seconds after 4S) > P P >=20 > The fast double gives UI, and thus if 5D was a LA to passing for West, = and > 5D and 4Sx are both down, the score should be adjusted. >=20 > However, if North didn't use the stop card, and E-W are = intermediate-level > players, I would be inclined not to rule against them. This is not a > normal stop-card situation, and East needs to be reminded of the tempo > issues, particularly since he has many other things to think about. I > would thus rule that North contributed to the problem. If E-W are = experts, > I would rule against them even if North neglected to use the stop = card. >=20 > In more normal situations, failure to use a stop card should not = normally > jeopardize rights. A player whose RHO opens 3H, with or without a = stop > card, and who passes quickly, is likely to get an adverse ruling if = the UI > causes problems. That obviously depends upon the SO. In Norway at least the duty is = (still) on the player that makes a skip bid to control the delay for his LHO, so = if he fails to use the stop card (or verbal stop) he will normally be ruled = to have jeopardized his rights in case his LHO makes a fast or slow call = within the ten seconds grace period. (No stop is equivalent to "you may call immediately if you want to. However you still have your anything up to = ten seconds for thought if you want them!") Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 11 07:47:14 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:47:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <200307110332.XAA00809@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000b01c34778$7101d920$15dc193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 4:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > But how about when partner is barred? Are you saying that partner > being barred is UI? If so, would you force a player to open 2D multi > with the hand, if multi is what they play? I am really very surprised > by this point of view. > +=+ What I think is UI is the knowledge that partner's hand is limited. No, I would not suggest the player might be required to open 2D; there are rulings that when a player is obliged to pass his partner's calls are understood to be made knowing that and are 'to play'.+=+ < > After several days of consideration, I am inclined to think that the UI > that partner lacks an opening bid demonstrably suggests "keep the > bidding low." It also suggests "psych to interfere with the > opponents." If this reasoning is correct, the legal bids are 3NT and > 4H. I don't see why either of these is suggested over the other. It > will not, however, be difficult to persuade me that my bridge > judgment is flawed. > > Of course neither bid would be likely if partner were not barred. > +=+ It seems to me that the effort must be not to take advantage of the UI. The test is "does this action seek to gain an advantage from knowing that partner does not have an opener?". As I pointed out earlier, the pass out of rotation before partner has called has scope for abuse. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 11 07:55:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:55:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling from this evening References: <200307100618.h6A6IMP8030927@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <3F0E5F55.6040602@skynet.be> Ted Ying wrote: > > I said I'd check with other sources...so, were North-South entitled > to the information about what 2C meant over a pinpoint double? > Yes, they are entitled to the complete system. Whether or not the bids they are asking about (or their meanings) actually come up. Of course this entitlement is usually curtailed in that it is not customary to ask about exotic things that don't arise, but in this case the information is clearly needed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 11 08:00:48 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:00:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] how far does 75C extend ? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030710141541.01dcf160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F0E60A0.1020408@skynet.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes > > > If your question is whether it is alertable *in Belgium* the basic > alerting regs say [unless they have been updated and Hermy has not > passed me the new version]: > They have and I haven't - sorry David, I forgot that you wanted to keep track of these changes. Remind me in a couple of weeks time. The new regulations were written by another body and although I'm in the Committee that approved them, I don't approve of them. They are meant to be simpler but the basic thrust is that anything which you cannot find in one of about 10 books for beginners must be alerted. I've never read any of those 10 books so I wouldn't know how this applies. But no Alain, I would not think the pass can be misunderstood. So I would not rule it is alertable. Passer does have the weak version, does he? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jul 11 08:07:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <007701c34719$3d3da330$c555e150@endicott> Message-ID: > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Vanity is ill at ease under indifference." > - Mary Ann Evans. > ============================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not > > > do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any > > > circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement > > > or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. > > > If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do > > > something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership > > > agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach > > > of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding > > > does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be > > > considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. > > > Players are not permitted to have an understanding about > > > breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain > > > external to partner's expectations or they become part of > > > the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to > > > the system regulations. > > > > So effectively a regular partnership may *never* open > > non Ro19 hands? Even a new partnership would be ruled > > against in the following situation. Hand 1 partner opens > > 1N (12-14) on AJTx,K97x,Tx,Kxx. Hand 2 in 3rd seat > > he opens 1S on AQ8543,Kxx,x,Jxx. What do you *expect* > ? him to open if, on hand 4 in 3rd seat, he is dealt > > AJT9xx,KTx,x,JTx? > > > +=+ Under what regulations? The EBU regulations, which > it is not for me to defend, specify what minimum strengths > may be *agreed*. They do not prohibit, in my reading of > them, opening - in breach of partnership agreement - hands > of lesser strength; however, if partner is found to be > catering for sub-minimum hands it will lead to the conclusion > that the partnership agreement encompasses opening such > hands. The regulations say nothing about "catering". Nor are we talking about hands of "lesser strength". The concern is about hands worth an opening bid in basic Acol but which nevertheless fail to conform to the rule of 19. Surely the example I gave was enough to establish an implicit agreement that certain honour holdings should be upgraded and that *average* Ro19 hands would be opened in 3rd seat. > No doubt one or more Davids will confirm or modify > my understanding of the Orange Book on the subject, and > will respond with authority on what is expected where the > OB applies. The problem is that DALB and DWS have both issued opinions on this matter already - and are in conflict. DWS suggests that judgement is allowed (even though partner expects one to use judgement). DB argues that judgement is not permitted on the same basis. I'm surprised you don't consider the regulation one you should defend since I understood that it dated from a time when you were involved in such decisions. Tim From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 08:15:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:15:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <19a.17b23456.2c3ec455@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c3477c$3533a640$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sphboc@aol.com ........... It appears that there would be significant practical complications.=A0 = Assume a 200-table Swiss Team; typically, every team plays 8 seven-board = matches.=A0=20 Under the "shuffle and deal" arrangement (current ACBL practice), each = set of (36) boards is shared among five matches/ten tables; 20 sets of = boards, and only one deck of cards per board, are needed.=A0 With Duplimates, = appears clear that a "considerably greater" quantity of boards and cards would = be required; also that use of "several" machines would be required to keep = up with the 700-board-per-hour requirement.=20 I'd be interested in hearing from those who have been involved in = running of such events.=A0 Specific questions of interest: A.=A0 To minimize required hourly board production, is duplication begun = well prior to start of play?=A0 To minimize number of required boards, does = such duplication stop at the point of having dealt the hands (and, is any = form of "curtain card" employed).=A0 How many machines tend to be used, as a = practical matter, to support 200 tables? B.=A0 During play, do boards tend to be "relayed" among adjoining = tables?=A0 What precautions are taken to ensure that, at least in a given match, = the relevant versions of a given board are IDENTICAL?=A0=20 C.=A0 Would appear that, to keep dealer and vulnerability identical, 200 tables would require 100 sets of 1-7 (or 9-15), and another of 17-23 (or 25-31).=A0 Are ordinary "boards", or some simplified form of "wallet", employed? I can give some information on such arrangements in Norway: We require all simultaneous rounds (matches) of a series event to be = played with identical deals. For seven-board matches over 200 tables this calls = for something like 40 sets of each deal and a total of 2240 boards which is = well within reason. In a case like this all boards would have been prepared = no later than the day before the event. However, I cannot help feeling that only 8 matches between 200 = participants is far too few to even approach a "fair" result, I believe a similar = event in Norway would have been set up for at least three days with 24 = matches. 2240 boards are typically a ten hours job with a single machine, if = boards must be duplicated during the event (assuming a multiple-days schedule) = I would have wanted two machines on the premises in order to safely keep = up with the progress. (And the deadline for duplications would always be = the day before the boards are to be used). To your question B: With two or three deals per round we prefer to have = no relays of boards between the tables, with more deals per round we do. = And with all tables playing identical deals in the same round no particular "precautions" is needed. And finally; I am afraid that I do not understand your question C; but = if this answers it: We always use ordinary boards whether we produce 1 or = 100 sets of deals for an event. Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jul 11 08:47:07 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:47:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> Message-ID: <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> This is an interesting situation, where the LC should form an opinion about (if we haven't one yet). The fact that partner has to pass is AI, the fact that he did pass isn't. So making life difficult for opponents based on the first fact is legal, but it is illegal to use the knowledge about partner's strength. It seems hardly possible to make such distinction. Does this lead to the conclusion that you only may make the call you normally make? With of course the correction that a player may 'translate' his call to a natural one in case his 'normal' call is conventional? Probably not. I think that the call can be the normal one but also the one based on the expectation about partners' hand. These two possibilities seem the only ones where for sure no UI is used. So with 15-17 balanced opening 3NT with 15 is not allowed and with 17 it is. This creates another interesting question: are you allowed to bid 1NT with 17 hcp then? This question is similar to the one this subject started with: are you allowed to make ta tactical call? Probably not. But let us have it on our agenda in Monte Carlo. One question to David: why are you using 73C for this, when 16C2 is perfectly covering the situation? ton > > Grattan Endicott writes > > > > >+=+ As far as it goes I concur in David's "methodology". > > >However, I have my doubts that 73C does not apply, > > >the position being such that the action taken might be > > >adjudged more likely to succeed because of the > > >limitation on partner's strength. (Did not the player > > >himself admit to recognizing this possibility, post facto > > >anyway?) > > > > Of course L73C may apply, but that is not the same as > > "clearly broken". > > > +=+ The hand in question was a fairly ordinary 10 count > with a six card suit - a weak two if the range includes > 10HCP, a possible one opener in some players' hands at > times. However, for anyone to open it at the three level, > in the absence of UI, though legitimate, would be an > action at the low end of probability - done maybe when > the player wished to stir things up. In the case discussed > to choose to open at the three level smacks of taking > advantage of the UI, even if done without malice - and > the possibility of awareness is not to be discounted > when such things happen. > The 30A x-ref to 72B1 was added in consequence > of my reporting English L&EC experience of occasions > where a player had passed when partner was dealer > (and had not called), and the passer had shown up > with a balanced exiguity of HCP. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 11:14:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:14:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000801c34795$38b34dc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Having followed this thread (with great interest) and seeing the = problems that may arise in many cases I just wonder if we would not be better off with Law 16C2 as it was before 1997? (For the offending side, = information from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after the payment of any penalty imposed by law.) And incidentally; why on earth did the law committee introduce an = exception from this change to law 16C2 regarding information from withdrawn insufficient bids (see Law 27B1(a) )? If Ton intends to bring forward this kind of cases for WBFLC he should = not limit himself to PASS out of turn by dealer's partner but include also = all kinds of opening bids and the choices available to the dealer after the = call has been rejected. For instance: As the dealer you pick up a hand worth say 15 HCP with a = solid major suit but partner makes an opening bid (out of turn) which can be anything from 11 good to 19 HCP. What are your restrictions? Even with = the information from partner's subsequently withdrawn bid authorized you = still have to guess whether to gamble for game or for slam. With the information from partner's bid out of turn unauthorized you = still have to gamble as you are deprived of your systemic means for finding = out whether you should go for part score, game or slam. On the average you = can expect one third of the outstanding high card points (or 8 HCP) with = partner which makes a direct game bid in your major suit reasonable and not particularly "suggested" by the unauthorized information that he was = about to make an opening bid. (The playing capacity of your hand will of = course also be a factor to consider). My impression is that the change to Law 16C2 in 1997 was rather unlucky = and ought to be reversed! Regards Sven=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ton > Kooijman > Sent: 11. juli 2003 09:47 > To: Grattan Endicott; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) >=20 >=20 > This is an interesting situation, where the LC should form an opinion > about > (if we haven't one yet). >=20 > The fact that partner has to pass is AI, the fact that he did pass = isn't. > So making life difficult for opponents based on the first fact is = legal, > but > it is illegal to use the knowledge about partner's strength. It seems > hardly > possible to make such distinction. Does this lead to the conclusion = that > you > only may make the call you normally make? With of course the = correction > that > a player may 'translate' his call to a natural one in case his = 'normal' > call > is conventional? Probably not. I think that the call can be the normal = one > but also the one based on the expectation about partners' hand. These = two > possibilities seem the only ones where for sure no UI is used. > So with 15-17 balanced opening 3NT with 15 is not allowed and with 17 = it > is. > This creates another interesting question: are you allowed to bid 1NT = with > 17 hcp then? This question is similar to the one this subject started > with: > are you allowed to make ta tactical call? Probably not. > But let us have it on our agenda in Monte Carlo. >=20 > One question to David: why are you using 73C for this, when 16C2 is > perfectly covering the situation? >=20 > ton >=20 >=20 > > > Grattan Endicott writes > > > > > > >+=3D+ As far as it goes I concur in David's "methodology". > > > >However, I have my doubts that 73C does not apply, > > > >the position being such that the action taken might be > > > >adjudged more likely to succeed because of the > > > >limitation on partner's strength. (Did not the player > > > >himself admit to recognizing this possibility, post facto > > > >anyway?) > > > > > > Of course L73C may apply, but that is not the same as > > > "clearly broken". > > > > > +=3D+ The hand in question was a fairly ordinary 10 count > > with a six card suit - a weak two if the range includes > > 10HCP, a possible one opener in some players' hands at > > times. However, for anyone to open it at the three level, > > in the absence of UI, though legitimate, would be an > > action at the low end of probability - done maybe when > > the player wished to stir things up. In the case discussed > > to choose to open at the three level smacks of taking > > advantage of the UI, even if done without malice - and > > the possibility of awareness is not to be discounted > > when such things happen. > > The 30A x-ref to 72B1 was added in consequence > > of my reporting English L&EC experience of occasions > > where a player had passed when partner was dealer > > (and had not called), and the passer had shown up > > with a balanced exiguity of HCP. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 11:41:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <000901c34798$f1731cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case:=20 Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card is probably unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact that he has a penalty card = is of course authorized).=20 Taken to the limits this means that if declarer's RHO has the Ace of = trumps as a penalty card and declarer plays a small trump towards the Queen in dummy then you as declarer's LHO must play the King from you holding of = the King and one small to the trick! (Do I need to elaborate on why?) As a director I strongly resent having to rule that way but do I have = any choice?=20 Your side has paid the penalty imposed by law (partner must pass, or = partner has got himself a penalty card etc.). If Law 12A1 becomes relevant then = let that be but please free us from the complications that we shall not know what we do know because of irregularities after paying the imposed = penalty. Regards Sven From jesper@dybdal.dk Fri Jul 11 12:12:19 2003 From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:12:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000801c34795$38b34dc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> <000801c34795$38b34dc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:14:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >Having followed this thread (with great interest) and seeing the = problems >that may arise in many cases I just wonder if we would not be better off >with Law 16C2 as it was before 1997? (For the offending side, = information >from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after the payment of any >penalty imposed by law.) In the case of L30, the new L16C2 certainly is not good. This problem was the subject of one of the DBF's suggestions for the coming laws; it can be seen at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L30 --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jul 11 12:40:41 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000901c34798$f1731cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002301c347a1$41ed66d0$3d682452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:41 AM Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case: Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card WHY? My understanding is that how it became a panalty card is UI - ie that partner intended to trump with it or lead it or whatever - but if the A of trumps is a panalty card it surely is AI to me that it is the A of trumps and that partner has to play it mike is probably unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact that he has a penalty card is of course authorized). Taken to the limits this means that if declarer's RHO has the Ace of trumps as a penalty card and declarer plays a small trump towards the Queen in dummy then you as declarer's LHO must play the King from you holding of the King and one small to the trick! (Do I need to elaborate on why?) As a director I strongly resent having to rule that way but do I have any choice? Your side has paid the penalty imposed by law (partner must pass, or partner has got himself a penalty card etc.). If Law 12A1 becomes relevant then let that be but please free us from the complications that we shall not know what we do know because of irregularities after paying the imposed penalty. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 14:21:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:21:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <002301c347a1$41ed66d0$3d682452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <000001c347af$63111a60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > mamos > From: "Sven Pran"=20 >> After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case: >>=20 >> Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card >> is probably unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact >> that he has a penalty card is of course authorized).=20 > WHY? Apparently I need to elaborate: A penalty card is the result of a = withdrawn action by an offender. Law 16C2 clearly states that any information = arising from an offender's withdrawn action is unauthorized for the offending = side. > My understanding is that how it became a panalty card is UI - ie that > partner intended to trump with it or lead it or whatever - but if the = A of > trumps is a panalty card it surely is AI to me that it is the A of = trumps > and that partner has to play it And your understanding is human and sensible but in my opinion wrong (something I deeply regret!). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 14:30:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:30:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c347b0$a8a30ce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Thanks Jesper, and your post made me realize that I had mixed into my example a situation that called for law 31 rather than law 30. But my main opinion remains the same: Declaring information from a = withdrawn illegal action as unauthorized even after the penalty imposed by law for this action has been paid creates more problems than it solves; and the change in 1997 to law 16C2 hardly contributes to better equity. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jesper Dybdal > Sent: 11. juli 2003 13:12 > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) >=20 > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:14:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" > wrote: >=20 > >Having followed this thread (with great interest) and seeing the = problems > >that may arise in many cases I just wonder if we would not be better = off > >with Law 16C2 as it was before 1997? (For the offending side, = information > >from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after the payment of any > >penalty imposed by law.) >=20 > In the case of L30, the new L16C2 certainly is not good. >=20 > This problem was the subject of one of the DBF's suggestions for the > coming laws; it can be seen at > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L30 >=20 > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Jul 11 14:46:14 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:46:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465D3@hotel.npl.co.uk> Sven If an honour card is dropped (face up) it becomes a major penalty card. The act of dropping the card is not withdrawn - the card can not be un-dropped: indeed it is not picked up but remains on the table. So a penalty card is not necessarily "result of a withdrawn action by an offender", so its identity may be authorised (in some cases). Law 16C2 does not work for POOTs and OLOOTs, and I doubt many TD can explain the UI constraints for penalty cards in a way players can use. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 11 July 2003 14:22 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > mamos > From: "Sven Pran" >> After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case: >> >> Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card >> is probably unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact >> that he has a penalty card is of course authorized). > WHY? Apparently I need to elaborate: A penalty card is the result of a withdrawn action by an offender. Law 16C2 clearly states that any information arising from an offender's withdrawn action is unauthorized for the offending side. > My understanding is that how it became a panalty card is UI - ie that > partner intended to trump with it or lead it or whatever - but if the A of > trumps is a panalty card it surely is AI to me that it is the A of trumps > and that partner has to play it And your understanding is human and sensible but in my opinion wrong (something I deeply regret!). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ 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 Martin@SPASE.NL Fri Jul 11 14:47:07 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:47:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68D@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 15:22 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > mamos > > From: "Sven Pran" > >> After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case: > >> > >> Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card > >> is probably unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact > >> that he has a penalty card is of course authorized). > > WHY? > > Apparently I need to elaborate: A penalty card is the result > of a withdrawn > action by an offender. Law 16C2 clearly states that any > information arising > from an offender's withdrawn action is unauthorized for the > offending side. > > > My understanding is that how it became a panalty card is UI > - ie that > > partner intended to trump with it or lead it or whatever - > but if the A of > > trumps is a panalty card it surely is AI to me that it is > the A of trumps > > and that partner has to play it > > > And your understanding is human and sensible but in my opinion wrong > (something I deeply regret!). L50D1: the information that a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity is AI for partner; any other information is UI. So if partner has an ace as a penalty card, then that information must not suggest a lead (UI); but if you do have a valid reason to lead the suit, then you may lead small because partner is obliged to play the ace (AI). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From nancy@dressing.org Fri Jul 11 14:51:39 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:51:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <000101c347b0$a8a30ce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004701c347b3$8d9dc130$6401a8c0@hare> Does the UI in these cases only apply to partner? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > Thanks Jesper, and your post made me realize that I had mixed into my > example a situation that called for law 31 rather than law 30. > > But my main opinion remains the same: Declaring information from a withdrawn > illegal action as unauthorized even after the penalty imposed by law for > this action has been paid creates more problems than it solves; and the > change in 1997 to law 16C2 hardly contributes to better equity. > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > > Jesper Dybdal > > Sent: 11. juli 2003 13:12 > > To: Bridge Laws List > > Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:14:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" > > wrote: > > > > >Having followed this thread (with great interest) and seeing the problems > > >that may arise in many cases I just wonder if we would not be better off > > >with Law 16C2 as it was before 1997? (For the offending side, information > > >from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after the payment of any > > >penalty imposed by law.) > > > > In the case of L30, the new L16C2 certainly is not good. > > > > This problem was the subject of one of the DBF's suggestions for the > > coming laws; it can be seen at > > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L30 > > > > -- > > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 14:57:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:57:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465D3@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c347b4$53681000$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Robin Barker=20 > Sven >=20 > If an honour card is dropped (face up) it becomes a major penalty = card. > The act of dropping the card is not withdrawn - the card can not be > un-dropped: indeed it is not picked up but remains on the table. That (what constitutes a withdrawn action) is I believe a philological question possibly leading to a debate into which I have no intention of engaging myself. But to simplify matters let us stipulate that the penalty card is the = result of a card played out of turn; and we can no longer have any problem with = the identity of the card being the result of a withdrawn action for which = the penalty imposed by law has been paid. =20 > So a penalty card is not necessarily "result of a withdrawn action by > an offender", so its identity may be authorised (in some cases). >=20 > Law 16C2 does not work for POOTs and OLOOTs, and I doubt many TD can > explain the UI constraints for penalty cards in a way players can use. I agree completely! Regards Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Jul 11 15:03:30 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:03:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: Hi All I've just rushed home and am eager to hear your view on this case. I was directing in the local club, 8 table mitchel share 1 & 8 when this hand came up. Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South North S - H Q3 D 97543 West C KQT653 East S KQT S A953 H A84 H J962 D AKQ D J62 C 9872 South C AJ S J87642 H KT75 D T8 C 4 Bidding S W N E P 1C 1NT* Dbl Rdbl% P 2D Dbl P! P * 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds % SOS ! Asked what Rdbl was. N said they had no agreement but it was most likely SOS. Defence Trick 1 : CA C4 C7 C3 Trick 2 : D2 D8 DQ D3 Trick 4 : DA D4 D6 DT Trick 5 : SK D5 S3 S2 Trick 6 : D7 DJ S4 DK Trick 7 : ST C3 S5 SJ !! Trick 8 : H5 H4 HQ H2 Trick 9 : CK CJ S6 C2 Claims 8 tricks Result 2D making South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but are not a partnership. They play 2/1 with bergen and a few other gimmicks. W called me when the hand was over and said he didn't like the bidding. He felt South had a mandatory 2S over either of Easts doubles. He felt South was influenced by the pause not to bid 2S's. He felt the score should be adjusted to 2S-3 doubled. I asked south why he had redoubled instead of just bidding 2S's. South said that the redouble gave him more options. If North bid 2H or 2S great. If he bid 2D then he had a good suit of his own. If he bid 2C saying pick your own suit then South would happily bid 2S. Finally the opps might bid and let them off the hook. This "treatment" had not been agreed before hand but South felt was pretty standard escape bidding. I asked what 2C over the 1st double would have meant. South said probably both majors but they had no agreement. I let the result stand on the following points. West knew North had psyched. 18 + double(10+) + 15 = 43. While the majority of player's would have bid 2S's directly over the 1st double I saw no reason to force this South to do so. Over the 2nd double once again alot of players would have bid 2S's but South had his plan and stuck to it. The defence was outrageous and E/W desrved their bottom. I feel E/W definitely deserved 180. Maybe N/S should have got 2S*-3 ?? I think it would be harsh but can be convinced otherwise. Karel From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 15:09:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:09:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68D@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: <000501c347b6$13918630$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Martin Sinot ....... > > > My understanding is that how it became a panalty card is UI > > - ie that > > > partner intended to trump with it or lead it or whatever - > > but if the A of > > > trumps is a panalty card it surely is AI to me that it is > > the A of trumps > > > and that partner has to play it > > > > > > And your understanding is human and sensible but in my opinion wrong > > (something I deeply regret!). > > L50D1: the information that a major penalty card must be played at > the first legal opportunity is AI for partner; any other information > is UI. So if partner has an ace as a penalty card, then that information > must not suggest a lead (UI); but if you do have a valid reason to lead > the suit, then you may lead small because partner is obliged to play > the ace (AI). Very fine, and imagine yourself sitting LHO to declarer with the King and a small in trump, facing for instance the Queen and Jack in dummy who has no entry for a finesse in trumps. (No penalty card anywhere) When declarer leads a small trump will you then secure your trump trick or will you "cleverly" play your small trump only to have your King dropped under declarer's Ace in the next trick? Please be frank and admit that the main reason for playing a small to declarer's lead in trump is the unauthorized information of your partner's Ace as a penalty card. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 15:11:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:11:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004701c347b3$8d9dc130$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000601c347b6$5397c0a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> The information mentioned as unauthorized in Law 16C2 is unauthorized = only for the offending side. It is authorized for the non-offenders. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nancy T Dressing > Sent: 11. juli 2003 15:52 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) >=20 > Does the UI in these cases only apply to partner? >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:30 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) >=20 >=20 > > Thanks Jesper, and your post made me realize that I had mixed into = my > > example a situation that called for law 31 rather than law 30. > > > > But my main opinion remains the same: Declaring information from a > withdrawn > > illegal action as unauthorized even after the penalty imposed by law = for > > this action has been paid creates more problems than it solves; and = the > > change in 1997 to law 16C2 hardly contributes to better equity. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf = Of > > > Jesper Dybdal > > > Sent: 11. juli 2003 13:12 > > > To: Bridge Laws List > > > Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:14:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" = > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Having followed this thread (with great interest) and seeing the > problems > > > >that may arise in many cases I just wonder if we would not be = better > off > > > >with Law 16C2 as it was before 1997? (For the offending side, > information > > > >from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after the payment of = any > > > >penalty imposed by law.) > > > > > > In the case of L30, the new L16C2 certainly is not good. > > > > > > This problem was the subject of one of the DBF's suggestions for = the > > > coming laws; it can be seen at > > > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L30 > > > > > > -- > > > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > > > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Martin@SPASE.NL Fri Jul 11 15:36:03 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:36:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 16:10 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > > > L50D1: the information that a major penalty card must be played at > > the first legal opportunity is AI for partner; any other information > > is UI. So if partner has an ace as a penalty card, then > that information > > must not suggest a lead (UI); but if you do have a valid > reason to lead > > the suit, then you may lead small because partner is obliged to play > > the ace (AI). > > Very fine, and imagine yourself sitting LHO to declarer with > the King and a > small in trump, facing for instance the Queen and Jack in > dummy who has no > entry for a finesse in trumps. (No penalty card anywhere) > > When declarer leads a small trump will you then secure your > trump trick or > will you "cleverly" play your small trump only to have your > King dropped > under declarer's Ace in the next trick? > > Please be frank and admit that the main reason for playing a small to > declarer's lead in trump is the unauthorized information of > your partner's > Ace as a penalty card. Of course you play a small one because partner must play the ace. But that information is AI, L50D1 says so very explicitly. As long as that ace is visible, you may use the fact that it must be played at the first legal opportunity. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From luis@fuegolabs.com Fri Jul 11 15:43:29 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:43:29 -0300 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <04b301c347ba$cb523f40$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Just my point of view: NS have an undisclosed and unalerted agreement over 1NT doubled, the treatment south is describing is not standard at all. So both the redouble and the 2d bids should have been alerted. I strongly dislike the coincidence of North's psyche and South not bidding 2s, did North do that before? I'm very sure he did so even the 1NT bid can be subject to examination. I might be wrong but either they have an undisclosed agreement or they are fielding a psyche. I'd have ruled 2dx making for EW and 2s doubled down 3 for NS. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: [blml] a Club ruling > > Hi All > > > I've just rushed home and am eager to hear your view on this case. I was > directing in the local club, 8 table mitchel share 1 & 8 when this hand came > up. > > Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South > > North > S - > H Q3 > D 97543 > West C KQT653 East > S KQT S A953 > H A84 H J962 > D AKQ D J62 > C 9872 South C AJ > S J87642 > H KT75 > D T8 > C 4 > > Bidding > S W N E > P 1C 1NT* Dbl > Rdbl% P 2D Dbl > P! P > > * 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds > % SOS > ! Asked what Rdbl was. N said they had no agreement but it was most likely > SOS. > > Defence > Trick 1 : CA C4 C7 C3 > Trick 2 : D2 D8 DQ D3 > Trick 4 : DA D4 D6 DT > Trick 5 : SK D5 S3 S2 > Trick 6 : D7 DJ S4 DK > Trick 7 : ST C3 S5 SJ !! > Trick 8 : H5 H4 HQ H2 > Trick 9 : CK CJ S6 C2 > Claims 8 tricks > > Result 2D making > > > South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but > are not a partnership. They play 2/1 with bergen and a few other gimmicks. > W called me when the hand was over and said he didn't like the bidding. He > felt South had a mandatory 2S over either of Easts doubles. He felt South > was influenced by the pause not to bid 2S's. He felt the score should be > adjusted to 2S-3 doubled. > > I asked south why he had redoubled instead of just bidding 2S's. South said > that the redouble gave him more options. If North bid 2H or 2S great. If > he bid 2D then he had a good suit of his own. If he bid 2C saying pick your > own suit then South would happily bid 2S. Finally the opps might bid and > let them off the hook. This "treatment" had not been agreed before hand but > South felt was pretty standard escape bidding. I asked what 2C over the 1st > double would have meant. South said probably both majors but they had no > agreement. > > I let the result stand on the following points. > > West knew North had psyched. 18 + double(10+) + 15 = 43. While the > majority of player's would have bid 2S's directly over the 1st double I saw > no reason to force this South to do so. Over the 2nd double once again alot > of players would have bid 2S's but South had his plan and stuck to it. The > defence was outrageous and E/W desrved their bottom. > > I feel E/W definitely deserved 180. Maybe N/S should have got 2S*-3 ?? I > think it would be harsh but can be convinced otherwise. > > > Karel > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Jul 11 15:49:52 2003 From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Another L25(b) question Message-ID: <200307111449.h6BEnqo24177@freenet10.carleton.ca> The director gets called to the table. The auction: N E S W 1S P 2N(1) P 1)spade support, GF 3C(2) P ...P 2)singleton club DIRECTOR! Everything was correctly alerted and explained. Unfortunately, South took a few moments to think about what to do next, decided that more than game was unlikely, and...passed, thinking they were already in 4S. Normaly there would be no problem; West has not yet called, a straight L25(b) ruling. However, what do we do if North reaches across the table and grabs CHO by the throat, yelling: "WHADAYA DOING, YOU MORON? YOU CAN'T PASS!!!"(or, perhaps, just a gentle roll of the eyes or quiet snort, for those who don't like action movies). Now, some questions: Does L73(C) apply here? Since L25 seems to be silent as to how a player determined that the previous call was an error, can the director use L73(c) to prevent a change of call? Any other Law? Thanks! Tony (aka ac342) ps does anyone think *North* can call the director after South's pass, in order to protect their sides interest? From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 15:55:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:55:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Martin Sinot ......... > > Please be frank and admit that the main reason for playing=20 > > a small to declarer's lead in trump is the unauthorized=20 > > information of partner's Ace as a penalty card. >=20 > Of course you play a small one because partner must play the ace. > But that information is AI, L50D1 says so very explicitly. As long as > that ace is visible, you may use the fact that it must be played at > the first legal opportunity. Law 50D1: A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping = (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information = for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the = penalty card is unauthorized for partner). ....... The information that the penalty card must be played is of course = authorized for everybody at the table. However, the identity of the penalty card is information that has arisen from facing of the penalty card and is (as I read law 50D1) clearly unauthorized for partner. So the information that = is authorized for you is that your partner must play his penalty card at = the first legal opportunity but not which card that is nor the fact that he actually possesses that card. I might add that I do have a problem seeing what information other than = the identity (and possession) of a penalty card can be arisen from facing of that card? Regards Sven From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jul 11 16:45:56 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:45:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009501c347c3$8517f340$3d682452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > Martin Sinot ......... > > Please be frank and admit that the main reason for playing > > a small to declarer's lead in trump is the unauthorized > > information of partner's Ace as a penalty card. > > Of course you play a small one because partner must play the ace. > But that information is AI, L50D1 says so very explicitly. As long as > that ace is visible, you may use the fact that it must be played at > the first legal opportunity. Law 50D1: A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner). ....... In English I think that the words "the card" are strong enough to allow us to draw the conclusion that the Law Makers intended to imply that the player can know the identity of this card -- it is not just "a card" but "the" card mike The information that the penalty card must be played is of course authorized for everybody at the table. However, the identity of the penalty card is information that has arisen from facing of the penalty card and is (as I read law 50D1) clearly unauthorized for partner. So the information that is authorized for you is that your partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity but not which card that is nor the fact that he actually possesses that card. I might add that I do have a problem seeing what information other than the identity (and possession) of a penalty card can be arisen from facing of that card? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 11 17:52:19 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <200307111652.MAA16188@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Martin Sinot > L50D1: the information that a major penalty card must be played at > the first legal opportunity is AI for partner; any other information > is UI. There is a WBFLC minute on the subject; I think it was from Lille. As I understand it, the identity of the penalty card is UI for the choice of suit to lead but AI for the choice of card within the suit. That would seem to cover Sven's case. As I may have mentioned before :-), mixing mechanical and information penalties causes all sorts of problems. From David Stevenson Fri Jul 11 16:41:56 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:41:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Soft shoe shuffle In-Reply-To: <001b01c3476e$e424d6a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001d01c34712$007ecfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <$aAR2mDyshD$EwKR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001b01c3476e$e424d6a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <7TlPl+CErtD$Ewrd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Marvin French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Marvin French writes >> >> >As to someone's question of why duplicators are not more generally used >in >> >techie North America, I'll ask a queston back: How come computer scoring >and >> >pickup slips are not in general use elsewhere, as they are here? >> >> What makes you think we do not use computer scoring? What century do >> you think this is, Marv? > >General use, I said. The descriptions I have seen of Butler scoring over >there sound like the scoring was being done by hand. Players get the datums >and pick off their scores while the scorers are doing the rest of their >work? Surely both datums and scores come out together if a computer is being >used. Perhaps things have changed since then; technology does spread fast. In the average year in England I play 500 sessions of matchpoint bridge, of which over 485 are computer scored, and 3 sessions of Butler, which are computer scored. The few sessions that are not computer scored are at a club which gets between 2.5 and 4 tables - and scoring that sort of number by computer is slower than by hand. >> Pickup slips is a different matter: they are not necessarily best. >Oh? Oh to you too. -- 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 Jul 11 16:49:12 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:49:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation and LAs In-Reply-To: <000001c34754$902b07f0$404726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000001c34754$902b07f0$404726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <8TaOVJD4xtD$EwqC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Noel and Pamela writes > Informally, after the session, we discussed it with the Director - > he is a friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't actually called > him.  This raised the question of Illogical Alternatives (ILA).  Is > 4S logical or illogical?  What about 6C say?  If South chooses an > ILA, what does this mean for the purposes of Law 16? BLML has discussed this a few times. Some people think that the Law does not cover a player who chooses an ILA. But the majority think otherwise, and are happy to adjust if necessary. Different approaches are given. In my view, L16A says "choose amongst LAs", and if the choice was an ILA amongst other LAs that is good enough, so I adjust. Other people do not agree, but will use a breach of L73C and adjust accordingly. Some people argue that while it doe snot appear to be an LA, it must be one because it was chosen. With due deference to BLML this is your typical angels on the head of a pin argument. If a player chooses a successful action suggested by UI as against a less successful LA not suggested, then adjust, and do not worry about it. -- 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 Jul 11 16:51:30 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:51:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <+z0O9WDC0tD$EwJG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ton Kooijman writes >One question to David: why are you using 73C for this, when 16C2 is >perfectly covering the situation? I believe one of the main things that people who make and apply the Laws should do is to make it clear to the players what they should do. L73C is written for that: other Laws are not. So I always use L73C to tell players what they should do. -- 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 Jul 11 17:09:50 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000901c34798$f1731cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c34798$f1731cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case: > >Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card is probably >unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact that he has a penalty card is >of course authorized). > >Taken to the limits this means that if declarer's RHO has the Ace of trumps >as a penalty card and declarer plays a small trump towards the Queen in >dummy then you as declarer's LHO must play the King from you holding of the >King and one small to the trick! (Do I need to elaborate on why?) This is wrong: read L50D1: it is authorised that he has to play htat card. But all other things about the card [such as that he holds it] are unauthorised, and this is amazingly difficult to deal with accurately. -- 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 Jul 11 17:04:15 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:04:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <19a.17b23456.2c3ec455@aol.com> References: <19a.17b23456.2c3ec455@aol.com> Message-ID: <4jbPJhD$$tD$Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> writes > It appears that there would be significant practical complications. >   Assume a 200-table Swiss Team; typically, every team plays 8 > seven-board matches.  > > Under the "shuffle and deal" arrangement (current ACBL practice), > each set of (36) boards is shared among five matches/ten tables; 20 > sets of boards, and only one deck of cards per board, are needed.  > With Duplimates, appears clear that a "considerably greater" > quantity of boards and cards would be required; also that use of > "several" machines would be required to keep up with the > 700-board-per-hour requirement. > > I'd be interested in hearing from those who have been involved in > running of such events.  Specific questions of interest: > > A.  To minimize required hourly board production, is duplication > begun well prior to start of play?  To minimize number of required > boards, does such duplication stop at the point of having dealt the > hands (and, is any form of "curtain card" employed).  How many > machines tend to be used, as a practical matter, to support 200 > tables? The EBU deals a lot of boards at EBU HQ before events, and tends to always have two days spare at any time. > B.  During play, do boards tend to be "relayed" among adjoining > tables?  What precautions are taken to ensure that, at least in a > given match, the relevant versions of a given board are IDENTICAL?  Each table gets two boards per match, and passes the boards down after they have played them. Some SOs make sure that each table in a teams play the same physical boards, but many do not. > C.  Would appear that, to keep dealer and vulnerability identical, > 200 tables would require 100 sets of 1-7 (or 9-15), and another of > 17-23 (or 25-31).  Are ordinary "boards", or some simplified form > of "wallet", employed? The EBU, SBU and WBU only use boards. In Sweden and Australia wallets are used as well, but the cards have to be put into the wallets by hand. 200 tables need 58 sets of boards and everyone plays the same cards at the same time. > At least the foregoing (and possibly others such as security) would > need to be resolved. By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, chatting to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking together between matches. -- 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 svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 19:00:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:00:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <009501c347c3$8517f340$3d682452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <000801c347d6$57184e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > mamos ............ > Law 50D1: A major penalty card must be played at the first legal > opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or = trumping > (the > requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information = for > his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the = penalty > card is unauthorized for partner). ....... >=20 >=20 > In English I think that the words "the card" are strong enough to = allow us > to draw the conclusion that the Law Makers intended to imply that the > player > can know the identity of this card -- it is not just "a card" but = "the" > card So I notice that we have a difference in opinions on this matter. Usually I would have stopped here but I believe you ought to consider = law 16C2 together with the complete law 50 as they were both before and = after 1997. I don't think we can properly interpret Law 50D1 (among others) without fully understanding the relations to Laws 16A and 16C2: Law 16C2 was changed in 1997; before 1997 the law was that for the = offending side all information arising from its own withdrawn action was = authorized after the payment of any penalty imposed by law. In 1997 this was = changed to make such information unauthorized for the offending side; but certain = other laws were at the same time changed apparently to establish exceptions = from the new L16C2.=20 One such law is L50D1 into which the text within parentheses was added = in 1997. This text establishes an exception to the new Law 16C2 as far as = to the information that the penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity. But the added text also emphasizes that this exception does = not extend to any other information arisen from seeing the penalty card. We should also pay some attention to Law 50C (on minor penalty cards) = the last part of which says: ".....Offender's partner is not subject to lead penalty, but information gained through seeing the penalty card is extraneous, unauthorized (see Law 16A)". This law was not changed in = 1997 (except that the law number was altered from L50D to L50C) so it could = very well be claimed that this part of the law was superfluous before 1997. = But there can be no doubt that absolutely all information arising from = seeing this minor penalty card is unauthorized for offender's partner until the card is actually played. Would it make sense to you if the information that partner possesses a particular card is authorized for you when it is a major penalty card = but unauthorized when it is a minor penalty card (or another card not yet played)? To me this sounds ridiculous. I am not so sure your = distinction between the words "the card" as used in Law 50C2 and "a card" can be = taken to support your view. Regards Sven =20 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jul 11 19:08:45 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:08:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> <+z0O9WDC0tD$EwJG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <006401c347d7$78660b00$754127d9@pbncomputer> DWS writes: > I believe one of the main things that people who make and apply the > Laws should do is to make it clear to the players what they should do. > L73C is written for that: other Laws are not. So I always use L73C to > tell players what they should do. Unfortunately, Law 73 does not tell players what they should do. It expresses a pious hope, rather than anything that may suggest a course of action. A player, told "you must not take advantage of some information", will (correctly) construe this as licence to bid what he would have bid anyway in the absence of the information. He will say to himself (correctly) "I am not taking advantage of information; I am making my normal bid". If told instead "you may not choose from among alternatives anything suggested over anything else by the information", he will at least stand a chance of construing this correctly, and not committing an infraction. Law 73, like the rest of what used to be the Proprieties, should be buried deep within the earth, with no monument to mark its resting place. It should certainly not be used as a basis on which to tell anybody anything, for as such it is utterly worthless. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 19:11:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:11:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ......... > >Taken to the limits this means that if declarer's RHO has the Ace of > trumps > >as a penalty card and declarer plays a small trump towards the Queen in > >dummy then you as declarer's LHO must play the King from you holding of > the > >King and one small to the trick! (Do I need to elaborate on why?) > > This is wrong: read L50D1: it is authorised that he has to play htat > card. Sure it is authorized that partner has to play that card, but is also the identity of the card authorized information before it is actually played? > > But all other things about the card [such as that he holds it] are > unauthorised, and this is amazingly difficult to deal with accurately. Isn't the identity of the card part of such "other information" that is unauthorized? Still it is my opinion that reversing Law 16C2 to what it was before 1997 would be advantageous in every respect. I cannot immediately imagine any situation where the new Law 16C2 as it is worded after 1997 has any mission which is not already covered by Laws 12A1 and 72B1. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 19:58:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:58:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <200307111652.MAA16188@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000a01c347de$6bbd8480$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > L50D1: the information that a major penalty card must be played at > > the first legal opportunity is AI for partner; any other information > > is UI. >=20 > There is a WBFLC minute on the subject; I think it was from Lille. As = I > understand it, the identity of the penalty card is UI for the choice = of > suit to lead but AI for the choice of card within the suit. That = would > seem to cover Sven's case. This doesn't make sense? (at least not to me!) When partner to an offender with a major penalty card has the lead then declarer has the option to request or prohibit a lead in the suit of the penalty card or to impose no lead restriction on that occasion (Law = 50D2). When partner to an offender with a minor penalty card has the lead there = is no restriction at all except against leads that "could be suggested from seeing the minor penalty card" (Law 16A). Whether the "suggestion" would apply to the suit or to the rank of a card; or even to both suit and = rank must be immaterial in this respect. > As I may have mentioned before :-), mixing mechanical and information > penalties causes all sorts of problems. As _I_ have said before, and I become more and more convinced, I believe = the present Law 16C2 does only harm by causing complications for no good = reason. (I should very much appreciate someone on behalf of WBFLC demonstrate = some useful effect of law 16C2 that is not already accomplished by other = laws). Regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 11 20:20:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) Message-ID: <200307111920.PAA21965@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Ton Kooijman" > This is an interesting situation, where the LC should form an opinion about > (if we haven't one yet). Thanks, Ton. Especially please consider the issue for the next Laws edition. (I think my opinion is clear by now, so I won't restate it.) > The fact that partner has to pass is AI, the fact that he did pass isn't. [Where his "did pass" shows less than opening bid values.] > it is illegal to use the knowledge about partner's strength. Yes, this is the problem. > So with 15-17 balanced opening 3NT with 15 is not allowed and with 17 it is. I don't understand the first. If partner has a weak hand, no villain would want to open 3NT with a 15-count. I think 3NT has to be legal; the question is whether it is mandatory. Is 3NT a LA? > This creates another interesting question: are you allowed to bid 1NT with > 17 hcp then? I would think not. Wouldn't 3NT be automatic if you had no idea of partner's strength? If so, how can you bid 1NT if partner's weakness is UI? The real problem is that it is almost impossible for players to solve such problems at the table, not to mention being difficult for TD's and AC's to rule. In 2007, can we please have something simple that everyone can understand and apply? From blml@dybdal.dk Fri Jul 11 20:38:01 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:38:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000a01c347de$6bbd8480$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <200307111652.MAA16188@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c347de$6bbd8480$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:58:30 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >> Steve Willner >> There is a WBFLC minute on the subject; I think it was from Lille. As= I >> understand it, the identity of the penalty card is UI for the choice = of >> suit to lead but AI for the choice of card within the suit. That = would >> seem to cover Sven's case. > >This doesn't make sense? (at least not to me!) No, it doesn't. But it is the WBFLC's position. It means that it is no longer *information*, but a particular *use* of information that is authorized or not. In all other situations in bridge, you are allowed to make logical deductions from AI and use the result. But not here. From the AI that partner will play the penalty card, you can very easily deduce that he has that card - but you are not allowed to use that deduction in general. It is not logical, and it is impossible to explain to ordinary players. The DBF's opinion of L50 can be seen at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L50 The origin of this problem, as well as the one with L30, is that a change in L16C2 was made in 1997, probably without a full analysis of its effect in combination with every other law. This has irritated me since 1997; however, when we made those recommendations from the DBF, I came to the result that it is probably just these two specific laws that seriously suffer from that problem, and they can be repaired fairly easily. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 11 20:40:08 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Another L25(b) question Message-ID: <200307111940.PAA22023@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > Normaly there would be no problem; West has not yet called, > a straight L25(b) ruling. However, what do we do if North reaches > across the table and grabs CHO by the throat, yelling: > "WHADAYA DOING, YOU MORON? YOU CAN'T PASS!!!"(or, perhaps, just > a gentle roll of the eyes or quiet snort, for those who don't L73B1, L12A1, L12C2. What's the problem? (I won't mention 12C3 because it seems wildly unlikely you would need it, but it might be an additional step in some rare case.) Or L72B1, etc. I wouldn't use 73C or 16A. The difference is that it is North's action, not South's potential "use of UI," that is the infraction. So you want to adjust the score to equity at the instant just before the infraction, i.e., what would have happened if North had kept still. Of course a PP or DP is in order if capital letters are needed to describe North's actions. Maybe worth considering no matter what the exact action if North ought to know better. > ps does anyone think *North* can call the director after South's > pass, in order to protect their sides interest? Certainly North can call the director, but it appears to me that a side effect of the call is illegal communication with partner. From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Jul 11 19:21:10 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:21:10 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <4jbPJhD$$tD$Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, David Stevenson wrote: > By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues > are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, chatting > to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking > together between matches. Speaking of security issues... Are there any special concerns with having the hands made up a day or more in advance? When you only make up one or two sets of boards in advance it's a simple matter for the dealer and/or director to keep the boards under their personal control until game time... but with making up 50 sets a day for several days - seems like there are a lot more hazards with someone seeing something he shouldn't, and with accidentally putting out one of tomorrow's sets today, than there are with making them on the spot with hand records as we do in the ACBL. Maybe I am just paranoid since I haven't seen it done. GRB From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 21:04:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:04:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <000c01c347e7$a739daf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Thanks for another helpful post Jesper. I finally found the WBFLC minutes from Lille so I understand that I have = not been completely in-line with WBFLC when reading Law 50. This leads me to another suggestion which I believe is more important = than anybody can have imagined so far:=20 Could we have an authorized WEB location with the official laws = available, and where the law text gets updated or notes added to the affected laws = so that when you look up on a particular law you find the current = understanding of that law and not just the official text from (currently) 1997 with no indication that the reality of that text has been modified? I find it nearly impossible to search through all the WBFLC minutes = whenever I want to look up a particular law in case there should be cleverly = hidden away some minutes which amends or clarifies the original text. This = latest discussion is as I see it a very good example. The regular meetings of WBFLC is a good thing, but their minutes lack indexing and accessibility. Anybody care to comment on this which I really intend to be a positive suggestion and not just some sour critics? Regards Sven =20 > Jesper Dybdal > Sent: 11. juli 2003 21:38 > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 >=20 > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:58:30 +0200, "Sven Pran" > wrote: >=20 > >> Steve Willner > >> There is a WBFLC minute on the subject; I think it was from Lille. = As > I > >> understand it, the identity of the penalty card is UI for the = choice of > >> suit to lead but AI for the choice of card within the suit. That = would > >> seem to cover Sven's case. > > > >This doesn't make sense? (at least not to me!) >=20 > No, it doesn't. But it is the WBFLC's position. >=20 > It means that it is no longer *information*, but a particular *use* of > information that is authorized or not. >=20 > In all other situations in bridge, you are allowed to make logical > deductions from AI and use the result. But not here. From the AI > that partner will play the penalty card, you can very easily deduce > that he has that card - but you are not allowed to use that deduction > in general. >=20 > It is not logical, and it is impossible to explain to ordinary > players. >=20 > The DBF's opinion of L50 can be seen at > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L50 >=20 > The origin of this problem, as well as the one with L30, is that a > change in L16C2 was made in 1997, probably without a full analysis of > its effect in combination with every other law. This has irritated me > since 1997; however, when we made those recommendations from the DBF, > I came to the result that it is probably just these two specific laws > that seriously suffer from that problem, and they can be repaired > fairly easily. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Jul 11 19:51:32 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:51:32 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Sven Pran wrote a great many things about penalty cards and UI, including the following: > I might add that I do have a problem seeing what information other than the > identity (and possession) of a penalty card can be arisen from facing of > that card? The most common example of this in practice is someone makes an opening lead of an honour out of turn. If it becomes a penalty card, I will say to the other defender something like "you are allowed to use the information that your partner has (say) the queen of hearts and must play it at first opportunity; but you are not yet entitled to know whether your partner has the king or jack, and must avoid using that information until it comes to light legally." > Would it make sense to you if the information that partner possesses a > particular card is authorized for you when it is a major penalty card > but unauthorized when it is a minor penalty card (or another card not > yet played)? To me this sounds ridiculous. This is a good moment to ask ourselves, why do we HAVE minor penalty cards? The answer, I think, is that an accidentally dropped small card conveys almost no information except that partner has the card. But when partner plays a card purposefully, partner may be signalling. I think the change to L50D but not L50C in 1997 can be summarized as "in addition to the usual lead penalties, you are required to ignore whatever signal your partner gave with the card he shouldn't have played." No need to change L50C since there isn't any extra message needing blocked. Now, to your question: does it make sense to treat ALL information from a minor penalty card as UI, but not for a major penalty card? I don't actually find this so strange. A minor penalty card will almost always tell you absolutely nothing about your partner's hand. On some rare occasions, seeing a 7 will tell you that you need to preserve your 96 over declarer's 8. On some even rarer occasions, partner will drop a card in a suit you thought he was void, and cause you to revise your picture of the unseen hands. Asking you to avoid using this extra information keeps us a lot closer to "playing bridge" than imposing lead penalties which drastically increase the chance of declarer choosing an abnormal line of play. With a major penalty card, there is some sort of UI about the rest of your hand almost every time. Now we are faced with a 'revoke-like' situation: if there were no mechanical penalty but only a UI requirement, every penalty card would land in front of a commitee, just like we would get an argument about how many tricks were deserved after every revoke if we had only a restore-equity requirement. Instead, we have a "there is an automatic penalty, and sometimes there is an extra string attached when the automatic penalty still hasn't quite made up for the unfair advantage you got." GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jul 11 21:55:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:55:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68D@obelix.spase.nl.206.1 68.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030711164409.02293180@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 AM 7/11/03, Martin wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 15:22 > > To: blml > > Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > > mamos > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > >> After I sent my last post I got to think of a analogue case: > > >> > > >> Under the present Law 16C2 the identity of a penalty card > > >> is probably unauthorized to offender's partner. (The fact > > >> that he has a penalty card is of course authorized). > > > WHY? > > > > Apparently I need to elaborate: A penalty card is the result > > of a withdrawn > > action by an offender. Law 16C2 clearly states that any > > information arising > > from an offender's withdrawn action is unauthorized for the > > offending side. > > > > > My understanding is that how it became a panalty card is UI > > - ie that > > > partner intended to trump with it or lead it or whatever - > > but if the A of > > > trumps is a panalty card it surely is AI to me that it is > > the A of trumps > > > and that partner has to play it > > > > And your understanding is human and sensible but in my opinion wrong > > (something I deeply regret!). > >L50D1: the information that a major penalty card must be played at >the first legal opportunity is AI for partner; any other information >is UI. So if partner has an ace as a penalty card, then that information >must not suggest a lead (UI); but if you do have a valid reason to lead >the suit, then you may lead small because partner is obliged to play >the ace (AI). If the law is as Sven says, I don't see how it can be practically applied in real life. The line between AI and UI from partner's penalty card must be drawn in a manner that gives us a fighting chance to figure out roughly where it lies. Mike and Martin have found a way to do that. If I can restate what I believe they are saying: If a card simply falls from partner's hand, and becomes a penalty card, there is no UI; both the identity of the card and the knowledge that it must be played at the next legal opportunity are AI. If it becomes a penalty card by some other means (such as a LOOT, or a corrected revoke), any additional information derived from the manner in which it became a penalty card -- anything you would not know had the card simply dropped from the hand -- is UI. LA's and suggested actions are judged relative to what the player might have done had he gone to the W.C. and returned to find partner's penalty card face up on the table with no idea how it got that way. It is operationally meaningless to say that you can "know" that partner must play "that card" at his first legal opportunity but cannot "know" what "that card" is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 21:56:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:56:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c347ee$f1e71e30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower ........... > Speaking of security issues... >=20 > Are there any special concerns with having the hands made up a day or = more > in advance? When you only make up one or two sets of boards in advance > it's a simple matter for the dealer and/or director to keep the boards > under their personal control until game time... but with making up 50 = sets > a day for several days - seems like there are a lot more hazards with > someone seeing something he shouldn't, and with accidentally putting = out > one of tomorrow's sets today, than there are with making them on the = spot > with hand records as we do in the ACBL. >=20 > Maybe I am just paranoid since I haven't seen it done. Well, I have - in fact I am responsible for almost 47 thousand boards = being at the correct tables at the correct time in two weeks time. 38000 of = those boards will be ready in Stavanger, Norway on Friday July 25th and will = be used during the next ten days together with some eight thousand boards = that will be duplicated during the week. The local duplication process, storing of all boards and preparing of batches for each session takes place in separate rooms where no = unauthorized persons have access. We have events with 75 sets and we have events with = 4 sets; they are all treated the same. It boils down to managing the = logistics and always have some spare capacity for contingencies. Security problems? No Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jul 11 22:19:29 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:19:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000c01c347e7$a739daf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:04 PM 7/11/03, Sven wrote: >Thanks for another helpful post Jesper. > >I finally found the WBFLC minutes from Lille so I understand that I >have not >been completely in-line with WBFLC when reading Law 50. > >This leads me to another suggestion which I believe is more important than >anybody can have imagined so far: > >Could we have an authorized WEB location with the official laws available, >and where the law text gets updated or notes added to the affected laws so >that when you look up on a particular law you find the current >understanding >of that law and not just the official text from (currently) 1997 with no >indication that the reality of that text has been modified? The problem with this is that it hasn't been, at least not unless we are talking about a strictly BLML-centric context. The WBFLC may modify the "official" text of a law, and even let us BLML (and other) "insiders" look it up on the Web, but the "reality of that text" doesn't change until it reaches those who routinely look to their lawbooks, along with any printed errata they may get subsequently, for the text of the laws. The WBFLC may nominally change the laws, but until those changes reach the real people who are affected by them their "reality" has not yet changed. 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 Fri Jul 11 14:09:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:09:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation and LAs In-Reply-To: <000001c34754$902b07f0$404726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030711150354.027b6110@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_5402808==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:31 11/07/2003 +1000, Noel and Pamela wrote: >This happened last night: > > AKQ742 > 5 > AJ > KT98 > >93 T8 >Q3 JT72 >Q9732 KT85 >J632 754 > > J65 > AK9864 > 64 > AQ > >Dlr: S >Vul: N/S > >1H P 1S(1) P >2H P 2S(2)(3) P >4S(4) P 4NT(5) P >5H(6) P 6S(7) Passed out > >(1) Long pause - out of tempo, at least 10 secs longer than necessary >(2) Longer pause - 15 secs+, went to bid, stopped, then bid 2S >(3) Systemically shows 5-9 with 5 spades, not forcing - I make no apology >for incompetent opponents >(4) Is this a LA? AG : irrelevant. After the tempo, the question is : are there other LAs ? If there are, and if the 4S bid could have been made superior to other LAs by the tempo, then the score should be adjusted. >(5) RKCB in Spades >(6) 2, no Q >(7) Another hesitation, probably thinking about 7, but more likely >dreaming of electric sheep! > >Making all 13 on a Spade lead. I don't know what North was thinking >about. As East, I asked before I led, whether 2S was forcing and received >the reply documented. > >This is a non ABF club so the attitude to hesitations, inferences and LAs >is quite laid back - keeping the punters happy. [In fact some players get >VERY upset...] > >What are South's LAs after the hesitations? 3S, Pass, anything else? AG : all those three, and perhaps 3C if a trial bid (it would be in my system). > >Informally, after the session, we discussed it with the Director - he is a >friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't actually called him. This >raised the question of Illogical Alternatives (ILA). Is 4S logical or >illogical? What about 6C say? If South chooses an ILA, what does this >mean for the purposes of Law 16? AG : once more : one doesn't need to know whether 4S was logical or not. One simply checks whether other possibilites existed (yes, they did) and whether 4S could have been prompted by the tempo, ie made more palatable because of it (yes, it was). Then adjust. Clearly, passing over 2S is a possibility. In fact, my opinion about the tempo and 4S bid is unprintable in those times of generalized filters. Best regards, Alain. --=====================_5402808==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:31 11/07/2003 +1000, Noel and Pamela wrote:
This happened last night:
 
               AKQ742
               5
               AJ
               KT98
 
93                                T8
Q3                               JT72
Q9732                          KT85
J632                             754
 
               J65
               AK9864
               64
               AQ
 
Dlr: S
Vul: N/S
 
1H       P     1S(1)          P
2H       P     2S(2)(3)      P
4S(4)   P     4NT(5)        P
5H(6)   P     6S(7)         Passed out
 
(1)  Long pause - out of tempo, at least 10 secs longer than necessary
(2)  Longer pause - 15 secs+, went to bid, stopped, then bid 2S
(3)  Systemically shows 5-9 with 5 spades, not forcing - I make no apology for incompetent opponents
(4)  Is this a LA?

AG : irrelevant. After the tempo, the question is : are there other LAs ? If there are, and if the 4S bid could have been made superior to other LAs by the tempo, then the score should be adjusted.

(5)  RKCB in Spades
(6)  2, no Q
(7)  Another hesitation, probably thinking about 7, but more likely dreaming of electric sheep!
 
Making all 13 on a Spade lead.  I don't know what North was thinking about.  As East, I asked before I led, whether 2S was forcing and received the reply documented.
 
This is a non ABF club so the attitude to hesitations, inferences and LAs is quite laid back - keeping the punters happy. [In fact some players get VERY upset...]
 
What are South's LAs after the hesitations?  3S, Pass, anything else?

AG : all those three, and perhaps 3C if a trial bid (it would be in my system).


 
Informally, after the session, we discussed it with the Director - he is a friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't actually called him.  This raised the question of Illogical Alternatives (ILA).  Is 4S logical or illogical?  What about 6C say?  If South chooses an ILA, what does this mean for the purposes of Law 16?

AG : once more : one doesn't need to know whether 4S was logical or not. One simply checks whether other possibilites existed (yes, they did) and whether 4S could have been prompted by the tempo, ie
made more palatable because of it (yes, it was). Then adjust.
Clearly, passing over 2S is a possibility.

In fact, my opinion about the tempo and 4S bid is unprintable in those times of generalized filters.

Best regards,

        Alain. --=====================_5402808==_.ALT-- From blml@dybdal.dk Fri Jul 11 22:59:04 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:59:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030711164409.02293180@pop.starpower.net> References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68D@obelix.spase.nl.206.1 68.192.in-addr.ARPA> <5.2.0.9.0.20030711164409.02293180@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:55:52 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >If the law is as Sven says, I don't see how it can be practically=20 >applied in real life. The line between AI and UI from partner's=20 >penalty card must be drawn in a manner that gives us a fighting chance=20 >to figure out roughly where it lies. Mike and Martin have found a way=20 >to do that. If I can restate what I believe they are saying: > >If a card simply falls from partner's hand, and becomes a penalty card,=20 >there is no UI; both the identity of the card and the knowledge that it=20 >must be played at the next legal opportunity are AI. If it becomes a=20 >penalty card by some other means (such as a LOOT, or a corrected=20 >revoke), any additional information derived from the manner in which it=20 >became a penalty card -- anything you would not know had the card=20 >simply dropped from the hand -- is UI. LA's and suggested actions are=20 >judged relative to what the player might have done had he gone to the=20 >W.C. and returned to find partner's penalty card face up on the table=20 >with no idea how it got that way. If I remember correctly, back in 1997 when the new laws were just rumors, the above was precisely the interpretation of the letter of the law that we (i.e., lots of people on BLML) agreed was the only one that made sense. But since then, the WBFLC issued a statement. >It is operationally meaningless to say that you can "know" that partner=20 >must play "that card" at his first legal opportunity but cannot "know"=20 >what "that card" is. Exactly. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 11 23:17:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:17:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001001c347fa$392aacc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I appreciate your comments so let me put it this way: Can we have an official place to look up the official laws and be sure = to have all minutes from WBFLC linked in such a way that whenever we look = up on a particular law then we right away also see any minute that is relevant = for that law? Regards Sven=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Eric > Landau > Sent: 11. juli 2003 23:19 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 >=20 > At 04:04 PM 7/11/03, Sven wrote: >=20 > >Thanks for another helpful post Jesper. > > > >I finally found the WBFLC minutes from Lille so I understand that I > >have not > >been completely in-line with WBFLC when reading Law 50. > > > >This leads me to another suggestion which I believe is more important > than > >anybody can have imagined so far: > > > >Could we have an authorized WEB location with the official laws > available, > >and where the law text gets updated or notes added to the affected = laws > so > >that when you look up on a particular law you find the current > >understanding > >of that law and not just the official text from (currently) 1997 with = no > >indication that the reality of that text has been modified? >=20 > The problem with this is that it hasn't been, at least not unless we > are talking about a strictly BLML-centric context. The WBFLC may > modify the "official" text of a law, and even let us BLML (and other) > "insiders" look it up on the Web, but the "reality of that text" > doesn't change until it reaches those who routinely look to their > lawbooks, along with any printed errata they may get subsequently, for > the text of the laws. The WBFLC may nominally change the laws, but > until those changes reach the real people who are affected by them > their "reality" has not yet changed. >=20 >=20 > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Jul 11 00:41:59 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:41:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A club Ruling In-Reply-To: <3F0DCD13.2080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hi All I've just rushed home and am eager to hear your view on this case. I was directing in the local club, 8 table mitchel share 1 & 8 when this hand came up. Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South North S - H Q3 D 97543 West C KQT653 East S KQT S A953 H A84 H J962 D AKQ D J62 C 9872 South C AJ S J87642 H KT75 D T8 C 4 Bidding S W N E P 1C 1NT* Dbl Rdbl% P 2D Dbl P! P * 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds % SOS ! Asked what Rdbl was. N said they had no agreement but it was most likely SOS. Defence Trick 1 : CA C4 C7 C3 Trick 2 : D2 D8 DQ D3 Trick 4 : DA D4 D6 DT Trick 5 : SK D5 S3 S2 Trick 6 : D7 DJ S4 DK Trick 7 : ST C3 S5 SJ !! Trick 8 : H5 H4 HQ H2 Trick 9 : CK CJ S6 C2 Claims 8 tricks Result 2D making South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but are not a partnership. They play 2/1 with bergen and a few other gimmicks. W called me when the hand was over and said he didn't like the bidding. He felt South had a mandatory 2S over either of Easts doubles. He felt South was influenced by the pause not to bid 2S's. He felt the score should be adjusted to 2S-3 doubled. I asked south why he had redoubled instead of just bidding 2S's. South said that the redouble gave him more options. If North bid 2H or 2S great. If he bid 2D then he had a good suit of his own. If he bid 2C saying pick your own suit then South would happily bid 2S. Finally the opps might bid and let them off the hook. This "treatment" had not been agreed before hand but South felt was pretty standard escape bidding. I asked what 2C over the 1st double would have meant. South said probably both majors but they had no agreement. I let the result stand on the following points. West knew North had psyched. 18 + double(10+) + 15 = 43. While the majority of player's would have bid 2S's directly over the 1st double I saw no reason to force this South to do so. Over the 2nd double once again alot of players would have bid 2S's but South had his plan and stuck to it. The defence was outrageous and E/W desrved their bottom. I feel E/W definitely deserved 180. Maybe N/S should have got 2S*-3 ?? I think it would be harsh but can be convinced otherwise. Karel From adam@irvine.com Fri Jul 11 23:54:25 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:54:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] A club Ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:41:59 BST." Message-ID: <200307112254.PAA05801@mailhub.irvine.com> Karel wrote: > I've just rushed home and am eager to hear your view on this case. I was > directing in the local club, 8 table mitchel share 1 & 8 when this hand came > up. > > Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South > > North > S - > H Q3 > D 97543 > West C KQT653 East > S KQT S A953 > H A84 H J962 > D AKQ D J62 > C 9872 South C AJ > S J87642 > H KT75 > D T8 > C 4 > > Bidding > S W N E > P 1C 1NT* Dbl > Rdbl% P 2D Dbl > P! P > > * 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds > % SOS > ! Asked what Rdbl was. N said they had no agreement but it was most likely > SOS. > > Defence > Trick 1 : CA C4 C7 C3 > Trick 2 : D2 D8 DQ D3 > Trick 4 : DA D4 D6 DT > Trick 5 : SK D5 S3 S2 > Trick 6 : D7 DJ S4 DK > Trick 7 : ST C3 S5 SJ !! > Trick 8 : H5 H4 HQ H2 > Trick 9 : CK CJ S6 C2 > Claims 8 tricks > > Result 2D making > > > South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but > are not a partnership. They play 2/1 with bergen and a few other gimmicks. > W called me when the hand was over and said he didn't like the bidding. He > felt South had a mandatory 2S over either of Easts doubles. He felt South > was influenced by the pause not to bid 2S's. He felt the score should be > adjusted to 2S-3 doubled. > > I asked south why he had redoubled instead of just bidding 2S's. South said > that the redouble gave him more options. If North bid 2H or 2S great. If > he bid 2D then he had a good suit of his own. If he bid 2C saying pick your > own suit then South would happily bid 2S. Finally the opps might bid and > let them off the hook. This "treatment" had not been agreed before hand but > South felt was pretty standard escape bidding. I asked what 2C over the 1st > double would have meant. South said probably both majors but they had no > agreement. > > I let the result stand on the following points. > > West knew North had psyched. 18 + double(10+) + 15 = 43. While the > majority of player's would have bid 2S's directly over the 1st double I saw > no reason to force this South to do so. Over the 2nd double once again alot > of players would have bid 2S's but South had his plan and stuck to it. The > defence was outrageous and E/W desrved their bottom. I would rule that the result stands because the hesitation doesn't particularly suggest anything. South's choice of actions may be a bit unorthodox (whether well-reasoned or not), but unless you can argue that his choice "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the UI over 2S or other LA's, it doesn't matter whether South's choice is reasonable or weird or whatever. Personally, I cannot see how the pass is suggested by the UI. The hesitation here suggests a problem or a borderline hand---maybe North has the values for 1NT but no club stopper and insufficient support for the other suits to make a takeout double; maybe North has an 18-count and isn't sure whether to bid 1NT or double; maybe he has a small singleton and a difficult problem hand. The hesitation doesn't suggest a psych, IMHO. (Unless North is a player who's known to psych like this a lot.) I could be wrong. If others feel that the pass is suggested by the UI, I'd be interested in hearing their reasoning. -- Adam From David Stevenson Fri Jul 11 19:21:58 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:21:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L25(b) question In-Reply-To: <200307111449.h6BEnqo24177@freenet10.carleton.ca> References: <200307111449.h6BEnqo24177@freenet10.carleton.ca> Message-ID: A. L. Edwards writes >The director gets called to the table. The auction: > >N E S W >1S P 2N(1) P 1)spade support, GF >3C(2) P ...P 2)singleton club > DIRECTOR! > > Everything was correctly alerted and explained. Unfortunately, >South took a few moments to think about what to do next, >decided that more than game was unlikely, and...passed, thinking >they were already in 4S. > Normaly there would be no problem; West has not yet called, >a straight L25(b) ruling. However, what do we do if North reaches >across the table and grabs CHO by the throat, yelling: >"WHADAYA DOING, YOU MORON? YOU CAN'T PASS!!!"(or, perhaps, just >a gentle roll of the eyes or quiet snort, for those who don't >like action movies). Now, some questions: >Does L73(C) apply here? Yes. The wording of it is clear enough. >Since L25 seems to be silent as to how a player determined that >the previous call was an error, can the director use L73(c) >to prevent a change of call? Any other Law? No, he cannot use L73C to prevent a change: he just adjusts afterwards. >ps does anyone think *North* can call the director after South's > pass, in order to protect their sides interest? No, L73A1 does not allow this method [or any other] for North to bid South's hand for him. -- 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 Jul 11 19:12:52 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:12:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >> Martin Sinot >......... >> > Please be frank and admit that the main reason for playing >> > a small to declarer's lead in trump is the unauthorized >> > information of partner's Ace as a penalty card. >> >> Of course you play a small one because partner must play the ace. >> But that information is AI, L50D1 says so very explicitly. As long as >> that ace is visible, you may use the fact that it must be played at >> the first legal opportunity. > >Law 50D1: A major penalty card must be played at the first legal >opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the >requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for >his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty >card is unauthorized for partner). ....... > >The information that the penalty card must be played is of course authorized >for everybody at the table. However, the identity of the penalty card is >information that has arisen from facing of the penalty card and is (as I >read law 50D1) clearly unauthorized for partner. So the information that is >authorized for you is that your partner must play his penalty card at the >first legal opportunity but not which card that is nor the fact that he >actually possesses that card. The main point is that it is AI that he is going to play it: since it is AI you are permitted to defend on that basis. >I might add that I do have a problem seeing what information other than the >identity (and possession) of a penalty card can be arisen from facing of >that card? If pd led the HK [A from AK] and it is not his lead, then it becomes an MPC. the following are UI: [a] He holds the HK [b] He holds the HQ [c] He does not hold the HA [d] His hand is such that the HK is a reasonable lead -- 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 Jul 11 19:18:52 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karel writes >I've just rushed home and am eager to hear your view on this case. I was >directing in the local club, 8 table mitchel share 1 & 8 when this hand came >up. > >Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South > > North > S - > H Q3 > D 97543 >West C KQT653 East >S KQT S A953 >H A84 H J962 >D AKQ D J62 >C 9872 South C AJ > S J87642 > H KT75 > D T8 > C 4 > >Bidding >S W N E >P 1C 1NT* Dbl >Rdbl% P 2D Dbl >P! P > >* 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds >% SOS >! Asked what Rdbl was. N said they had no agreement but it was most likely >SOS. > >Defence >Trick 1 : CA C4 C7 C3 >Trick 2 : D2 D8 DQ D3 >Trick 4 : DA D4 D6 DT >Trick 5 : SK D5 S3 S2 >Trick 6 : D7 DJ S4 DK >Trick 7 : ST C3 S5 SJ !! >Trick 8 : H5 H4 HQ H2 >Trick 9 : CK CJ S6 C2 >Claims 8 tricks > >Result 2D making > > >South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but >are not a partnership. They play 2/1 with bergen and a few other gimmicks. >W called me when the hand was over and said he didn't like the bidding. He >felt South had a mandatory 2S over either of Easts doubles. He felt South >was influenced by the pause not to bid 2S's. He felt the score should be >adjusted to 2S-3 doubled. > >I asked south why he had redoubled instead of just bidding 2S's. South said >that the redouble gave him more options. If North bid 2H or 2S great. If >he bid 2D then he had a good suit of his own. If he bid 2C saying pick your >own suit then South would happily bid 2S. Finally the opps might bid and >let them off the hook. This "treatment" had not been agreed before hand but >South felt was pretty standard escape bidding. I asked what 2C over the 1st >double would have meant. South said probably both majors but they had no >agreement. > >I let the result stand on the following points. > >West knew North had psyched. 18 + double(10+) + 15 = 43. While the >majority of player's would have bid 2S's directly over the 1st double I saw >no reason to force this South to do so. Over the 2nd double once again alot >of players would have bid 2S's but South had his plan and stuck to it. The >defence was outrageous and E/W desrved their bottom. > >I feel E/W definitely deserved 180. Maybe N/S should have got 2S*-3 ?? I >think it would be harsh but can be convinced otherwise. Perhaps you could explain why it is right to be harsh to a pair that have done nothing wrong except made mistakes in bridge, but not to be harsh to a pair that are clearly in breach of L40, having without any doubt fielded a psyche? I *really* dislike the whole approach of giving the non-offenders bad scores just for being present at the table. I do wish we could follow every other sport and pastime and penalise offenders whatever. -- 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jul 12 07:40:46 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:40:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <200307111652.MAA16188@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00a101c34841$0c66be80$de86403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:52 PM Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > > From: Martin Sinot > > L50D1: the information that a major penalty card > > must be played at the first legal opportunity is > > AI for partner; any other information is UI. > > There is a WBFLC minute on the subject; I think it > was from Lille. As I understand it, the identity of > the penalty card is UI for the choice of suit to lead > but AI for the choice of card within the suit. That > would seem to cover Sven's case. > > As I may have mentioned before :-), mixing mechanical > and information penalties causes all sorts of problems. > +=+ "The Committee considered the information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that a player must play the card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based on the sight of the penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative." [WBFLC Minute, 24 Aug 98]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jul 12 07:55:38 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:55:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002101c34842$e5caf230$de86403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 > The problem with this is that it hasn't been, at least not > unless we are talking about a strictly BLML-centric > context. The WBFLC may modify the "official" text of a > law, and even let us BLML (and other) "insiders" look it > up on the Web, but the "reality of that text" doesn't > change until it reaches those who routinely look to their > lawbooks, along with any printed errata they may get > subsequently, for the text of the laws. The WBFLC may > nominally change the laws, but until those changes reach > the real people who are affected by them their "reality" > has not yet changed. > +=+ Since ton arrived in the chair and I became Secretary the WBFLC minutes have been promulgated to NBOs and have been put up on blml. I am not sure whether they are also to be found on the ecats website - Anna Gudge may have put them there. We make them available; it is not our responsibility to deliver them to individuals; it is for the NBO to circulate information as it thinks fit to its TDs/clubs etc. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Sat Jul 12 10:14:23 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:14:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a401c34855$fc277450$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Hello everybody ! Won't it be possible to use the same concepts as in L50D2 ? Let us say that E has the HQ penalized. When W is on lead, he must not play a card before the declarer chooses between the 3 usual options. So W knows to what suit belongs the penalty card : the penalty card is a heart. But nothing in declarer's choice indicates which heart it is. When W is not on lead, won't it be possible for W to act in the same way ? he would be allowed to know the suit of the penalty card, but he would not be allowed to know exactly which card it is in that suit ? That would fit L50C as well, and in the case where W has Kx, and would be obliged to play the king... sorry for W ! W would have played the king, had the queen not been penalized, and E has to play the HQ as soon as possible, to "cure" the irregularity and restore the normal course of the game as fast as possible. It is contrary to [WBFLC Minute, 24 Aug 98], but it would be easier to apply for players, and easier to rule for TD. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > Sven Pran writes > >> Martin Sinot > >......... > >> > Please be frank and admit that the main reason for playing > >> > a small to declarer's lead in trump is the unauthorized > >> > information of partner's Ace as a penalty card. > >> > >> Of course you play a small one because partner must play the ace. > >> But that information is AI, L50D1 says so very explicitly. As long as > >> that ace is visible, you may use the fact that it must be played at > >> the first legal opportunity. > > > >Law 50D1: A major penalty card must be played at the first legal > >opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the > >requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for > >his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty > >card is unauthorized for partner). ....... > > > >The information that the penalty card must be played is of course authorized > >for everybody at the table. However, the identity of the penalty card is > >information that has arisen from facing of the penalty card and is (as I > >read law 50D1) clearly unauthorized for partner. So the information that is > >authorized for you is that your partner must play his penalty card at the > >first legal opportunity but not which card that is nor the fact that he > >actually possesses that card. > > The main point is that it is AI that he is going to play it: since it > is AI you are permitted to defend on that basis. > > >I might add that I do have a problem seeing what information other than the > >identity (and possession) of a penalty card can be arisen from facing of > >that card? > > If pd led the HK [A from AK] and it is not his lead, then it becomes > an MPC. the following are UI: > > [a] He holds the HK > [b] He holds the HQ > [c] He does not hold the HA > [d] His hand is such that the HK is a reasonable lead > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 09:11:38 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:11:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> > > 'HOT SEAT ' RULINGS. > > > > In the case of a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is > > confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation > > or high level pre-empt or competition) a > > hesitation may be found not to suggest one > > action over another if the extra time taken may be > > occasioned by the need of the player to consider > > what options he has, added to the normal time he > > may then take in choosing among them. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ At least you admit the need for 'extra time' in such situations. So why not implement a simple rule rather than the above. Like a general STOP rule which exist already in Norway if I understood Sven correctly. Anyway who is going to judge what is wholly unanticipated. A little bit unanticipated is not enough ? To me it is more relevant that a player could reasonably be expected to have anticipated rather than he did or not. And why only high level competition. Low level competition is often just as difficult and pauses (and very fast actions) at low level competition are far more dangerous because they tend to convey far more (precise) information than pauses at high level competition. Once again, the bridge laws (and regs) have become a ungainly mess. People have blamed Kaplan for using too many different words for the same concept. But is Grattan language so much better if it comes to being clear and simple and to being understandable by non lawers and non native speakers ? I sometimes wonder. But before you get me wrong. From time to time I really enjoy the way you put things. But my pleasure and sensible laws are not the same. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "A little inaccuracy sometimes saves > tons of explanation." ~ Saki > ============================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "David Stevenson" ; > "blml" > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:02 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > > > > > It is ridiculous there is no kind of stop rule > > here. You get 10 sec after 1NT-4NT but none > > if someone calls 6H over your 5S. Go home > > with your 'perfect ethics' and start working > > on some sensible rules instead. > < > +=+ Curiously enough, in the aftermath of > Menton we have been looking at a text in > words something like these to add to the > WBF Code of Practice:- > > > 'HOT SEAT ' RULINGS. > > > > In the case of a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is > > confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation > > or high level pre-empt or competition) a > > hesitation may be found not to suggest one > > action over another if the extra time taken may be > > occasioned by the need of the player to consider > > what options he has, added to the normal time he > > may then take in choosing among them. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 09:10:50 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:10:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> Herman, First you are right I probably overdid the language. But then I was expressing emotions which maybe is a no-no at blml but quite appropriate in the context what players (including me) suffered at the hands of the EBL in Menton. Second, maybe Ton's langauge is nicer (but not by much) than mine but what he says and how he says is is far more insulting (IMHO) than just sometimes writing column-style (what I tend to do). Besides Ton doesn't even realise he insults people (see his last mail to Kojak). Now of course this is not an excuse calling names but what else do you do to get through that thick skull of his (if this is impolite English, sorry, but as far as I know it is a normal expression). Anyway to try once more: Ton > > > It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both events started. Jaap > > This is not true. Certain events started at least half an hour late. Herman > yes-no-yes-no - hardly the way to conduct a discussion. Since you where there as member of the AC and since you would be most happy to contradict me (given the nature of your mail) we can safely assume I was right (I was, I was waiting at the table) so Ton is twisting facts as usual. Beside the TD's had a bet among themselves about the 'real' starting time. If necessary I can find out what were the winning guesses. Ton: > > Players seem to accept such delay Jaap > > Players hate it Herman >> Of course they do - and yet they accept it. Or do you really believe you can start a 400 pair tournament at the > precise starting time? I don't expect EBL/WBF events to start anywhere near the starting time. Come on, I have enough inside information to know that the organisation is screwed up with political infighting and such. Don't believe me? Just ask the TD's themselves. They will immediatly admit that it is impossible to adhere to the planning given the quality of the planning and other constraints. Still a lot (actually almost all) of tournaments all over the world of comparable size (and bigger) start at the announced time or with a normal small delay (5 to 10 minutes). So EBL/WBF organisations are among the worst in the world from a players/customer point of view. Herman and Ton as high level officials should maybe spend more time improving things than defending the current mess (or is mess also a misuse of language). Jaap > > you self-satisfied fool. Herman > > That's one. You are right. I should have put that one different for blml purposes. Sorry. Jaap > But whenever we want to play > > EBL or WBF championship we know we have to suffer amateuristic > > organisation Herman >> That's two. Now you amaze me. I admit number one is calling names. But number two is IMHO a reasonable way to express an opinion. In Menton the playing conditions were terrible. The delay's before starting often upwards of half an hour. The waiting time between the rounds of the swiss way too long. There were serious duplicating problems resulting in cancelling some matches. There was no practical way to get a cold drink. ETC. Have we forgotten already about Salso (also bad conditions, but nothing learned) and Lille (where the final got completely botched up, have we learned anything yet) ? Come on Herman, please tell me why I cannot call EBL/WBF operations amateuristic. Actually I think it is a rather gentle way of putting it. You don't want me to call these EBL/WBF efforts 'proffesional' do you. Nobody would take me serious anymore if I did so. Jaap > so we have no choice. In that sense we seem to accept it. > > But when waiting we all curse those incompetent idiots who are Herman: >> That's three. Please be a little precise Herman. Once more I admit number one was calling names. But number three is reporting style. I describe the athmosphere during the long waits (at 35 degrees upward). At these moments all kind of ugly things are said, I don't make those things up. That is what people say if you treat them the way the EBL did in Menton. Don't kill the messager. But yes I could have used slightly different words. Jaap: > > responsible for the mess and never seem to improve. And don't worry, so > > does the lower ranking staff as well as long as the fat cats are not > > listening in. Herman >> That's four. Three and four are one sentence so you cannot count like that. Besides it is true info. Don't blame me for being a journalist. And 'fat cats' is normal (American) English as far as I know. Herman > Henk, I really believe this poster needs a lesson in etiquette. > Please take the appropriate measures. > Poor Henk has already answered to my mail in a constructive way so now it is not so easy for him to do so anymore. So I will do it myself. I should not have called Ton a *****. This was silly and unproductive. But the rest of Herman's complaints get rejected as it stands. Besides Herman's track record is not such that he should be the first to invoke the need for a lesson in etiquette. Jaap From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 09:18:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:18:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: <04e301c34861$6bae04a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> David: > I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up as the Supreme Being > in my absence. Always funny that people that accuse my of being too direct or too rude never fail to do so in a rather direct and rude way. Never mind. I probably overdid a little. Sorry. I just got irritated by the way you put yourself as the Supreme Judge on 'perfect ethics'. That kind of language upsets me far more (specially when part of the backing story seems to be inconsistent) when someone calls me an idiot or lunatic or whatever which I deserve from time to time because I am from time to time. It is normal bridge language you know. Ever analysed the language of a random after play discussion among friends. Anyway just check a recent mail from David Burn on this subject. Anyway I have to realise that a lot of people just stop discussing the issue if they don't like the form so I guess I should adapt a little. Because the issue at hand was quite interesting and with all due respect I still think that your post misused the concept of 'perfect ethics'. Or maybe you will be so kind as to explain me what it means and how it relates to Tony's case. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >'... Perfect ethics ...', don't make me laugh with this kind of silly > >concepts. You don't give me the impression you have any idea what it means. > >Don't worry, probably nobody does. > > I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up as the Supreme Being > in my absence. > > [s] > > >You (DWS) do have some reputation > >on discussing laws but you don't seem to understand a lot about high-level > >competitive bidding. > > No, I am very sorry, I am merely a novice at this game. When I win my > first duplicate I shall bring you the results and until that time I > shall merely marvel at the feet of the master. > > --------- > > BLML any better, is it? > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 09:35:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:35:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Edgar Kaplan and Law 70C References: <000101c345a4$fd4a8ba0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <04e401c34861$6be80060$a8b64351@noos.fr> Basically I agree with Sven. But there is one more way to lose to the outstanding trump. HQ (discard DA), DK, diamond ruff. It is not just nagging but the fact that Sven missed that one is a 'proof' that (un)blocking positions (another infamous claim problem) are hard and often missed. Anyway, under current rules I would rule the slam as making because there is no remotely 'normal' way to lose a trick. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:02 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Edgar Kaplan and Law 70C > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........ > NORTH > K53 > KQ32 > KJ85 > 74 > WEST EAST > T86 97 > AJ95 T84 > 6 QT97432 > 98532 6 > SOUTH > AQJ42 > 76 > A > AKQJT > > Against South's six-spade contract, West > leads ace of hearts, then a heart to dummy's > queen. Declarer plays the three of spades > to his ace, the two of spades to dummy's > king - and now faces his cards, saying only, > "The rest are mine." > > How would you rule? Well, let me see: We must assume (according to Law 70C1) that South may have miscounted his trumps because he did not mention anything about the last outstanding trump. So is there any legal line of play in which that trump can take a trick as the cards lie? Yes, there are in fact two ways this can happen: After cashing his Ace of Diamonds he can play his smallest trump to a higher small trump on the table and West gets his ten of trumps immediately, or he can play his clubs and use his last trump on the table on one of them after which he plays his King of diamonds. Both these lines of play are LEGAL, but are they "normal" within the meaning of the laws? As he has absolutely no use for the King of Diamonds (South's hand is high now!) I would rule both legal lines of play that will set the contract to be too exotic to be considered "normal" (including careless); and thus the contract made. But it is a close one, particularly how we were told to rule in 1982 here in Norway. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 09:12:33 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:12:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <007701c34719$3d3da330$c555e150@endicott> Message-ID: <04e201c34861$6b5a1840$a8b64351@noos.fr> HCP has been a long thread. There are three main issues. 1. Regulations 2. Full disclosure 3. Judgement 1. Regulations I do think we need some regulations to keep the game playable. But any reg means that the right to judge and to psyche and to miscount your points and ..... is not unlimited. Basically a reg limites your right to bid (and to fool around and to make mistakes) as you want. I think it is quite ok to protect (near) beginners with some simple rules that make no sense at serious bridge like 'you need 11HCP to open'. The only way to enforce this kind of rules is by letter. If your hand doesn't pass it should be irrelevant what was the cause. The HCP problem is that one Jack means next to nothing to the value of a hand but still counts as 1HCP. Suit length is a better case. Suppose we say the minimum reg for a weak two is 4 cards and 0 HCP. This is close to the official reg on something being 'natural'. It means I can open a weak two D (in third) on xxx xxx xxxx xxx. Everybody realises that there is no material difference between opening that hand and xxx xxx xxx xxxx (or god knows what). But number two infracts the regulation. And if we allow number two (in the end it is sound judgement number two and one are equal enough) we allow random preempts (preempts with unknown suit). The point I want to make that if we impose these kind of regulations (=declaring certain systems illegal) then illegal it is. And you cannot allow players to psyche it (or to miscount or whatever), because if so it is illegal no longer. Just a BLML question. Suppose top level bridge (no silly SO regs), third, green vs red. Do you accept 2H (weak) on xx xxxxx xxx xxx and on xxx xxxx xxx xxx and on xxx xxx xxx xxxx and on xxxxx xx xxx xxx? Now same question for 2D (multi). Now same questions (2H and 2D) but now in 1st seat (still green vs red of course, I am dead serious). Last question. If you reject some hand does it matter why the player opened it (missorted his hand, intentional psych, pulled wrong bidding card, miscounted his points, you just name it). 2. Full disclosure Assume playing serious bridge. They say 15-17 NT. Now everybody knows that sometimes they might have a singleton or a fivecard major or a sixcard minor, and sometimes they have 14 (18 almost never happens). What you really want to know is the frequency of these special cases. Still 15-17 balanced is an adequate description (in most cases). Suppose someone opens 3C. You ask, they say natural, big deal. What you really want to know is the average hand for this pair, and the max and the min. His partner will have some idea when to bid 3NT and when not. You have the right to that info as well. Same for an overcall. Same for almost everything. This info is hard to get, most players are irritated if you start asking this kind of questions. Still this is 100 times more relevant in real life than nagging about a 2NT opener having a Jack more or less. Another problem is that after some very stupid rulings (CC says sound weak twos but third green vs red it was light and ....) people have the tendency to describe bids in a legalistic way (2H = 0-12, 4+H). This is of course correct but useless as info. Not such an easy problem if the CC has to be smaller than the newest Harry Potter. 3. Judgement The game is about judgement. Almost every single call offers some choices so you have to apply judgement. Every bridge player knows or will soon learn. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Vanity is ill at ease under indifference." > - Mary Ann Evans. > ============================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not > > > do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any > > > circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement > > > or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. > > > If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do > > > something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership > > > agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach > > > of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding > > > does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be > > > considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. > > > Players are not permitted to have an understanding about > > > breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain > > > external to partner's expectations or they become part of > > > the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to > > > the system regulations. > > > > So effectively a regular partnership may *never* open > > non Ro19 hands? Even a new partnership would be ruled > > against in the following situation. Hand 1 partner opens > > 1N (12-14) on AJTx,K97x,Tx,Kxx. Hand 2 in 3rd seat > > he opens 1S on AQ8543,Kxx,x,Jxx. What do you *expect* > ? him to open if, on hand 4 in 3rd seat, he is dealt > > AJT9xx,KTx,x,JTx? > > > +=+ Under what regulations? The EBU regulations, which > it is not for me to defend, specify what minimum strengths > may be *agreed*. They do not prohibit, in my reading of > them, opening - in breach of partnership agreement - hands > of lesser strength; however, if partner is found to be > catering for sub-minimum hands it will lead to the conclusion > that the partnership agreement encompasses opening such > hands. No doubt one or more Davids will confirm or modify > my understanding of the Orange Book on the subject, and > will respond with authority on what is expected where the > OB applies. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 10:27:42 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:27:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) References: <6F31B886-B2F7-11D7-87A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <04e501c34861$6c2382c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Nice subject, I have seen so many appeals where the real problem was that people did NOT say 'no agreements' but started guessing (to be nice and helpful). If you guess correct it works but if your guess is wrong than you often create a big mess. So I go along with Tim. If there is no agreement please say so. Now if you have some relevant info (partnership style, or the guy is from London and in London they play ...) or what Alain calls metarules you should say so as well. But before I really start guessing I prefer them to ask me to do so. If only because they normally want short answers without too many if's and but's. Anyway I normally never offer guesses to the opps, I just try to answer the question 'what do I know to make a better guess than they do'. If the answer is none then they are out of luck. In Menton I played in a rather new partnership and I have answered a couple of times 'your guess is as good as mine'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Demanding a guess (was HCP) > > On Thursday, Jul 10, 2003, at 04:35 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Of course if there is relevant partnership experience that should be > > disclosed automatically. I was thinking more about the situation where > > one is playing pick-up. For example I have agreed to play weak 2s and > > pard responds 2N to my 2S. Given the club in which I play it is more > > likely to be Ogust than a feature ask (but opps almost certainly know > > that). I do not wish to deny them the knowledge that it is probably > > Ogust > > but nor to I want to create the UI that removes any ambiguity for > > partner. > > I have a feeling that if I say "Probably Ogust" he will be obliged to > > treat my response as a "feature" even though he intended his 2N as > > Ogust. > > I think the relevant point here is the parenthetical expression in the > fourth sentence. It would seem to be common knowledge in that club that > the bid is likely to be Ogust. I haven't looked, but I suspect EBU > alerting regs contribute to your dilemma here, since I suspect both > meanings are alertable. In the ACBL, neither meaning is alertable. That > has its own problems, but that's a different thread. :-) In the EBU, I > would alert and if asked say simply that it's undiscussed. In this > particular case, given the parentheses, I think that's sufficient. But > that's just me. :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 11:07:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:07:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] A club Ruling References: <200307112254.PAA05801@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <04e601c34861$6c55dd60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Adam: > I would rule that the result stands because the hesitation doesn't > particularly suggest anything. The pause suggests that 1NT is off-beat. Which in turn strongly suggest not to interfere. This south got the message. If I give the South hand to 100 (good) players none will pass. I expect a big majority for 2S (or transfer to) although I can imagine 3S (or a low cuebid), the hand is rather good for a simple run-out. Passing means you just decided that 1NT was suit based (whether a psych or full values). Anyway passing 1NT* and 2D* with this 64 seems so odd to me that I would rule south using UI. What I also don't understand is North running to 2D. Any normal player would run to 2C (that is your suit isn't it). Karel calls south a 'good' player and north an 'expert'. You must be kidding. But now how do you rule. Difficult. You might argue that south is supposed to bid 2S his first time around and nobody knows where that will end. 2S*, 3C* and 3D* all might be 2- or 3+ off with 600 being a 'normal' score. So I probably give up on a normal ruling. My first inclination is to give 60-0 rather than 60-40 but I leave penalties always to the local people. They have more info than I do. Anyway I think that NS deserve serious punishment, given the info I have, if they are considered 'good' players. As for EW, of course they should have defeated 2D but if they are not that 'good' players I tend to forgive them. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A club Ruling > > Karel wrote: > > > I've just rushed home and am eager to hear your view on this case. I was > > directing in the local club, 8 table mitchel share 1 & 8 when this hand came > > up. > > > > Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South > > > > North > > S - > > H Q3 > > D 97543 > > West C KQT653 East > > S KQT S A953 > > H A84 H J962 > > D AKQ D J62 > > C 9872 South C AJ > > S J87642 > > H KT75 > > D T8 > > C 4 > > > > Bidding > > S W N E > > P 1C 1NT* Dbl > > Rdbl% P 2D Dbl > > P! P > > > > * 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds > > % SOS > > ! Asked what Rdbl was. N said they had no agreement but it was most likely > > SOS. > > > > Defence > > Trick 1 : CA C4 C7 C3 > > Trick 2 : D2 D8 DQ D3 > > Trick 4 : DA D4 D6 DT > > Trick 5 : SK D5 S3 S2 > > Trick 6 : D7 DJ S4 DK > > Trick 7 : ST C3 S5 SJ !! > > Trick 8 : H5 H4 HQ H2 > > Trick 9 : CK CJ S6 C2 > > Claims 8 tricks > > > > Result 2D making > > > > > > South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but > > are not a partnership. They play 2/1 with bergen and a few other gimmicks. > > W called me when the hand was over and said he didn't like the bidding. He > > felt South had a mandatory 2S over either of Easts doubles. He felt South > > was influenced by the pause not to bid 2S's. He felt the score should be > > adjusted to 2S-3 doubled. > > > > I asked south why he had redoubled instead of just bidding 2S's. South said > > that the redouble gave him more options. If North bid 2H or 2S great. If > > he bid 2D then he had a good suit of his own. If he bid 2C saying pick your > > own suit then South would happily bid 2S. Finally the opps might bid and > > let them off the hook. This "treatment" had not been agreed before hand but > > South felt was pretty standard escape bidding. I asked what 2C over the 1st > > double would have meant. South said probably both majors but they had no > > agreement. > > > > I let the result stand on the following points. > > > > West knew North had psyched. 18 + double(10+) + 15 = 43. While the > > majority of player's would have bid 2S's directly over the 1st double I saw > > no reason to force this South to do so. Over the 2nd double once again alot > > of players would have bid 2S's but South had his plan and stuck to it. The > > defence was outrageous and E/W desrved their bottom. > > I would rule that the result stands because the hesitation doesn't > particularly suggest anything. South's choice of actions may be a bit > unorthodox (whether well-reasoned or not), but unless you can argue > that his choice "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the UI > over 2S or other LA's, it doesn't matter whether South's choice is > reasonable or weird or whatever. > > Personally, I cannot see how the pass is suggested by the UI. The > hesitation here suggests a problem or a borderline hand---maybe North > has the values for 1NT but no club stopper and insufficient support > for the other suits to make a takeout double; maybe North has an > 18-count and isn't sure whether to bid 1NT or double; maybe he has a > small singleton and a difficult problem hand. The hesitation doesn't > suggest a psych, IMHO. (Unless North is a player who's known to psych > like this a lot.) I could be wrong. If others feel that the pass is > suggested by the UI, I'd be interested in hearing their reasoning. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jul 12 12:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS writes: > > Perhaps you could explain why it is right to be harsh to a pair that > have done nothing wrong except made mistakes in bridge, but not to be > harsh to a pair that are clearly in breach of L40, having without any > doubt fielded a psyche? Whether they have fielded a psyche or not is far from clear. If, as I do, one considers x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx as a perfectly respectable 1N overcall of 1C then South's bidding is reasonable. If one is playing SOS redoubles then 2D showing a good suit while 2C is pick a suit is something I would hope a pick-up partner would work out. It would be grotesque to adjust on the basis of a fielded psyche. However there is still the UI to worry about. I'm not sure but I think the UI does suggest an off-shape hand, but then so does the 2D bid. I think I shall rule that 2S *is* a non suggested LA. However I think there is not a chance in hell of North standing for it. I'll adjust to 3Cx-2 absent discussion with others. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jul 12 19:45:46 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > First you are right I probably overdid the language. > But then I was expressing emotions which maybe is > a no-no at blml but quite appropriate in the context > what players (including me) suffered at the hands > of the EBL in Menton. > > Second, maybe Ton's language is nicer (but not > by much) than mine but what he says and how he > says it is far more insulting (IMHO) than just > sometimes writing column-style (what I tend to do). > Besides Ton doesn't even realise he insults people > (see his last mail to Kojak). Now of course this is not > an excuse calling names but what else do you do to > get through that thick skull of his (if this is impolite > English, sorry, but as far as I know it is a normal > expression). > > Jaap > +=+ Hi Jaap, I am actually commenting on your message because I read nothing in it that is as offensive to an individual as a number of the messages you have put on blml recently. (The usage "get through that thick skull of his" is informal language, quite impolite; likely to close off the possibility of a calm response and a reasoned discussion with the individual spoken about, so not really the path to progress and persuasion.) Turning to Menton: undoubtedly there were unacceptable delays and some serious flaws in the procedure. On one occasion a number of players said to me that an interval between Swiss matches had exceeded 40 minutes, which seemed incredible, and players were saying that manual assignment of the matches would have moved the matches along much more quickly, which was credible. It would have been desirable to let players know what had held up the procedure and to have made an apology for it. The same applies to the delivery of non-comparing boards to certain matches - to explain how it had happened would have been good, to apologise in grovelling terms excellent. In failure humility is a commendable virtue even if one is not personally to blame. It did appear, early on, that the scoring system in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was said to me that it was known beforehand this was the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask who knew as much and should have ensured it was corrected before it was ever used in Menton. Undoubtedly the organization needs to be totally overhauled. It was inefficient, suggesting deficient planning and preparation. I am not inclined to heap blame on individuals for this, the EBL has recognized corporate responsibility. If I were asked to counsel a solution, I would (naturally) begin with the Law Book at Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the technical management of the tournament." It is my opinion that during a tournament the Chief Director should have overall control, and that people in charge of scoring, board preparation and delivery, technology, room arrangement, line-ups etc. etc. etc. should each be a Head of Department taking instructions from the Chief Director and accountable to him/her for their implementation. It follows that the Director must be a member of the pre-planning group and must be satisfied that the group provides him with the resources to meet the needs of the tournament and those participating. Amen. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:40:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:40:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F028542.10002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012801c348f0$7664bc10$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 7:10 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > Well you have no right to rule that I have agreed something that I > > have not agreed. > > > > > Yes I have, and I frequently do. > > > > I frequently agree things with my partner's especially > casual partner's > > that I violate. My partner's will no nothing of that in > advance because > > we have had no discussion nor have we had any experience so > how on earth > > can you rule that it is an agreement. > > > > > And how do you expect me to believe you, when your actions are > precisely the same ones as those from someone who HAS agreed to play > an illegal system? Because you have no evidence of an agreement. You merely have evidence of an occurrence. Go and do your work and find out what the agreement is. > > > > On Monday evening I played with a person that I have never > played with > > before. > > > > We agreed Acol with 12-14 NT. None of this prevented me > opening on 11. > > > > > And I will believe you - because nothing prevents you from playing > 11.5-14! > > > > I can not see how you can justify telling my partner that we had an > > agreement > > to open a lower point count. > > > > Yours is the nonsense Herman. > > > > Even if I play with a regular partner and agree to open > 12-14 there is > > nothing > > necessarily in that agreement that indicates that either > partner will > > open > > any particular 11 count or 15 count. Yet that still may > happen and it > > is not > > based on an agreement. For you to rule so without proof is in my > > opinion > > unbelievably arrogant. > > > > > No, for you to continue to open 9-counts, while writing 10-12 > is arrogant. > > Opening on 11 whilst playing 12-14 can be any of three things: > - a very first occurence; or > - a regular event; or > - an agreement with partner. > And I don't care which it is , because all three allowed. > > But opening on 9 whilst playing 10-12 in certain regions can > be one of > the same three. And now I do mind, because the second and third are > forbidden. There is nothing to forbid the second. Law 40 protects my right to violate partnership agreements even regularly. > If you can show me satisfactory evidence that it is the > first, I might allow it, but how are you going to do that ? There is nothing that says that I do have to. > > Again, I'm not talking regulation here, I'm talking ruling. There is > no way you will be able, at the table, to convince me that > you are not > a lying cheat who is simply trying to play the system he wants to, > regardless of regulations forbidding it. And there is no way that you will convince me that you are not an incompetent TD that will not allow me to play by the laws and violate my partnership's agreements at will. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:40:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:40:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0283A2.5090103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012901c348f0$79e7a140$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 7:03 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > > > > No that makes it judgement and style. In spite of playing the same > > agreements it is common for two players to exercise > different judgement. > > Otherwise we would have no need for Master Solver's Clubs. > > > > The agreement can be regulated the judgement and style cannot. > > > > The agreement is a partnership matter the judgement and style is an > > individual matter. > > > > I have never seen a regulation that stated that an individual cannot > > open a 9 point hand. The regulations state that the > partnership cannot > > agree to open a 9 point hand. > > > > To me this is quite different. > > > > > Yes it is quite different. But when you open a 9pointer, how are you > going to prove that this is not a partnership agreement? You will ask me and I will tell you and show you my notes etc. > > If you bid 2Di over 1NT, when holding hearts, is that not a piece of > evidence that you may well have an agreement to play > transfers? And if > transfers are not on your CC, is it not possible that we rule > that the > CC is faulty? Yes and I will tell you that I was playing transfers or I thought I was unless in fact that was not so. > > I'm not talking regulation here, I'm talking rulings. > I'm not saying that the regulation forbids you to deviate from your > agreements. I'm saying that I shall rule that it is part of your > agreement, and there is no way you will be able to prove that > it's not. You have no right to make this ruling unless you have substantial evidence. If I say that it is not and show you evidence that it is not then I would expect any reasonable TD to agree with me. Wayne > > > > > > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:40:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:40:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F02828C.2020306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012a01c348f0$7d5047b0$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 6:58 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > Not so. The system that has been deemed illegal is the > agreement not > > the practice. There is no proof that it is systemic. > > > > > And there is no proof that it isn't. But there is a big piece of > evidence that says that it is: you've just done it, you have only > deviated a little from what you have announced, AND you are barred > from announcing correctly if you would like to. > There's nothing stopping you from putting 14.5-17 on your CC, but you > cannot put 9.5-12 on it. > > > > There is no regulation nor is there a mandate for a regulation that > > forbids opening any particular hand on a 9 count. > > > > > Which is why I allow you to open on 9 if playing 15-17. > But I rule that you are playing 14.5-17 if you open on 14. > And I rule that you are playing 9.5-12 if you open on 9 when your CC > says 10-12. > > When hcp are defined in units a 0.5 unit is meaningless. I guess I could join the multitude who give meaningless explanations. Wayne > > > > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:40:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:40:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0281BA.6090306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012b01c348f0$8102c860$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 6:55 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > But how do you prove it is "depart" and not "part of" ? > If you play 15-17 and you open on 9, that is clearly "depart". > But if you open on 14, you are using judgment, and I rule > that this is > part of your practice with that partner. > And you would not mind me telling you it's 14.5-17 that you actually > play, because there is no law against it. You will be asked to put > that on your CC, and inform the opponents about the possibility and > frequency. > Similarly, if you open on 9 whilst playing 10-12, in Belgium, I will > tell you to change your CC to 9.5-12 and I will tell your opponents > they have been misinformed but probably not damaged. But then playing > 9.5-12 is not forbidden in Belgium. > Now if you do the same in the ACBL, the ruling should be the same. > Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote on the CC > might not be the one you are actually playing. And the system you are > playing is an illegal one. > 'might not be' and 'you are' in the two preceeding sentances seem to me to be contradictory. I would await evidence other than what happened on a particular hand before making such a unilateral pronouncement. Wayne > > > > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:40:34 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:40:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702184256.024ecb90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <012c01c348f0$8461d1e0$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 4:51 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > At 18:08 2/07/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >OK, I'll rethink that: > > > >Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >>On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 02:54 US/Eastern, Herman De > Wael wrote: > >> > >>>Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you > wrote on the CC > >>>might not be the one you are actually playing > >> > >>"Might not be" is not the same thing as "is not", yet you > insist that it > >>*is* the same thing. Maybe you ought to rethink that. > > > > > >Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote > on the CC is > >not the one you are actually playing. > > > > > >OK now? > > AG : perfectly clear now. > > But L75B says that it will need several similar violations to create > agreements, which emphatically means that "once isn't a habit". ... and even then you only 'may' create an implicit agreement. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:50:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:50:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D78A.4080607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <018701c348f1$dbc2c9c0$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 7:13 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > In general, I'd agree with you, Gordon, > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >>Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you wrote > on the CC > >>is not the one you are actually playing. > >> > > > > I will accept that --- if you will accept in return that me writing > > something on my convention card or in my system notes is > (quite strong) > > evidence of what my partner and I are playing (or trying to > play, on the > > bad days.) > > > > I have a problem with the idea that a single deviation > consists of *so > > much* evidence that it makes you assume the written system > notes are lies. > > Two times, I can understand - and in a club game it is > quite possible to > > know who does these things repeatedly. In a big tournament > where most of > > the players are unfamiliar to you it is harder. > > > > > In general, I'd agree. > > But if you write on your CC 10-12, and you open on 9, AND 9-12 would > be a forbidden system, then yes, I'd say straight away that you are a > liar. ... and I would say straight away ... well I won't write it here. This approach is unnecessarily inflamatory. I would hope that the SO would not use any TD that continued with this unilateral confrontational approach without gathering further evidence. Wayne > > > > GRB > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 04:50:07 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:50:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F03D846.8050805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <018801c348f1$e10f4b60$492f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 7:16 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:08 US/Eastern, Herman De > Wael wrote: > > > >> Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you > wrote on the CC > >> is not the one you are actually playing. > >> > >> > >> OK now? > >> Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and > that evidence > >> can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? > >> > > Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the > conclusion to which > > you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of > evidence". I > > haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and I > have seen > > that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition that the > > conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct > one. So no, not > > okay. > > > > > What evidence? > > How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about > other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? > > I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but > you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always > wrong in > ruling as I do - how can you do that? > > Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary > evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would > always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you > accept that you can rule against this player? The fallacy here is that just because a player will always open a particular hand in a particular situation in no way necessarily means that there is a partnership understanding to do that. The laws allow regulation of the partnership understanding they do not allow regulation of the practice. Wayne > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Sun Jul 13 06:42:29 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:42:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> Grattan, Thanks for your answer. I will try to take it easy on certain persons. I agree with you that we should be very careful to blame individuals. Still forgive me certain thoughts when Ton says: 'I was responsible for the mess in Lille but I don't feel guilty about it' and has made dozens of statements like that. If you read this, remembering the enormity of what happened down there, then one might wonder what 'being responsible' means. For Ton next to nothing it seems. Probably you are right that even then the person Ton should not be attacked on that, but the person holding the responsibility should be fair game for critisism. If not how do we ever get anywhere. Grattan: It would have been > desirable to let players know what had held up the > procedure and to have made an apology for it. The > same applies to the delivery of non-comparing > boards to certain matches - to explain how it had > happened would have been good, to apologise in > grovelling terms excellent. In failure humility is a > commendable virtue even if one is not personally > to blame. Well if otherwise capable and respected officials make some mistake nobody expects them to grovel although it is always a good idea if there is serious 'damage'. Everybody makes mistakes you know. But irritation starts when mistakes are repeated and defended as a fact of life. And then at a certain moment no amount of grovelling hides the fact that things need to be improved or changed. Specially when the EBL triples the entrance fees 'to insure the best possible organisation' or whatever spin Rona has used on that one. Of course it was just spin (Rona needed the money) but there is a limit to what you can get away with. Grattan: > Undoubtedly the organization needs to be totally > overhauled. It was inefficient, suggesting deficient > planning and preparation. A nice way to put it. I guess one might as well drop the 'suggesting'. What makes me and many others 'mad' about this, is that this is not the first or second or third event the EBL organises. If this really was a first with a newbe crew one might understand. But it is always the same people and always the same mess. And it doesn't have to be that way. All over Europe there are lots of events with efficient planning and preparation resulting in good tournaments. Grattan: > I am not inclined to heap > blame on individuals for this, the EBL has recognized > corporate responsibility. To a certain extend I agree, but there is a problem. If nobody is responsible it is sure you will end up with an impossible mess. Look at the problems at the American Olympic Committee. In a normal organisation the CEO has lots of power (and salary), but if he doesn't deliver he gets replaced. If the EBL was a normal organisation key people like Rona and Kooijman would have been replaced (or assigned another job). Nothing personal meant. Both are nice people who love bridge. But if you accept such a job and you mess up another guy should get a chance. Now it often doesn't work like that in sports organisations and compared to other sport orgs bridge is not doing too badly. Grattan: It follows that > the Director must be a member of the pre-planning > group and must be satisfied that the group provides > him with the resources to meet the needs of the > tournament and those participating. This problem was known at least 10 years ago, the solution can be found in any 'organisation 101', so why it took so long to realise this. Of course I admire Ton for the operational job he is doing given often impossible conditions. Ton is close to the perfect foreman. What I critise Ton for is that he accepts to do the job without adequate resources. But then Ton is a lousy manager (IMHO). Now maybe you should blame the EBL for putting the operations director in such a position. But this I cannot judge. I am not present when the key negotiations take place. If I was the operations director (or the CTD if you change names) I would do a better job. Not because I am better at organising bridge tournaments than Ton. I am not. Ton is the first person I would hire. But I would make sure I had adequate resources or I would refuse the job. And yes, I would never accept a venue without inspecting it myself (or someone I really trust). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a way a recent mail of Ton is the perfect adstruction. It is about the duplication problem leading to some canceled matches. Ton: Let us be fair, this particular mistake should not have happened. And the procedures are such that it shouldn't have happened. We are aware of the dangers when duplication is done with 5 or 6 duplimates simultaneously and the job gets overloaded. Still it happened so those procedures are not foolproof. And the overloading is known in advance so no excuse for faulty procedures. Ton: The organization was too ambitious, I had to cut down the numbers of boards to be duplicated since it was physically impossible to get it done. So Ton admits the planning was no good. Or the number of machines was too low. Or whatever. Bad organisation. Ton: It was 37 degrees in that room as well. You put the playes in 37 as well. Anyway once again bad planning to do such a job in such conditions. Ton: So when the procedures are not followed till the last detail Murphy strikes. So Ton admits that the procedures are no good because they can be not followed. Of course I understand this is terrible work. Still it has to be done and it has to be done correct. Ton: We should try to refrain from easy remarks, when details are unknown and not available either. Ton has this irritating habit to assume only he knows the facts. Nobody else can know (why ?) so nobody can criticise him because nobody but Ton has the facts. Great. Still I got wrong boards on my table. Why cannot I complain. Is it so different from getting the wrong food in a restaurant or the dentist pulling the wrong teeth ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grattan: > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. And you mentioned other serious problems with the scoring. And there were 'funny' problems as well. All programs and print-out were in Italian, not exactly the official language of the EBL. The few computer screens had terrible resolution. It was the first time since ages I have seen the Norton Commander (a pre windows software program). The computers in the press-room had Italian windows installed. Normal ? Of course not. This is just Rona bringing his Italian crew along. Why ? Ask Rona. Not because they are good, they are not, and one phonecall to the FFB or NBB (and probably others) will get you a much better crew. Besides a Dutch crew (compared to a French or Italian one) also is sure to speak English which IMHO is essential in an international environment. I am quite sure Ton could not speak directly to quite some non trivial crew members due to lack of common language. Strange that some problems occured. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Cc: "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "My English text is chaste and all licentious > passages are left in the obscurity of a learned > language." [Edward Gibbon] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; > "blml" > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > > > First you are right I probably overdid the language. > > But then I was expressing emotions which maybe is > > a no-no at blml but quite appropriate in the context > > what players (including me) suffered at the hands > > of the EBL in Menton. > > > > Second, maybe Ton's language is nicer (but not > > by much) than mine but what he says and how he > > says it is far more insulting (IMHO) than just > > sometimes writing column-style (what I tend to do). > > Besides Ton doesn't even realise he insults people > > (see his last mail to Kojak). Now of course this is not > > an excuse calling names but what else do you do to > > get through that thick skull of his (if this is impolite > > English, sorry, but as far as I know it is a normal > > expression). > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ Hi Jaap, > I am actually commenting on your message because > I read nothing in it that is as offensive to an individual as > a number of the messages you have put on blml recently. > (The usage "get through that thick skull of his" is > informal language, quite impolite; likely to close off > the possibility of a calm response and a reasoned > discussion with the individual spoken about, so not > really the path to progress and persuasion.) > Turning to Menton: undoubtedly there were > unacceptable delays and some serious flaws in the > procedure. On one occasion a number of players said > to me that an interval between Swiss matches had > exceeded 40 minutes, which seemed incredible, and > players were saying that manual assignment of the > matches would have moved the matches along much > more quickly, which was credible. It would have been > desirable to let players know what had held up the > procedure and to have made an apology for it. The > same applies to the delivery of non-comparing > boards to certain matches - to explain how it had > happened would have been good, to apologise in > grovelling terms excellent. In failure humility is a > commendable virtue even if one is not personally > to blame. > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > Undoubtedly the organization needs to be totally > overhauled. It was inefficient, suggesting deficient > planning and preparation. I am not inclined to heap > blame on individuals for this, the EBL has recognized > corporate responsibility. If I were asked to counsel > a solution, I would (naturally) begin with the Law Book > at Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the > technical management of the tournament." It is my > opinion that during a tournament the Chief Director > should have overall control, and that people in > charge of scoring, board preparation and delivery, > technology, room arrangement, line-ups etc. etc. etc. > should each be a Head of Department taking > instructions from the Chief Director and accountable > to him/her for their implementation. It follows that > the Director must be a member of the pre-planning > group and must be satisfied that the group provides > him with the resources to meet the needs of the > tournament and those participating. Amen. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Sun Jul 13 08:05:17 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:05:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <008701c345f1$de7e7450$ae83b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001901c3490d$87874ea0$25ac53d4@Default> O Dear, What have I done. I have called the operations director of the EBL/WBF a ****** after the umpteenth EBL/WBF event turned into a disaster. Sorry Ton I should not have done so. But Ton's reaction is dubious. First the funny part. Ton seems to look for comfort by Dear Herman ('don't worry about me'). Strange choice. A year ago or so you called each other Belgian Oaf and Dutch Idiot on blml. And recently Dear Herman has more or less called another blml-er (Wayne) both a Liar and a Lying Cheat. Now I can understand that lot's of people don't like that kind of language. And yes I am guilty as hell myself. Still IMHO the two of you are the last two on blml to complain about rude language, dear partners in crime. Second the serious part. Ton choses to ignore. If David Stevenson chooses to ignore that is fine with me. That Ton Kooijman chooses to ignore as well. But when the Operations Director chooses to ignore criticism after the Menton disaster that is something completely different. Given Ton's track record for using offensive language himself, my language when expressing criticism cannot be in itself an argument. So I reach the conclusion that by putting things a little bit emotional I have given Ton an excuse to ignore the real criticism. Come on Ton, be a big boy and face reality. You are right I should have been more gentle. But after that you have to face an angry and disapointed bridge world that is very unhappy with Menton in particular and EBL/WBF operations in general. Yes I know you are not the only one. And yes I know that without you it was probably worse (although with you at another place in the organisation it would probably be better). Still you are the EBL/WBF Operations Director and you have to face your responsabilities. If only because we, the bridge players, want one day a well organized event that is fun to participate in. Jaap > > Herman DE WAEL > > > > Don't worry about me, I became member of the Stevenson school: ignoring. > > I seem to create some tension once in while. Read the last response of my > dear friend Kojak, which suggests awful remarks from my side I am not waware > of. I know that my style has some irony in it (a word we can't use anymore > since Berlusconi did), but I really try to control it. Forgive me, forgive > me, when I fail. Hang me, hang me when I fail organizational wise, but do it > gently and try to understand the facts first. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Sun Jul 13 08:09:00 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:09:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <018801c348f1$e10f4b60$492f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002f01c3490d$a7279ee0$25ac53d4@Default> Wayne, You got quite a nice discussion going with my dear friend Herman. Be careful with Herman. Although he uses language like 'lying cheat' and 'liar' he is the first to demand that someone gives you a lesson in 'blml etiquette' when things don't go his way. But now the issue. ONE. In general I am not in favor of regulatiuons that say 'you cannot open on less than 10 points'. But I can imagine very well that kind of regs to protect beginners and such. Anyway if a SO has decreed so I think that when a 9 count is opened for whatever reasons the board should be cancelled and scored as appropriate. Otherwise the reg is meaningless. Just like I can open (in Holland but also international I guess) a 2C (strong or diamonds) on xxx xxx xxxx xxx and not on xxx xxx xxx xxxx. Like it or not, as soon as we start regulating systems you get this kind of boundaries. In French festivals they do have a very lax rule of 17 in 1st and 2nd (it is meant as anti-psych but it stops a 4333 9 count as well), but if you violate it you lose the board whatever the reason. TWO. I know the above regulation might infract the 'King below average' thing and can be considerd illegal. Nice, but in reality there is no practical way to attack a regulation of a SO let alone a NCBO. So if your NCBO has decided something you don't like I guess you are just out of luck (or try to reverse the decision internally). THREE. Disclosure. I agree with you that any NT range is a rough indication only. There is no reason to believe that 10-12 should and will be followed more strict than 15-17. Still you need to tell opponents your style. Some pairs rarely open 14 some do very often. Important to opps. Same applies for 10-12 (given that there is no regulation that forbids opening 9 counts). Wayne: > When hcp are defined in units a 0.5 unit is meaningless. I guess I could join the multitude who give meaningless explanations. Yes and no. Of course 0.5 HCP doesn't exist in a legal way but 14.5-16.5 NT on a CC is a very efficient way to state that you upgrade 14 and 17 counts quite often. FOUR. First time and habits. When ruling departure from system issues it seems everybody always claims it is the first time and of course partner could not know. Everybody knows that this is the correct legal defence. Besides it is often true. But not always. A serious problem because there is no practical way to check these statements. For example I am sure there is lots of players that open often on 14 a 15-17 NT without telling the opponents in any way. I guess this is just a fact of bridge life. When ruling (on AC) I/we have ocassionly ruled that we didn't buy the standard defence even if we cannot proof anything (legaly speaking we reverse the burden of proof, we call nobody a liar). But we do this in extreme cases only. Cases that have nothing to do with being a point short for a certain bid. So this is not meant as a defense for the zealotery of Herman. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 7:16 p.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > > Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. > > > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:08 US/Eastern, Herman De > > Wael wrote: > > > > > >> Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you > > wrote on the CC > > >> is not the one you are actually playing. > > >> > > >> > > >> OK now? > > >> Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and > > that evidence > > >> can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? > > >> > > > Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the > > conclusion to which > > > you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of > > evidence". I > > > haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and I > > have seen > > > that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition that the > > > conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct > > one. So no, not > > > okay. > > > > > > > > > What evidence? > > > > How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about > > other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? > > > > I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but > > you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always > > wrong in > > ruling as I do - how can you do that? > > > > Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary > > evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would > > always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you > > accept that you can rule against this player? > > The fallacy here is that just because a player will always open a > particular hand in a particular situation in no way necessarily means > that there is a partnership understanding to do that. > > The laws allow regulation of the partnership understanding they do not > allow regulation of the practice. > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jul 12 11:35:21 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:35:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Apology to Henk References: <7f.39da78fb.2c3d63f5@aol.com> Message-ID: <04e701c34861$6ca0a200$a8b64351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04DB_01C34872.0F3AF6E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kojak, Sorry for causing all these problems. Don't worry too much. I am sure = Henk doesn't mind. And I am sure Henk realised immediatly what happened = (at least I did when I saw your message). It is just one of those things = that happens (frequently) when using e-mail as a medium. Henk is an = expert on that matter. Never send a mail to the wrong person? Or pasted = the wrong text into something? I did all of them and then some. Kojak: Not to minimize my chagrin, but to explain, the thrust of my sentence = was that the underlying purpose of Henk, and even Jaap, seems to be one = of striving to improve our services to the bridge playing public, as = opposed to those who staunchly defend our creaky performances. I understand your 'even Jaap'. I guess I deserve some flak after = phrasing certain things less than perfect. But leave out the 'even'. = Everything I have written is meant in a constructive way. And I take = your postings as a big support. Because you of all people know how these = EBL/WBF organisations (mal)function. And what can and should be done to = improve them. But Menton was the bloody limit. It was just highway robbery. They = tripled the entry fees and the quality of the product was far worse = rather than better compared to previous events (which is not that = demanding a target). In that context I don't have so much problems with = 'attacking' certain individuals that have serious responsibilities. In = any normal organisation someone will raise the question 'do we have the = right people on the job' or 'is the organisation structure ok' when = things go wrong for the xth time. If you postpone that too long things = get out of hand. Look at what is going on at the AOC (american olympic = committee) for the moment. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Schoderb@aol.com=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:26 PM Subject: [blml] Apology to Henk In a post of mine I unfairly included Henk in my response as lacking = courtesy in his postings about Menton, etal. I was thinking of Jaap, = but for no reason that I can divine included Henk. I am sorry for any distress this may have caused you, Henk, and ask = your forgiveness for a stupid error. I will proofread my postings more = carefully from here on, and will not conveniently retreat into using = advancing age as an excuse for such an egregious error. Not to minimize my chagrin, but to explain, the thrust of my sentence = was that the underlying purpose of Henk, and even Jaap, seems to be one = of striving to improve our services to the bridge playing public, as = opposed to those who staunchly defend our creaky performances. I hope this clarifies my thinking, and again, Henk, sorry for the = error. Kojak ------=_NextPart_000_04DB_01C34872.0F3AF6E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kojak,
 
Sorry for causing all these problems. = Don't worry=20 too much. I am sure Henk doesn't mind. And I am sure Henk realised = immediatly=20 what happened (at least I did when I saw your message). It is just one = of those=20 things that happens (frequently) when using e-mail as a medium. Henk is = an=20 expert on that matter. Never send a mail to the wrong person? Or pasted = the=20 wrong text into something? I did all of them and then some.
 
Kojak:
Not to minimize my chagrin, but = to explain,=20 the thrust of my sentence was that the underlying purpose of Henk, and = even=20 Jaap, seems to be one of striving to improve our services to the bridge = playing=20 public, as opposed to those who staunchly defend our creaky=20 performances.
 
I understand your 'even Jaap'. I guess = I deserve=20 some flak after phrasing certain things less than perfect. But leave out = the=20 'even'. Everything I have written is meant in a constructive way. And I = take=20 your postings as a big support. Because you of all people know how these = EBL/WBF=20 organisations (mal)function. And what can and should be done to improve=20 them.
 
But Menton was the bloody limit. It was = just=20 highway robbery. They tripled the entry fees and the quality of the = product=20 was far worse rather than better compared to previous events (which is = not that=20 demanding a target). In that context I don't have so much problems with=20 'attacking' certain individuals that have serious responsibilities. In = any=20 normal organisation someone will raise the question 'do we have the = right people=20 on the job' or 'is the organisation structure ok' when things go wrong = for the=20 xth time. If you postpone that too long things get out of hand. Look at = what is=20 going on at the AOC (american olympic committee) for the = moment.
 
Jaap
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Schoderb@aol.com=20
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 = 2:26=20 PM
Subject: [blml] Apology to = Henk

In a post of = mine I unfairly=20 included Henk in my  response as lacking courtesy in his postings = about=20 Menton, etal.  I was thinking of Jaap, but for no reason that I = can=20 divine included Henk.

I am sorry for any distress this may have = caused=20 you, Henk, and ask your forgiveness for a stupid error.  I will = proofread=20 my postings more carefully from here on, and will not conveniently = retreat=20 into using advancing age as an excuse for such an egregious = error.

Not=20 to minimize my chagrin, but to explain, the thrust of my sentence was = that the=20 underlying purpose of Henk, and even Jaap, seems to be one of striving = to=20 improve our services to the bridge playing public, as opposed to those = who=20 staunchly defend our creaky performances.

I hope this clarifies = my=20 thinking, and again, Henk, sorry for the error.

Kojak=20
------=_NextPart_000_04DB_01C34872.0F3AF6E0-- From cascade@bridgebase.com Sun Jul 13 08:54:11 2003 From: cascade@bridgebase.com (Wayne Burrows (cascade)) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:54:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] Pro Question Message-ID: <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C34978.87E54A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 2S* 4H** P P*** P * Alerted ** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" and was told "yes" *** This player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable. Is a question before (almost) imminently passing the board out reasonable? I can only think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an inappropriate way of communicating with partner. Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H bidder? - A natural weak two would not need to be alerted. - The bid showed a weak two-suiter. While I have titled this as a 'Pro Question' in fact the 4H bidder was not a client but an experienced player who has won national championships. TIA Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C34978.87E54A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
2S* 4H** P=20 P***
P
 
*=20 Alerted
 
** Before=20 bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" and was = told=20 "yes"
 
*** This=20 player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable.
 
Is a=20 question before (almost) imminently passing the board out=20 reasonable?
 
I can only=20 think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an = inappropriate way=20 of communicating with partner.
 
Is a simple=20 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H=20 bidder?
- A natural=20 weak two would not need to be alerted. 
- The bid=20 showed a weak two-suiter.
 
While I have=20 titled this as a 'Pro Question' in fact the 4H bidder was not a client = but an=20 experienced player who has won national = championships.
 
TIA
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C34978.87E54A80-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jul 13 09:27:48 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:27:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <018701c348f1$dbc2c9c0$492f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <007c01c34918$d692e620$329468d5@tinyhrieuyik> BLML has discussed the subjective interpretation of "a high card point", as the EBU rules currenly define it, over many emails, without conclusion. A good illustration of why we "Walrus" players would prefer a more objective basis to the law. The common sense argument.... The EBU Orange book specifies HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 TDs and other "Secretary Birds" are so used to exercising "judgement" on every aspect of law that they applaud players who agree to open 11 HCP but write 12-14 HCP on their card. "Reading between the lines", they somehow even legalize oral elucidation in in terms of a mythical "fractional" HCP. WE less imaginative Walruses, mostly players, can see no possible ambiguity in the simple one line definition of HCP. Few of us would be "slave to a knave". We take the crude HCP measure as a rough base and add or subtract shape, texture and other measures. Manifestly, any composite assessment *is not HCP*. In particular, it is not HCP for the Orange Book "rule of 18/19" or for the EBU CC. The EBU CC has space to list requirements other than HCP. [Sorry could not keep my resolution to read only under such severe provocation] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 08/07/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sun Jul 13 09:49:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:49:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000801c3491b$b2e2d2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Wayne Burrows=20 2S* 4H** P P*** P =A0 * Alerted =A0 ** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" = and was told "yes" =A0 *** This player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable. =A0 Is a question before (almost) imminently passing the board out = reasonable? =A0 I can only think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an inappropriate way of communicating with partner. =A0 Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H bidder? - A natural weak two would not need to be alerted.=A0=20 - The bid showed a weak two-suiter. =A0 Sven: For simplification let me stipulate that the dealer was West: In my opinion North's question was badly formed; he should have avoided = any kind of leading question and just asked for an explanation. As the question was posed the answer "yes" is correct and sufficient (although it does not fully explain the call; and in particular it does = not explain why the call was alerted).=20 A question by South to the effect of obtaining a full explanation of the alerted opening bid could be in order, the explanation given so far was insufficient and South by asking does not give away the UI that he has = no need for the full explanation. Other questions by South will apparently = be more doubtful.=20 Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jul 13 09:56:06 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:56:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> <002101c34842$e5caf230$de86403e@endicott> Message-ID: <019601c3491c$99780f00$329468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan wrote] +=+ Since ton arrived in the chair and I became Secretary the WBFLC minutes have been promulgated to NBOs and have been put up on blml. I am not sure whether they are also to be found on the ecats website - Anna Gudge may have put them there. We make them available; it is not our responsibility to deliver them to individuals; it is for the NBO to circulate information as it thinks fit to its TDs/clubs etc. [Nigel] Manifestly the current system does not work -- see Richard Hill's "Beware of the Tiger" posts over the years. So the WBFLC should show initiative. Surely the WBFLC merits its own well publicised web site, mirrored/linked to NBOs, clubs etc. Perusal of the many endless circular arguments on BLML will confirm that some basic Simplification and Clarification would be better started before 2005. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 08/07/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jul 13 09:58:42 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:58:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <019c01c3491c$f636bc00$329468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan wrote] +=+ Since ton arrived in the chair and I became Secretary the WBFLC minutes have been promulgated to NBOs and have been put up on blml. I am not sure whether they are also to be found on the ecats website - Anna Gudge may have put them there. We make them available; it is not our responsibility to deliver them to individuals; it is for the NBO to circulate information as it thinks fit to its TDs/clubs etc. [Nigel] Manifestly the current system does not work -- see Richard Hill's "Beware of the Tiger" posts over the years. So the WBFLC should show initiative. Surely the WBFLC merits its own well publicised web site, mirrored/linked to NBOs, clubs etc. Perusal of the many endless circular arguments on BLML will confirm that some basic Simplification and Clarification would be better started before 2005. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 08/07/2003 From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jul 13 10:28:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:28:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F112622.7090901@skynet.be> OK Jaap, let's examine your post more carefully. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > First you are right I probably overdid the language. But then I was OK - we agree on that one. Your apologies have been noted. > expressing emotions which maybe is a no-no at blml but quite appropriate in > the context what players (including me) suffered at the hands of the EBL in > Menton. > > Second, maybe Ton's langauge is nicer (but not by much) than mine but what > he says and how he says is is far more insulting (IMHO) than just sometimes > writing column-style (what I tend to do). Besides Ton doesn't even realise > he insults people (see his last mail to Kojak). Now of course this is not an > excuse calling names but what else do you do to get through that thick skull > of his (if this is impolite English, sorry, but as far as I know it is a > normal expression). > > > Anyway to try once more: > > > Ton > > > It didn't take more than 20 minutes delay to have both events > started. > Jaap > > This is not true. Certain events started at least half an hour > late. > Herman > yes-no-yes-no - hardly the way to conduct a discussion. > > Since you where there as member of the AC and since you would be most happy > to contradict me (given the nature of your mail) we can safely assume I was > right (I was, I was waiting at the table) so Ton is twisting facts as usual. I was also in the room - and seeing lots of directors trying in vain to get the people to sit down so they could check for holes. I did not notice any undue delay - but of course if you believe 20 minutes is undue, then you are right. Maybe there is a bit of romanic <-> germanic style here. French and Italians sit down 5 minutes after they are asked to do so, Brits and Scandinavians 5 minutes before the scheduled time, so mayb we should start calling the people ten minutes before starting time? > Beside the TD's had a bet among themselves about the 'real' starting time. > If necessary I can find out what were the winning guesses. > > > Ton: > > Players seem to accept such delay > Jaap > > Players hate it > Herman >> Of course they do - and yet they accept it. Or do you really > believe you can start a 400 pair tournament at the > >>precise starting time? >> > > I don't expect EBL/WBF events to start anywhere near the starting time. Come > on, I have enough inside information to know that the organisation is > screwed up with political infighting and such. Don't believe me? Just ask Why should political infighting influence starting times? I don't see your point. > the TD's themselves. They will immediatly admit that it is impossible to > adhere to the planning given the quality of the planning and other > constraints. Still a lot (actually almost all) of tournaments all over the > world of comparable size (and bigger) start at the announced time or with a > normal small delay (5 to 10 minutes). So EBL/WBF organisations are among the > worst in the world from a players/customer point of view. Herman and Ton as > high level officials should maybe spend more time improving things than > defending the current mess (or is mess also a misuse of language). > > Jaap > > you self-satisfied fool. > Herman > > That's one. > > You are right. I should have put that one different for blml purposes. > Sorry. > > > Jaap > But whenever we want to play > >>>EBL or WBF championship we know we have to suffer amateuristic >>>organisation >>> > Herman >> That's two. > > Now you amaze me. I admit number one is calling names. But number two is > IMHO a reasonable way to express an opinion. In Menton the playing Well, in the general tone of your post, I chose to call this an insult. The people working at the tournament are, for the most part, experienced at their jobs, many actually employed by the FFB and FIGB. To call them amateuristic is an insult, IMO. Calling the organisation amateuristic is as well. Below the best in some other country, maybe, but amateuristic, no. > conditions were terrible. The delay's before starting often upwards of half > an hour. The waiting time between the rounds of the swiss way too long. That one is true. And I told you where it originated. > There were serious duplicating problems resulting in cancelling some > matches. A total of 9 matches, 6 of which finally were not replayed. A serious mistake, true. So? > There was no practical way to get a cold drink. ETC. Have we That one is valid. > forgotten already about Salso (also bad conditions, but nothing learned) and > Lille (where the final got completely botched up, have we learned anything > yet) ? Come on Herman, please tell me why I cannot call EBL/WBF operations > amateuristic. Actually I think it is a rather gentle way of putting it. You > don't want me to call these EBL/WBF efforts 'proffesional' do you. Nobody > would take me serious anymore if I did so. > > > Jaap > so we have no choice. In that sense we seem to accept it. > >>>But when waiting we all curse those incompetent idiots who are >>> > Herman: >> That's three. > > Please be a little precise Herman. Once more I admit number one was calling > names. But number three is reporting style. I describe the athmosphere > during the long waits (at 35 degrees upward). At these moments all kind of > ugly things are said, I don't make those things up. That is what people say > if you treat them the way the EBL did in Menton. Don't kill the messager. > But yes I could have used slightly different words. > I find "incompetent idiots" a far more serious insult than "amateuristic". So if I'm counting two, please allow me to count three. > Jaap: > > responsible for the mess and never seem to improve. And don't > worry, so > >>>does the lower ranking staff as well as long as the fat cats are not >>>listening in. >>> > Herman >> That's four. > > Three and four are one sentence so you cannot count like that. Besides it is > true info. Don't blame me for being a journalist. And 'fat cats' is > normal (American) English as far as I know. > Normal and Derogatory. I don't think that calling a person in charge a "fat cat" has anything to do with the competence or incompetence of the work force. you were criticizing the organisation "in the field". Why drag in your view on the executive as well? > > Herman > Henk, I really believe this poster needs a lesson in etiquette. > >>Please take the appropriate measures. >> >> > > Poor Henk has already answered to my mail in a constructive way so now it is > not so easy for him to do so anymore. So I will do it myself. I should not > have called Ton a *****. This was silly and unproductive. But the rest of > Herman's complaints get rejected as it stands. Besides Herman's track record > is not such that he should be the first to invoke the need for a lesson in > etiquette. > You mentioned me calling Wayne a liar. I did not do so. I said I would treat him as a liar if he tried opening a 9-count and telling me it were the first time he had done so. I may be guilty of some name-calling myself, that's true. But that does not automatically grant you or anyone the right to do the same. Nor does it abrogate my right to believe that someone is going too far. If I call you a dutch idiot, we both know that this is meant well. It's name-calling, true, and maybe to some others it is going too far. Get my point? BTW, I apologise for calling you a dutch idiot. > Jaap > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jul 13 10:38:26 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:38:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <018801c348f1$e10f4b60$492f37d2@Desktop> <002f01c3490d$a7279ee0$25ac53d4@Default> Message-ID: <3F112892.4010605@skynet.be> I wanted to comment on Wayne, but I believe Jaap has done an adequate job. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Wayne, > > > ONE. In general I am not in favor of regulatiuons that say 'you cannot open > on less than 10 points'. Nor am I, BTW. > But I can imagine very well that kind of regs to > protect beginners and such. Anyway if a SO has decreed so I think that when > a 9 count is opened for whatever reasons the board should be cancelled and > scored as appropriate. Otherwise the reg is meaningless. Just like I can > open (in Holland but also international I guess) a 2C (strong or diamonds) > on xxx xxx xxxx xxx and not on xxx xxx xxx xxxx. Like it or not, as soon as > we start regulating systems you get this kind of boundaries. In French > festivals they do have a very lax rule of 17 in 1st and 2nd (it is meant as > anti-psych but it stops a 4333 9 count as well), but if you violate it you > lose the board whatever the reason. > Indeed, the regulation is simple, wo why not just follow it? Why try to wriggle out of it? > TWO. I know the above regulation might infract the 'King below average' > thing and can be considerd illegal. Nice, but in reality there is no > practical way to attack a regulation of a SO let alone a NCBO. So if your > NCBO has decided something you don't like I guess you are just out of luck > (or try to reverse the decision internally). > Absolutely agreed on that one. > THREE. Disclosure. I agree with you that any NT range is a rough indication > only. There is no reason to believe that 10-12 should and will be followed > more strict than 15-17. Still you need to tell opponents your style. Some > pairs rarely open 14 some do very often. Important to opps. Same applies for > 10-12 (given that there is no regulation that forbids opening 9 counts). > Of course. > Wayne: > >>When hcp are defined in units a 0.5 unit is meaningless. I guess I could >> > join the multitude who give meaningless explanations. > > Yes and no. Of course 0.5 HCP doesn't exist in a legal way but 14.5-16.5 NT > on a CC is a very efficient way to state that you upgrade 14 and 17 counts > quite often. > > FOUR. First time and habits. When ruling departure from system issues it > seems everybody always claims it is the first time and of course partner > could not know. Everybody knows that this is the correct legal defence. > Besides it is often true. But not always. A serious problem because there is > no practical way to check these statements. For example I am sure there is > lots of players that open often on 14 a 15-17 NT without telling the > opponents in any way. I guess this is just a fact of bridge life. When > ruling (on AC) I/we have ocassionly ruled that we didn't buy the standard > defence even if we cannot proof anything (legaly speaking we reverse the > burden of proof, we call nobody a liar). But we do this in extreme cases > only. Cases that have nothing to do with being a point short for a certain > bid. > Exactly. In my experience on the Law of 18 (years ago) it was always the same players who told me that this was the first time and that their partners did not know. BS. If a player opens a 15-17NT on 14, I can and will assume that he has done so before, and that his partner knows it (and does not cater for it). I will rule that the opponents had the right to know about the possibility (and probably not be damaged by it). So why should I not do the same on a 9-point opening when playing 10-12? > So this is not meant as a defense for the zealotery of Herman. > There is no zealotry involved, Jaap, just plain common sense. That we happen to share. > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:50 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >>>Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 7:16 p.m. >>>To: blml >>>Subject: Re: [blml] HCP >>> >>> >>>Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. >>> >>>Ed Reppert wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:08 US/Eastern, Herman De >>>> >>>Wael wrote: >>> >>>>>Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you >>>>> >>>wrote on the CC >>> >>>>>is not the one you are actually playing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>OK now? >>>>>Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and >>>>> >>>that evidence >>> >>>>>can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the >>>> >>>conclusion to which >>> >>>>you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of >>>> >>>evidence". I >>> >>>>haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and I >>>> >>>have seen >>> >>>>that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition that the >>>>conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct >>>> >>>one. So no, not >>> >>>>okay. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>What evidence? >>> >>>How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about >>>other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? >>> >>>I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but >>>you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always >>>wrong in >>>ruling as I do - how can you do that? >>> >>>Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary >>>evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would >>>always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you >>>accept that you can rule against this player? >>> >>The fallacy here is that just because a player will always open a >>particular hand in a particular situation in no way necessarily means >>that there is a partnership understanding to do that. >> >>The laws allow regulation of the partnership understanding they do not >>allow regulation of the practice. >> >>Wayne >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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 >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jul 13 10:51:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:51:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <012901c348f0$79e7a140$492f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F112BAD.6020601@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>Yes it is quite different. But when you open a 9pointer, how are you >>going to prove that this is not a partnership agreement? >> > > You will ask me and I will tell you and show you my notes etc. > And of course those notes will not mention that certain 9-counts are opened 1NT. So what proof is that? Wayne, I'm not talking about any player here, I am talking of the wilful weak opener who resents being restricted and tries to wriggle out of the restriction. These things always seem to happen with people who write their CCs as being the lowest acceptable range, and then (just for the first time) go under that range. I'm telling you that I have a nose for these things and I don't need any additional evidence in ruling against them. I can also tell you that sometimes a pair can genuinely make me believe them. But not often. Besides, most often these 9-counts are exceptionally good ones. If a mediocre 9-count is opened, I might even allow it. but it's always a 9.7-count. That also makes me itch. > >>If you bid 2Di over 1NT, when holding hearts, is that not a piece of >>evidence that you may well have an agreement to play >>transfers? And if >>transfers are not on your CC, is it not possible that we rule >>that the >>CC is faulty? >> > > Yes and I will tell you that I was playing transfers or I thought I was > unless in fact that was not so. > Of course you would - because transfers are not forbidden. If you open a 14-count when announcing 15-17, and I ask you why, you will readily tell me that you upgraded the 14 to 15 because of the tens. And you would happily accept my ruling that this makes it systemic and disclosable, because that is all the ruling to it. But if you open a 9-count, and you know that this is illegal if systemic, you will not tell me that it is. Instead, you will insist that this was the first time. That's a self-serving statement and I don't need to count it when evaluating the pieces of evidence that I have. > > > >>I'm not talking regulation here, I'm talking rulings. >>I'm not saying that the regulation forbids you to deviate from your >>agreements. I'm saying that I shall rule that it is part of your >>agreement, and there is no way you will be able to prove that >>it's not. >> > > You have no right to make this ruling unless you have substantial > evidence. > Well, I have the hand as substantial evidence. And I have your statement (which probably talks of tens and tenaces and such). And I have discounted the statement that partner does not know and the statement that it is the first time. I have also discounted your CC. What other evidence do I have to the contrary - none. What evidence could I expect to the pro - none. On the preponderance of evidence I rule that your opening is systemic. I have every right to do so. > If I say that it is not and show you evidence that it is not then I > would expect any reasonable TD to agree with me. > If you have evidence, yes. But I doubt that you can have. Remember that you are forbidden to write your true agreement on your CC. What is the difference between you (presumably totally honest and correct) and the lying cheat next to you who opens the same hand while having told partner (but not us) that he is in fact playing 9-12. The only way to stop the cheat is by also stopping the possibly honest player. > Wayne > > >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jul 13 11:01:25 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:01:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <018701c348f1$dbc2c9c0$492f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F112DF5.8030401@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I would hope that the SO would not use any TD that continued with this > unilateral confrontational approach without gathering further evidence. > Why do you assume I would not gather further evidence? I'm talking about typical cases here, Wayne, and I have some experience as to the nature of the evidence I have encountered in the past. And that is what I am talking of. I have no quarrel with you if you state this as a hypothetical. But I am talking of real cases, and of an impossibility of catching regular cheats. The problem with your approach, Wayne, is that you will allow habitual underbidders to get away with it because you insist on needing further proof. While honest players, who would also like to open the same hand but don't because of the regulation, are disadvantaged. Tell me Wayne, where your insistence comes from. Are you a player who is bound by some NZ regulation and is trying to wriggle out of it? Or are you a TD, faced with an ACBL problem and no experience, and argueing out of concern for the freedom ofn speach? I suspect the former. I suspect also that when I am faced with you, at the table for the first time, I will be able to tell whether you have genuinely miscounted your points, or whether you were upgrading a 9-count. > Wayne > > > >> >>>GRB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>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 >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Jul 13 11:34:20 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:34:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <018801c348f1$e10f4b60$492f37d2@Desktop> <002f01c3490d$a7279ee0$25ac53d4@Default> <3F112892.4010605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003d01c3492a$5295a9e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Herman, I do not support your final conclusion. If opening 9HCP is illegal, illegal it is, you open you lose the board (60-0 or such). If it is not then opening 10-12 with 9 is the same as opening 15-17 with 14. This happens, everybody knows, and if it happens it is in itself no proof the pair doesn't play 15-17 or 10-12. I might get suspicious if there is absolutly no objective reason (nice hand, late in a KO, green against red 1st or 3rd, etc.) but even then I am unlikely to do anything without supporting info. I have no proof and it is not something too serious. The problem with acting agressively is 1) that you might make a silly mistake attacking the wrong person who never does anything but who just miscounted his points or whatever and 2) that players start to describe 1NT as '14-18 almost any shape' rather than 15-17 balanced what they are actually playing. And a last word to the wise. A CC is a limited instrument. Being concise and complete is a contradiction. You can always ask about style if it really is important. Most of the time you get an answer. Most players just enjoy the game and play by the rules. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > I wanted to comment on Wayne, but I believe Jaap has done an adequate job. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Wayne, > > > > > > ONE. In general I am not in favor of regulatiuons that say 'you cannot open > > on less than 10 points'. > > > Nor am I, BTW. > > > But I can imagine very well that kind of regs to > > protect beginners and such. Anyway if a SO has decreed so I think that when > > a 9 count is opened for whatever reasons the board should be cancelled and > > scored as appropriate. Otherwise the reg is meaningless. Just like I can > > open (in Holland but also international I guess) a 2C (strong or diamonds) > > on xxx xxx xxxx xxx and not on xxx xxx xxx xxxx. Like it or not, as soon as > > we start regulating systems you get this kind of boundaries. In French > > festivals they do have a very lax rule of 17 in 1st and 2nd (it is meant as > > anti-psych but it stops a 4333 9 count as well), but if you violate it you > > lose the board whatever the reason. > > > > > Indeed, the regulation is simple, wo why not just follow it? Why try > to wriggle out of it? > > > > TWO. I know the above regulation might infract the 'King below average' > > thing and can be considerd illegal. Nice, but in reality there is no > > practical way to attack a regulation of a SO let alone a NCBO. So if your > > NCBO has decided something you don't like I guess you are just out of luck > > (or try to reverse the decision internally). > > > > > Absolutely agreed on that one. > > > > THREE. Disclosure. I agree with you that any NT range is a rough indication > > only. There is no reason to believe that 10-12 should and will be followed > > more strict than 15-17. Still you need to tell opponents your style. Some > > pairs rarely open 14 some do very often. Important to opps. Same applies for > > 10-12 (given that there is no regulation that forbids opening 9 counts). > > > > > Of course. > > > > Wayne: > > > >>When hcp are defined in units a 0.5 unit is meaningless. I guess I could > >> > > join the multitude who give meaningless explanations. > > > > Yes and no. Of course 0.5 HCP doesn't exist in a legal way but 14.5-16.5 NT > > on a CC is a very efficient way to state that you upgrade 14 and 17 counts > > quite often. > > > > FOUR. First time and habits. When ruling departure from system issues it > > seems everybody always claims it is the first time and of course partner > > could not know. Everybody knows that this is the correct legal defence. > > Besides it is often true. But not always. A serious problem because there is > > no practical way to check these statements. For example I am sure there is > > lots of players that open often on 14 a 15-17 NT without telling the > > opponents in any way. I guess this is just a fact of bridge life. When > > ruling (on AC) I/we have ocassionly ruled that we didn't buy the standard > > defence even if we cannot proof anything (legaly speaking we reverse the > > burden of proof, we call nobody a liar). But we do this in extreme cases > > only. Cases that have nothing to do with being a point short for a certain > > bid. > > > > > Exactly. In my experience on the Law of 18 (years ago) it was always > the same players who told me that this was the first time and that > their partners did not know. BS. If a player opens a 15-17NT on 14, I > can and will assume that he has done so before, and that his partner > knows it (and does not cater for it). I will rule that the opponents > had the right to know about the possibility (and probably not be > damaged by it). > So why should I not do the same on a 9-point opening when playing 10-12? > > > > So this is not meant as a defense for the zealotery of Herman. > > > > > There is no zealotry involved, Jaap, just plain common sense. That we > happen to share. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "'blml'" > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:50 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > > > > > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > >>>Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>>Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 7:16 p.m. > >>>To: blml > >>>Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > >>> > >>> > >>>Ed, sorry, but this discussion is fruitless. > >>> > >>>Ed Reppert wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:08 US/Eastern, Herman De > >>>> > >>>Wael wrote: > >>> > >>>>>Even one gray opening is evidence that the system you > >>>>> > >>>wrote on the CC > >>> > >>>>>is not the one you are actually playing. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>OK now? > >>>>>Do you really want to argue that this is evidence - and > >>>>> > >>>that evidence > >>> > >>>>>can lead to a ruling - together with all other pieces of evidence? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Is it evidence? Yes. Does it necessarily imply the > >>>> > >>>conclusion to which > >>> > >>>>you impute it? No. Now you bring in "all other pieces of > >>>> > >>>evidence". I > >>> > >>>>haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me - and I > >>>> > >>>have seen > >>> > >>>>that you seem to include as "evidence" your supposition that the > >>>>conclusion you wish to reach *must* be the only correct > >>>> > >>>one. So no, not > >>> > >>>>okay. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>What evidence? > >>> > >>>How can we have a serious discussion if we are both talking about > >>>other evidence, even without an actual case to refer to? > >>> > >>>I'm not saying that other evidence cannot make me rule otherwise, but > >>>you are! You are trying to convince me that I would be always > >>>wrong in > >>>ruling as I do - how can you do that? > >>> > >>>Can you not see that there are cases where there is no contrary > >>>evidence? Where every indication you have is that this player would > >>>always open this hand - where he might even say so? Why don't you > >>>accept that you can rule against this player? > >>> > >>The fallacy here is that just because a player will always open a > >>particular hand in a particular situation in no way necessarily means > >>that there is a partnership understanding to do that. > >> > >>The laws allow regulation of the partnership understanding they do not > >>allow regulation of the practice. > >> > >>Wayne > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>blml mailing list > >>blml@rtflb.org > >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jul 13 10:42:46 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:42:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> Message-ID: <004a01c34930$9f373880$7f24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Thanks for your answer. I will try to take it easy on > certain persons. I agree with you that we should be > very careful to blame individuals. .< ..................... \x/ ........................... > > Ton has this irritating habit to assume only he knows > the facts. Nobody else can know (why ?) so nobody > can criticise him because nobody but Ton has the > facts. Great. Still I got wrong boards on my table. Why > cannot I complain. Is it so different from getting the > wrong food in a restaurant or the dentist pulling the > wrong teeth ? > .................... \x/ ............................ > Grattan: > > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > Jaap: > And you mentioned other serious problems with the > scoring. And there were 'funny' problems as well. All > programs and print-out were in Italian, not exactly the > official language of the EBL. The few computer > screens had terrible resolution. It was the first time > since ages I have seen the Norton Commander (a pre > windows software program). The computers in the > press-room had Italian windows installed. Normal ? > Of course not. This is just Rona bringing his Italian > crew along. Why ? Ask Rona. Not because they are > good, they are not, and one phonecall to the FFB > or NBB (and probably others) will get you a much > better crew. Besides a Dutch crew (compared to > a French or Italian one) also is sure to speak English > which IMHO is essential in an international environment. > I am quite sure Ton could not speak directly to quite > some non trivial crew members due to lack of common > language. Strange that some problems occured. > Grattan: +=+ I do NOT subscribe to any view that attaches all the strengths or all the weaknesses to any one nationality. Every nation produces capable people of quality in their own fields of activity. An international body can select people, regardless of nationality, for their skills in doing the job that is required to be done. You are wrong to dismiss the Italian crew as 'not good'; among them there are those who have what it takes - for example the guy who looks after the non-scoring technology is very able (he rapidly provided English on screen in the press room), and I have admiration for the hard working team that sets up and takes down. Among the Dutch the people who stand out, for me, are Lowerse and his wife on line-up - calm, unflustered, effectual performance personified. My opinion is that the conduct of a tournament needs a unified command, with a single Commander in Chief; I think the law book correctly identifies the fact that the C-in-C has to be the Chief Director. The failings we have experienced are due in great measure to the splitting of responsibilities and the lack of a single authority in charge of the whole operation during the course of the tournament. As for Rona, I disagree with your references to him: I regard him as a very able man and I believe he will act strongly. He is learning the hard way, and I feel he has not had all the information on which to make his decisions (I do not think, for instance, that anyone had let him know beforehand that the scoring program was flawed), nor has he been aware of some of the other critical underlying weaknesses. Menton will have opened his eyes and there is no chance that he will tolerate substandard performance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jul 13 12:20:07 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:20:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <005101c34930$ca5f58d0$7f24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > Once again, the bridge laws (and regs) have become > a ungainly mess. People have blamed Kaplan for using > too many different words for the same concept. > But is Grattan language so much better if it comes to > being clear and simple and to being understandable > by non lawers and non native speakers ? I sometimes > wonder. But before you get me wrong. From time to > time I really enjoy the way you put things. But my > pleasure and sensible laws are not the same. > > Jaap > +=+ First, a matter under discussion is not one finally agreed, neither as to language nor as to content.. Second, writing a law is not the same exercise as writing teasingly on blml. Have you read a law drafted by me? ~ G ~ +=+ From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Sun Jul 13 12:30:33 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:30:33 +0400 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3F11138E.9000104@elnet.msk.ru> References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> <+z0O9WDC0tD$EwJG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c347d7$78660b00$754127d9@pbncomputer> <3F11138E.9000104@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: <3F1142D9.4070307@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) David Burn wrote: > Unfortunately, Law 73 does not tell players what they should do. It > expresses a pious hope, rather than anything that may suggest a course > of action...... Law 73, like the rest of what used to be the > Proprieties, should be > buried deep within the earth, with no monument to mark its resting > place. It should certainly not be used as a basis on which to tell > anybody anything, for as such it is utterly worthless. Quite emotional message, even it looks to me like homily. English isn't my native language - so may I use the expression "pious homily"? Or in context of DB's post it meant rather "sunctimonious" than "religious"?:) It is not the first David's attack on Proprieties - so I'll try to express another position. I wrote several times that (for my opinion) there were two origines of bridge rights and customs: written one - the Laws and unwritten - the Legend. The Laws described bridge procedure (irregularities, penalties etc.) - and the Legend decribed bridge etics (morality, behavior etc). The Legend was formed by great creators and founders of our game, they taught us how one should behave oneself at the bridge table and out of it. But time passed and the only possible chance to save their heritage was to include their ideas to the Laws. Due to Proprieties players get to know how to behave during the game. Moreover - they learn even how to behave in human society. And it is (for my opinion) main feature that differs bridge from a lot of other intellectual games. Without such Proprieties the Laws will become list of pure technical points and the Bridge will lose his main attractiveness for millions of its amatours - as kind of interhuman relations. Best wishes, Vitold From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Jul 13 13:28:44 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:28:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <004a01c34930$9f373880$7f24e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001701c3493a$4e09c5e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Grattan, Of course you are right I should not generalise but I did not (intend) to do that. I am sure there are very capable Italian individuals just as there are hopeless Dutch ones. My first remark was about the Italian score-room as a whole. They have done it before and if after all those years this is all they can do I think it is quite normal to question their ability. I know for sure others can do a better job than they do. I just mentioned the French and the Dutch because they have by far the largest standing organisations and most if not all the equipment and a qualified crew is directly available. If really necessary the French and or the Dutch can organize a Menton style event with two weeks notice or so (given a venue). Nobody else can except maybe the ACBL. My second remark is that it seems a normal requirement to speak English in order to work in an international organisation. As for Rona. Of course I like him, who doesn't, and yes I think as well he is ok as a person. I reproach him nothing personally. Anyway, it is more about the EBL-executive, I realise it is not a one-man show. But your argument 'that he hasn't been told' is no good IMHO. If he is in charge, and if not him who is, then it is his job to make sure that you are been told everything that is relevant. Management 101. Maybe there are too many yes-men around? Anyway, when I as a customer of the EBL (paying client in Menton) discover that the product is not good, I don't care what went wrong but however was in charge didn't do his job. If I buy a TV-set in a shop and it doesn't work I also don't care what went wrong in the factory in China or whatever. Now I understand Rona is the president and not a/the operational manager. But then Rona/EBL made the mistake of not delegating enough authority and recources to whoever had to run the show. Once again, but you said so yourself, if the responsabilities are unclear you are sure to end up with one big mess. Grattan: > Menton will have > opened his eyes and there is no chance that he will > tolerate substandard performance. Yes, but. Rona has been around for decades. The EBL organises these kind of events for decades. So I think it is a substandard argument. If Rona was really good he should not have needed this disaster to know his job. Salso or Lille could also have opened his eyes. Now this is not to attack Rona personally. It is just to show that something is very wrong in the EBL. In Holland we also change presidents from time to time and in Holland we don't need this kind of disastrous eye-openers to get the guy going. As for your 'the CTD is in charge'. Well I don't really care how you call the operational boss. I would not call him CTD because that is already used for another task. Anyway, someone has to be in charge of an event. And the executive should back off. In Holland it is unthinkable that the president of the federation interferes directly in operational affairs. One of the big problems IMHO of EBL/WBF events is that the executive is around all the time and interfering with everything. Maybe because they have to justify their stay. I think it is open to discussion why these events should carry the costs of lodging, whining and dining of all those people for the whole period. They can do their meetings and stuff in a couple of days max I guess. Anyway the executive should pick a good CEO (or whatever his name) and let him do his job. If he is no good replace him but hands off otherwise. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Cc: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "My English text is chaste and all licentious > passages are left in the obscurity of a learned > language." [Edward Gibbon] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:42 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > Thanks for your answer. I will try to take it easy on > > certain persons. I agree with you that we should be > > very careful to blame individuals. > .< > ..................... \x/ ........................... > > > > Ton has this irritating habit to assume only he knows > > the facts. Nobody else can know (why ?) so nobody > > can criticise him because nobody but Ton has the > > facts. Great. Still I got wrong boards on my table. Why > > cannot I complain. Is it so different from getting the > > wrong food in a restaurant or the dentist pulling the > > wrong teeth ? > > > .................... \x/ ............................ > > > Grattan: > > > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > > > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > > > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > > > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > > > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > > > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > > > Jaap: > > And you mentioned other serious problems with the > > scoring. And there were 'funny' problems as well. All > > programs and print-out were in Italian, not exactly the > > official language of the EBL. The few computer > > screens had terrible resolution. It was the first time > > since ages I have seen the Norton Commander (a pre > > windows software program). The computers in the > > press-room had Italian windows installed. Normal ? > > Of course not. This is just Rona bringing his Italian > > crew along. Why ? Ask Rona. Not because they are > > good, they are not, and one phonecall to the FFB > > or NBB (and probably others) will get you a much > > better crew. Besides a Dutch crew (compared to > > a French or Italian one) also is sure to speak English > > which IMHO is essential in an international environment. > > I am quite sure Ton could not speak directly to quite > > some non trivial crew members due to lack of common > > language. Strange that some problems occured. > > > Grattan: > +=+ I do NOT subscribe to any view that attaches all > the strengths or all the weaknesses to any one nationality. > Every nation produces capable people of quality in their > own fields of activity. An international body can select > people, regardless of nationality, for their skills in doing > the job that is required to be done. You are wrong to > dismiss the Italian crew as 'not good'; among them there > are those who have what it takes - for example the guy > who looks after the non-scoring technology is very able > (he rapidly provided English on screen in the press > room), and I have admiration for the hard working team > that sets up and takes down. Among the Dutch the people > who stand out, for me, are Lowerse and his wife on line-up > - calm, unflustered, effectual performance personified. > My opinion is that the conduct of a tournament needs > a unified command, with a single Commander in Chief; > I think the law book correctly identifies the fact that the > C-in-C has to be the Chief Director. The failings we have > experienced are due in great measure to the splitting > of responsibilities and the lack of a single authority in > charge of the whole operation during the course of the > tournament. As for Rona, I disagree with your references > to him: I regard him as a very able man and I believe he > will act strongly. He is learning the hard way, and I feel > he has not had all the information on which to make his > decisions (I do not think, for instance, that anyone had > let him know beforehand that the scoring program was > flawed), nor has he been aware of some of the other > critical underlying weaknesses. Menton will have > opened his eyes and there is no chance that he will > tolerate substandard performance. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@att.net Sun Jul 13 15:54:31 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:54:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <005101c34930$ca5f58d0$7f24e150@endicott> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: Jaap van der Neut; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > Second, writing a law is not the same exercise > as writing teasingly on blml. Have you read a law > drafted by me? > ~ G ~ +=+ Not that I can remember or am aware of. Can you provide us with an example? -Todd "I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible." -- Catherine Moreland via Jane Austen From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jul 13 18:58:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:58:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <018801c348f1$e10f4b60$492f37d2@Desktop> <002f01c3490d$a7279ee0$25ac53d4@Default> <3F112892.4010605@skynet.be> <003d01c3492a$5295a9e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F119DDA.4080900@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > I do not support your final conclusion. If opening 9HCP is illegal, illegal > it is, you open you lose the board (60-0 or such). If it is not then opening > 10-12 with 9 is the same as opening 15-17 with 14. This happens, everybody No Jaap, you have that one wrong. Opening with 9 is not illegal, nor can it ever be so. Opening with 0 is a psyche and is allowed. Opening with 9, when playing 15-17, ought to be allowed. What is not allowed is opening with 9, when playing 10-12, and pointing to tens and five-card suits to explain the difference. Indeed, as you say, opening with 9 on 10-12 is the same as opening with 14 on 15-17. Both are minor misexplanations. But the first is also an illegal system (in some NCBOs) while the second one isn't. > knows, and if it happens it is in itself no proof the pair doesn't play > 15-17 or 10-12. I might get suspicious if there is absolutly no objective > reason (nice hand, late in a KO, green against red 1st or 3rd, etc.) but > even then I am unlikely to do anything without supporting info. I have no > proof and it is not something too serious. The problem with acting > agressively is 1) that you might make a silly mistake attacking the wrong > person who never does anything but who just miscounted his points or > whatever and 2) that players start to describe 1NT as '14-18 almost any > shape' rather than 15-17 balanced what they are actually playing. > Very good point. I also don't like people describing their NT as 14-18 just in case they have a very good 14. 14.8-17.2 would be a better description. But then we go back again to the 9-pointer - and 9.8-10.2 is an illegal range! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Jul 13 21:05:59 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:05:59 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F112DF5.8030401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c3497a$2e6d2b10$6a2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Sunday, 13 July 2003 10:01 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > I would hope that the SO would not use any TD that > continued with this > > unilateral confrontational approach without gathering > further evidence. > > > > > Why do you assume I would not gather further evidence? Your statements do not suggest any evidence gathering: "Similarly, if you open on 9 whilst playing 10-12, in Belgium, I will tell you to change your CC to 9.5-12 and I will tell your opponents they have been misinformed but probably not damaged. But then playing 9.5-12 is not forbidden in Belgium." 'if...' then '...I will' not so much as a suggestion of gathering evidence. > I'm talking about typical cases here, Wayne, and I have some > experience as to the nature of the evidence I have encountered in the > past. And that is what I am talking of. I have no quarrel with you if > you state this as a hypothetical. But I am talking of real cases, and > of an impossibility of catching regular cheats. > The problem with your approach, Wayne, is that you will allow > habitual > underbidders to get away with it because you insist on > needing further > proof. While honest players, who would also like to open the > same hand > but don't because of the regulation, are disadvantaged. > > Tell me Wayne, where your insistence comes from. Are you a player who > is bound by some NZ regulation and is trying to wriggle out of it? Or > are you a TD, faced with an ACBL problem and no experience, and > argueing out of concern for the freedom ofn speach? Maybe you are not as good at forming an opinion based on the evidence as you think. I don't think I fit into either of your categories. The NZ regulation for 1NT openings is ... "An opening 1NT bid which either could be less than 8 high card points or where the possibility of a singleton is more than just a rare exception. If however 1NT promises at least 17 HCP then any distribution is permitted" So 8-10 is allowed. The lowest range that I play is 11-14 and then we have agreed to not open some 11s. I may have played a lower range briefly 12 years ago when I experimented with Ferts but I do not have my notes readily available and I can not recall the range - It was probably 9-12. My problem is simply this: The law allows restriction of agreements or understandings; The law allows a player to depart from that agreement on any given hand whether by 1 point or by 10 points. In my opinion ... an entry on the CC 1NT = 10-12 Balanced and an explanation when the bid was made of our agreement is 10-12 but 'Wayne' sometimes opens 9 counts ... are both consistent with a pair who have agreed to play 10-12 1NT. Neither the regulators nor the TD have any lawful right to limit a player's judgement. They only have a right to limit the partnership's agreements and understandings. > > I suspect the former. > > I suspect also that when I am faced with you, at the table for the > first time, I will be able to tell whether you have genuinely > miscounted your points, or whether you were upgrading a 9-count. Good luck. I suspect you will create a major problem if you start calling me a cheat when you do not know and that I know that I am not. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > >> > >>>GRB > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>-- > >>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 > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 13 21:04:31 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:04:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003d01c3492a$5295a9e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <37522522-B56D-11D7-AC8C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 06:34 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > I do not support your final conclusion. If opening 9HCP is illegal, > illegal > it is, you open you lose the board (60-0 or such). Please show me the logical chain which, under the laws, leads to a score of "60-0" on this board. For purposes of the demonstration, I will accept that there is a regulation (made under which law, though?) that says that opening on 9 HCP is prohibited, and waive the question whether such a regulation is legal. If a score adjustment is appropriate, then it must be made IAW the relevant law(s). If a DP or PP is appropriate, that is a different matter entirely, and has nothing to do with the score on the board. From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jul 13 21:31:24 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:31:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c3497a$2e6d2b10$6a2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F11C19C.7050706@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>Why do you assume I would not gather further evidence? >> > > Your statements do not suggest any evidence gathering: > Well, I do anyway - I ask you to explain and I listen to your arguments. > "Similarly, if you open on 9 whilst playing 10-12, in Belgium, I will > tell you to change your CC to 9.5-12 and I will tell your opponents > they have been misinformed but probably not damaged. But then playing > 9.5-12 is not forbidden in Belgium." > > 'if...' then '...I will' not so much as a suggestion of gathering > evidence. > That is taken out of context. It should add ... and from other evidence I conclude that you do this systematically ... > > >>I'm talking about typical cases here, Wayne, and I have some >>experience as to the nature of the evidence I have encountered in the >>past. And that is what I am talking of. I have no quarrel with you if >>you state this as a hypothetical. But I am talking of real cases, and >>of an impossibility of catching regular cheats. >>The problem with your approach, Wayne, is that you will allow >>habitual >>underbidders to get away with it because you insist on >>needing further >>proof. While honest players, who would also like to open the >>same hand >>but don't because of the regulation, are disadvantaged. >> >>Tell me Wayne, where your insistence comes from. Are you a player who >>is bound by some NZ regulation and is trying to wriggle out of it? Or >>are you a TD, faced with an ACBL problem and no experience, and >>argueing out of concern for the freedom ofn speach? >> > > Maybe you are not as good at forming an opinion based on the evidence as > you think. > Well, we all have to learn from experience, don't we? I don't mind you argueing, but I do mind you saying that I have no right to rule as I do, without telling me why not. > I don't think I fit into either of your categories. > Then tell me what your experience is. > The NZ regulation for 1NT openings is ... > "An opening 1NT bid which either could be less than 8 high card points > or where the possibility of a singleton is more than just a rare > exception. If however 1NT promises at least 17 HCP then any distribution > is permitted" > > So 8-10 is allowed. The lowest range that I play is 11-14 and then we > have agreed to not open some 11s. I may have played a lower range > briefly 12 years ago when I experimented with Ferts but I do not have my > notes readily available and I can not recall the range - It was probably > 9-12. > So as I suspected, you are a favourite of weak openings. Probably miffed in that SOs are trying to regulate these. And trying to wriggle out of them. All the more evidence. It's always players like that who open too weakly, and then tell the TD that it's the first time they've done so. > My problem is simply this: > > The law allows restriction of agreements or understandings; > The law allows a player to depart from that agreement on any given hand > whether by 1 point or by 10 points. > Yes, the law allows you to depart from agreements. but where does departure begin and where does system end? Opening on 3 is departure, but opening on 9 when announcing 10-12 is no departure, it's hand valuation. And in my opinion, hand valuation is systemic. > In my opinion ... > > an entry on the CC 1NT = 10-12 Balanced and > > an explanation when the bid was made of our agreement is 10-12 but > 'Wayne' sometimes opens 9 counts ... > > are both consistent with a pair who have agreed to play 10-12 1NT. > Maybe they are, but they are also consistent with a pair who have agreed to open Wayne's10 - 12. And the system Wayne's10-12 is an illegal one. Please tell me how I should make the difference between the two? > Neither the regulators nor the TD have any lawful right to limit a > player's judgement. They only have a right to limit the partnership's > agreements and understandings. > But judgment IS a part of understanding, and sometimes agreement. Surely if you play 15-17 and you open on 14, your partner will not be surprised? If I ask your partner whether or not you can have 14, surely he will tell me some degree of likelihood? Well, IMO, that makes the 14-opener systemic. > >>I suspect the former. >> >>I suspect also that when I am faced with you, at the table for the >>first time, I will be able to tell whether you have genuinely >>miscounted your points, or whether you were upgrading a 9-count. >> > > Good luck. > > I suspect you will create a major problem if you start calling me a > cheat when you do not know and that I know that I am not. > I have not called you a cheat, I have merely said that your actions are indistinguishable from those of a cheat. And there is a very easy way to not have this ruling: don't open that 9-count. > Wayne > > >> >>>Wayne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>GRB >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blml mailing list >>>blml@rtflb.org >>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 13 21:30:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:30:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 13:58 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Indeed, as you say, opening with 9 on 10-12 is the same as opening > with 14 on 15-17. Both are minor misexplanations. But the first is > also an illegal system (in some NCBOs) while the second one isn't. Which ones? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 13 21:51:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:51:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F11C19C.7050706@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 16:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > So as I suspected, you are a favourite of weak openings. Probably > miffed in that SOs are trying to regulate these. And trying to wriggle > out of them. All the more evidence. It's always players like that who > open too weakly, and then tell the TD that it's the first time they've > done so. Pfui. This is ridiculous. You have a preconceived idea, and you are completely unwilling to give it up. There is *no* logic to these conclusions from Wayne's statement. From tomwood1@earthlink.net Sun Jul 13 23:44:12 2003 From: tomwood1@earthlink.net (Tom Wood) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:44:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <410-22003701322441297@earthlink.net> Adding my reactions to Herman's self-announced mindset favoring hard-nosed rulings against 'those HCP-chiseling little, regulation-subverting scoundrels, whom my practiced dWS eye can spot a mile away!" [ *My* paraphrase of my osmosis of the dWS philosophy re the 'HCP' thread. ] By all appearances, I strongly agree with Ed and Wayne. Herman seems to me a law-enforcement 'wriggler', hell-bent to subvert normal standards of evidence and to abandon arms-length, dispassionate pursuit of equity. (Nevertheless, I read each and every dWS 'HCP' msg in the vain hope of softening my reaction against the dWS philosophy as it is unfolded for all to marvel at.) Tom Wood, ACBL, an admittedly 'fertive' bidder by nature, but adamantly pro-active to share all sys-info with opponents, in order to maintain a real level playing field -- while carefully staying clearly within the bounds of ACBL bidding regs > From: Ed Reppert > Date: 7/13/2003 4:52:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 16:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > So as I suspected, you are a favourite of weak openings. Probably > > miffed in that SOs are trying to regulate these. And trying to wriggle > > out of them. All the more evidence. It's always players like that who > > open too weakly, and then tell the TD that it's the first time they've > > done so. > > Pfui. This is ridiculous. You have a preconceived idea, and you are > completely unwilling to give it up. There is *no* logic to these > conclusions from Wayne's statement. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 01:09:10 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:09:10 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F11C19C.7050706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 8:31 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > >>Why do you assume I would not gather further evidence? > >> > > > > Your statements do not suggest any evidence gathering: > > > > > Well, I do anyway - I ask you to explain and I listen to your > arguments. And whatever I say you rule against me. > > > > "Similarly, if you open on 9 whilst playing 10-12, in > Belgium, I will > > tell you to change your CC to 9.5-12 and I will tell your opponents > > they have been misinformed but probably not damaged. But > then playing > > 9.5-12 is not forbidden in Belgium." > > > > 'if...' then '...I will' not so much as a suggestion of gathering > > evidence. > > > > > That is taken out of context. It should add ... and from other > evidence I conclude that you do this systematically ... > Nonsense. I have emailed you the entire context of the message. There was no hint of evidence gathering. > >>Tell me Wayne, where your insistence comes from. Are you a > player who > >>is bound by some NZ regulation and is trying to wriggle out > of it? Or > >>are you a TD, faced with an ACBL problem and no experience, and > >>argueing out of concern for the freedom ofn speach? > >> > > > > Maybe you are not as good at forming an opinion based on > the evidence as > > you think. > > > > > Well, we all have to learn from experience, don't we? > I don't mind you argueing, but I do mind you saying that I have no > right to rule as I do, without telling me why not. You have no right to rule as you do as the law gives a player the right to make any call and you need to determine that any player is not simply exercising that right. If I have no agreement to open lighter than what my card says then I expect to be believed when I tell the TD that I have no agreement. I do not expect some arrogant TD to impose on me an agreement that I do not have. > > > > I don't think I fit into either of your categories. > > > > > Then tell me what your experience is. > > > > The NZ regulation for 1NT openings is ... > > "An opening 1NT bid which either could be less than 8 high > card points > > or where the possibility of a singleton is more than just a rare > > exception. If however 1NT promises at least 17 HCP then any > distribution > > is permitted" > > > > So 8-10 is allowed. The lowest range that I play is 11-14 > and then we > > have agreed to not open some 11s. I may have played a lower range > > briefly 12 years ago when I experimented with Ferts but I > do not have my > > notes readily available and I can not recall the range - It > was probably > > 9-12. > > > > > So as I suspected, you are a favourite of weak openings. Probably > miffed in that SOs are trying to regulate these. And trying > to wriggle > out of them. All the more evidence. It's always players like that who > open too weakly, and then tell the TD that it's the first > time they've > done so. You did not read carefully did you Herman. I said I played light openings briefly many years ago. Otherwise until the last 12 months I would say I was firmly in the school of sound opening bids. At that time I would frequently not open 12 counts even though I played the range as 12-14 or 12-15. > > > > My problem is simply this: > > > > The law allows restriction of agreements or understandings; > > The law allows a player to depart from that agreement on > any given hand > > whether by 1 point or by 10 points. > > > > > Yes, the law allows you to depart from agreements. but where does > departure begin and where does system end? Opening on 3 is departure, > but opening on 9 when announcing 10-12 is no departure, it's hand > valuation. And in my opinion, hand valuation is systemic. > It is quite a simple matter. Departure begins where system ends. Open on 3 and announce 10-12 is a departure of 7 hcp. Open on 9 and announce 10-12 is a departure of 1 hcp. Where is the problem. I fundamentally disagree that hand valuation is systemic. System and agreements are partnership matters. Judgement and valuation are individual player skills. If I sit down to play with a partner and I agree to 10-12 1NT I fundamentally have the right to open on any particular 9 count or 13 count or any other count and it is not part of my agreement. L40 states this. Wayne > > > In my opinion ... > > > > an entry on the CC 1NT = 10-12 Balanced and > > > > an explanation when the bid was made of our agreement is 10-12 but > > 'Wayne' sometimes opens 9 counts ... > > > > are both consistent with a pair who have agreed to play 10-12 1NT. > > > > > Maybe they are, but they are also consistent with a pair who have > agreed to open Wayne's10 - 12. > And the system Wayne's10-12 is an illegal one. > Please tell me how I should make the difference between the two? This would depend on the particular case. Tell me what gives you the right to penalize or restrict the legal pair. > > > > Neither the regulators nor the TD have any lawful right to limit a > > player's judgement. They only have a right to limit the > partnership's > > agreements and understandings. > > > > > But judgment IS a part of understanding, and sometimes agreement. > Surely if you play 15-17 and you open on 14, your partner will not be > surprised? If I ask your partner whether or not you can have 14, > surely he will tell me some degree of likelihood? Well, IMO, that > makes the 14-opener systemic. > No! Fundamentally not. The laws speak of partnership experience as distinct from system. I play all jump raises to the three-level as 0-6 hcp. However my partner frequently makes a jump raise with slightly stronger hands. I explain this to the opponents and I would explain it to the TD but it is still not our agreement and it will not be our agreement unless we agree to it. > > > > >>I suspect the former. > >> > >>I suspect also that when I am faced with you, at the table for the > >>first time, I will be able to tell whether you have genuinely > >>miscounted your points, or whether you were upgrading a 9-count. > >> > > > > Good luck. > > > > I suspect you will create a major problem if you start calling me a > > cheat when you do not know and that I know that I am not. > > > > > I have not called you a cheat, I have merely said that your actions > are indistinguishable from those of a cheat. Ok that is no crime so you will not need to rule against me. :-) > > And there is a very easy way to not have this ruling: don't > open that 9-count. That suggestion is bullying tactics. I have a fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count. Wayne From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 01:35:57 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:35:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <410-22003701322441297@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000701c3499f$e4797a60$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Ed wrote: > > Pfui. This is ridiculous. You have a preconceived idea, and you are > > completely unwilling to give it up. There is *no* logic to these > > conclusions from Wayne's statement. Yes, there is. What it comes down to is this: "Director, this man has opened 1NT on a nine count". "Why did you do this?" "Because I had a five-card suit, two aces, a couple of ten-nines..." "So you were prepared to call this nine-count a ten-count?" "Yes." "Are you surprised that your partner was prepared to call his nine-count a ten-count?" "No, it looks like the kind of nine-count that I would also call a ten-count." "In that case, the method you are playing is illegal, and..." With what aspect of this scenario is it possible (or even conceivable) to disagree? David Burr London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 01:46:23 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:46:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > I have a fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count. So you do. And if you are in the habit of exercising your fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count, you will fall foul of a fundamentally lawful regulation that says: "Any partnership that, by agreement [whether explicit or implicit] opens any 9-count with 1NT may not play any conventions following an opening bid of 1NT." Now, don't get me wrong. I do not think that this ought to be the Law. But it is the Law, and it is so obviously the Law that any argument to the effect that it is not falls into the category of fatuities too monumental to be espoused even by a subscriber to BLML on a bad day. It ought to be clear to any keen follower of this list that if I agree with Herman, that on which we agree must be so. You are not so much barking up the wrong tree as completely in the wrong forest. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 02:31:16 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:31:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c349a7$9ff73410$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 12:46 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne wrote: > > > I have a fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count. > > So you do. And if you are in the habit of exercising your fundamental > lawful right to open a 9-count, you will fall foul of a fundamentally > lawful regulation that says: "Any partnership that, by agreement > [whether explicit or implicit] opens any 9-count with 1NT may not play > any conventions following an opening bid of 1NT." This is not the law. A habit does not necessarily create an implicit agreement. I have seen many partnerships where habits create explicit disagreements. Even a habit that creates an expectation does not necessarily create an implicit agreement. Wayne > > Now, don't get me wrong. I do not think that this ought to be the Law. > But it is the Law, and it is so obviously the Law that any argument to > the effect that it is not falls into the category of fatuities too > monumental to be espoused even by a subscriber to BLML on a > bad day. It > ought to be clear to any keen follower of this list that if I > agree with > Herman, that on which we agree must be so. You are not so much barking > up the wrong tree as completely in the wrong forest. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 02:34:44 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:34:44 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <006b01c3467a$ed80edf0$1313e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000101c349a8$1b377ae0$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2003 12:30 p.m. > To: twm@cix.co.uk; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > +=+ I am saying that when a regulation says you may not > do a thing, you may not do it period - not under any > circumstances, whether a matter of partnership agreement > or no, whether deviating from partnership methods or no. > If a regulation says you may not agree with partner to do > something it is only forbidden as a matter of partnership > agreement, which does not stop you from doing it in breach > of partnership agreements and so long as an understanding > does not develop. Which, as you have said, will soon be > considered to have happened if the action occurs repeatedly. > Players are not permitted to have an understanding about > breaches of agreements - such breaches must remain > external to partner's expectations or they become part of > the partnership method, to be disclosed and subject to > the system regulations. I do not believe that this is correct. What needs to be disclosed is: 1. explicit agreements 2. implicit agreements 3. experience Partner's expectations will be related to all three but only the first two can be regulated. Wayne > ~ Grattan > ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 02:46:14 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:46:14 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F042C9C.8060803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c349a9$b6844bd0$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 1:16 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Because by showing the 10s and 9s, the player explicitely states that > in his opinion, the hand is "worth" an opening bid. That makes it > systemic to me. > It's as if the player were using a different point count, and stating > that in his system 19QP are enough to open. If the hand with 19QP can > be one with only 9HCP, then the system to open with 19QP is illegal. > The player showing the 10s and 9s is doing exactly the same but less > formally. > "I judged this hand to be worth a 10 count" is different than "We agreed to open this sort of 9 count in our 10-12 1NT". A player can always choose to open any particular 9-count with 1NT and there is no law that prevents that. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 02:47:53 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:47:53 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c349a9$f175dd80$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 4:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > Tim and I have no problem obeying the regulations of St Johns Wood BC, > and fortunately there is no regulation which stops us using our > judgement. In other words we have agreements and we depart from them > from time to time. Our agreements are legal within the framework of St > Johns Wood BC (as indeed are our agreements within the framework of > EBU). Where the problem lies is that the EBU seeks to restrain our > judgement in departing from agreements, and St Johns Wood does not. Sounds like a good place to play :-) Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 02:55:19 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:55:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030703215229.024d8e90@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000401c349aa$fb048030$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David J. Grabiner > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 2:14 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > At 05:16 AM 7/3/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >And do you really believe that CC's, in general, are well filled-in? > >When someone opens a 14-count as 15-17, do you believe he is playing > >14.5-17 or 15-17? I'm willing to accept miscounting, > tiredness and all > >such excuses, but I'm not accepting the two tens and the > five-card diamond > >suit. > > The problem with requiring such things is that 14.5-17 can > itself be more > misleading. > > Suppose you are considering opening 2NT, which you limit to > 22 HCP. (I am > using this example because the half-point range is common for this > bid.) Here are three possible 20-point hands. > > A: AJTx AKx KQTx Kx > B: AJT AKx KQT9x Kx > C: AQT Axx AQT9x Ax > > If you open 2NT on all three hands, you can mark your card > 20-22. If you > open 2NT on B and C but not on A, you can mark your card 20+ > to 22. If you > open 2NT on none of the hands, you can mark your card 21-22. > > But what do you mark if you open 2NT on hand C only, counting > extra for all > four aces? 21-22 probably describes your agreement best, as you want > partner to bid as though you have 21 HCP. If you write 20+ > to 22 and open > hand B with 1D, the opponents will not expect you to have hand B. > > I would say that you may occasionally deviate from an > agreement without MI > as long as you have a hand which wants partner to believe you > are following > the agreement. Thus, if your card says 21-22, you may open > hand C with > 2NT. If 1D-1S-1NT shows 12-14 balanced, you may still bid > it on K KJxx > Qxxxx AJx. If your agreement is that 1H-2NT(Jacoby)-3H shows > five losers, > you may still bid it on QJ AQJxx AKx AJx. I disagree with this. This argument is based on some expert or pseudo-expert judgement of what constitutes 'plus' features. If I write 20-22 on my card and you do the same then we should both be allowed to open hands outside the range based on our own judgement. You on your 'expert judgement' and me on my 'palooka judgement'. The laws should not distinguish between a variation by an expert or by a palooka. Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Jul 14 02:50:42 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:50:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS writes: > > Perhaps you could explain why it is right to be harsh to a pair that > have done nothing wrong except made mistakes in bridge, but not to be > harsh to a pair that are clearly in breach of L40, having without any > doubt fielded a psyche? Whether they have fielded a psyche or not is far from clear. If, as I do, one considers x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx as a perfectly respectable 1N overcall of 1C then South's bidding is reasonable. If one is playing SOS redoubles then 2D showing a good suit while 2C is pick a suit is something I would hope a pick-up partner would work out. It would be grotesque to adjust on the basis of a fielded psyche. +++ I agree with Tim here. I can see no evidence to indicate that this partnership had any undisclosed Psyche information. L40 is not relevant. I also agree with Tim's example of a possible offbeat 1NT and can produce thousands more. I dont think the psyche as such is a cause for score adjustment. The pause is what matters here. I think we can agree that an in tempo 1NT would lead to 2D* making being the result. However there is still the UI to worry about. I'm not sure but I think the UI does suggest an off-shape hand, but then so does the 2D bid. +++ Once again agree. The 2D bid by itself is a clear indication to all that N has now bid 1NT (probably off beat or understrength or both) on a very good diamond suit. West at this stage can be 100% certain that N has psyched looking at DAKQ. Jaap has indicated that the N/S pair may not be up to the standard indicated in the post. He has also indicated that 100 good players, polled, would bid 2S. I would have agreed with him before talking to South. The rdbl SOS treatment and 2C as I have no preference or a suit of my own - bid yours - is an excellent bidding treatment and maybe if the 100 good pairs had this treatment available OR thought about it - they would find it a better bid than 2S. It loses nothing and gains everything. It will become part of my system (BTW 2C over the double as natural makes no sense). Reasoning along Tim's lines - all the bididng till south's final pass is imo reasonable. I think I shall rule that 2S *is* a non suggested LA. However I think there is not a chance in hell of North standing for it. I'll adjust to 3Cx-2 absent discussion with others. Tim +++ Now at this stage over the 2nd double I'm not so sure what the ruling should be .... but it comes down to two positions (a) The benefit of the doubt : The reason behind the pause is unclear at best. The bidding to date indicates a 1NT bid something similar to Tim's example. There is no reason to believe 2S will fare any better. South passes and backs his judgement. South's testimony would be a major factor in convincing you to believe this version of events. I, at the time was convinced. (b) The cynical view. South has a clear cut 2S bid either 1st or 2nd time. He didn't do so because, the pause, indicated a psyche bid. South is in breach of L40 & has UI. If you're in the (a) camp and I am just about 2D* stands. If in the (b) camp then you've got to decide what the likely result will be. Again I think Tim's 3C-2 doubled is a good choice. In the discussion to date - no one has mentioned the amazing defence. This whole case sounded awfully like sour grapes to me. 2D* with any sort of competent defence is -2 or -3. Does E/W's abmissal defence not forfiet their right to an adjusted score for them ?? Is a split score of 2D* making for NOS and 3C*-2 for the OS not a fairer result for the (b) camp ?? Karel From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 03:07:56 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:07:56 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <7F5D04E6-B170-11D7-A00B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501c349ac$be4a5190$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2003 6:18 a.m. > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, Jul 8, 2003, at 08:57 US/Eastern, Gordon > Rainsford wrote: > > > >> We allow players to use their judgement, but we don't > allow them to > >> use that as a justification for breaking the regulations. > >> > > We allow players to use their judgment, except when we don't allow > > players to use their judgment. > > Well sure, it would be perfectly reasonable to allow people to open > whatever they want, but since the restriction exists it seems > pointless > to allow "judgement" to overrule it - else why bother having the rule? Because the rule restricts partnership agreements and judgement affects an individual's choice on a particular hand. These are not the same thing. Wayne > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 03:11:30 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:11:30 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F0BBA44.9000406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c349ad$3e2de1b0$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2003 6:46 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> So it's not a "mistaken bid". So it's a systemic one - OK? > >> What more do you want me to say? > > > > > > If by "systemic" you mean they have an agreement to open on > nine counts, > > then no, not okay. > > > > > Well, what do you want? > One player tells me that he will always open a particular hand, and > the other tells me he has no agreement that his partner does so. > Can you not see that this second statement contradicts the first? Yes I can not see that. > That the second statement is made only so as to try and not make the > system illegal? > That this second statement serves no purpose whatsoever? The second statement serves to establish the agreement. > That it could be just no more than a lie? It could be but it is not necessarily so. Wayne From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 03:11:14 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:11:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349a7$9ff73410$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <007801c349ad$33cc4220$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > This is not the law. > A habit does not necessarily create an implicit agreement. > I have seen many partnerships where habits create explicit > disagreements. > Even a habit that creates an expectation does not necessarily create an > implicit agreement. I do not know how to reply to this, other than to shake my head and say that it is not so. It cannot be so; the knowledge of partner's habits confronted with a set of circumstances cannot be anything else but part of your partnership's "implicit agreements". You may not "agree" with the way in which your partner acts; you may wish that he would not act like that, but the truth is that if you know that he will act like that, because he has acted like that in the past, you have an "expectation" or "understanding" or "agreement" (the terms are the same as far as defining your disclosable methods are concerned) that when he bids X, he may be acting "like that". The trouble is, I suppose, that the word "agreement" is capable of more than one interpretation. If you keep opening one strong no trump on what I regard as featureless 14 counts, then I may "disagree" with the way you bid; if I disagree with it strongly enough, I will stop playing with you. But until I stop playing with you, our partnership method (in the sense that it comes as no surprise to me when you do it) is that our 1NT opening may include 14 counts, and to put 15-17 on our convention card is a lie (and is cheating). Now, if you open 1NT on 14-counts that are not "featureless", our "agreement" is still 14-17, but at least I know (and at least I can tell the opponents) what to expect (we will put "14-17" on our convention cards, for a start). The same is true, mutatis mutandis, if we "agree" on 10-12, but... you may not open 1NT on a "featureful" 9-count, because there is a regulation against so doing (or, to be precise, there is not a regulation against so doing, but there is a regulation against my responding with Stayman or a transfer). You may not, or at any rate cannot meaningfully, assert your "right" to open a nine count in those circumstances. All four of your statements at the head of this message are simply false (except for the one beginning "I have seen", and that is false also because you do not realise that an "agreement" in the legal sense is not necessarily that on which partners "agree"). You do not see why they should be false, but I cannot help that. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 03:19:32 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:19:32 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c349ae$5d400640$040358db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2003 9:49 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Are you then saying that, even in a regular partnership where > a degree of > mutual understanding has been achieved, there remains a > difference between > "players may not do" and "players may not have an agreement to do"? I think there is. > > If there is a difference how should the understanding that > partner will > occasionally breach agreements best be disclosed to the opposition? In answer to a question... L75C "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience" Wayne From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 03:23:31 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:23:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000201c349a9$b6844bd0$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <008401c349ae$eb3593c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > "I judged this hand to be worth a 10 count" is different than "We agreed > to open this sort of 9 count in our 10-12 1NT". Of course it isn't. If you partner knows that this 9-count is in your opinion "worth" a 10-count, then you have "agreed" that you will treat this 9-count as a 10-count. As I have said before, if your partner agrees with your decision that this 9-count is worth a 10-count (even if he himself would not so decide), then you have an agreement that at least one of you will open this 9-count with 1NT. And you may not, by regulation, have such an agreement. Wayne, you really are so many miles adrift with this that I begin to wonder whether you are arguing a complete non-case from some perverse motive. At any rate, all that needs to be said has been said. Tim West-Meads may not open a 6-5 seven count at the one level if his partner might expect such a hand. You may not open a 9-count with 1NT. Again, I do not say that this ought to be the law. I say only that it is the law, and if you break it, you will pay the penalty. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 04:22:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:22:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <007801c349ad$33cc4220$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c349b7$28014300$0e7758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 2:11 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne wrote: > > > This is not the law. > > > A habit does not necessarily create an implicit agreement. > > > I have seen many partnerships where habits create explicit > > disagreements. > > > Even a habit that creates an expectation does not necessarily create > an > > implicit agreement. > > I do not know how to reply to this, other than to shake my > head and say > that it is not so. It cannot be so; the knowledge of partner's habits > confronted with a set of circumstances cannot be anything > else but part > of your partnership's "implicit agreements". It is part of your partnership experience it is not necessarily an agreement. > > You may not "agree" with the way in which your partner acts; you may > wish that he would not act like that, but the truth is that > if you know > that he will act like that, because he has acted like that in > the past, > you have an "expectation" or "understanding" or "agreement" (the terms > are the same as far as defining your disclosable methods are > concerned) > that when he bids X, he may be acting "like that". Experience and agreement both must be disclosed but they are not the same thing. > > The trouble is, I suppose, that the word "agreement" is > capable of more > than one interpretation. If you keep opening one strong no > trump on what > I regard as featureless 14 counts, then I may "disagree" with the way > you bid; if I disagree with it strongly enough, I will stop > playing with > you. But until I stop playing with you, our partnership method (in the > sense that it comes as no surprise to me when you do it) is > that our 1NT > opening may include 14 counts, and to put 15-17 on our convention card > is a lie (and is cheating). > > Now, if you open 1NT on 14-counts that are not "featureless", our > "agreement" is still 14-17, but at least I know (and at least > I can tell > the opponents) what to expect (we will put "14-17" on our convention > cards, for a start). The same is true, mutatis mutandis, if we "agree" > on 10-12, but... you may not open 1NT on a "featureful" > 9-count, because > there is a regulation against so doing (or, to be precise, > there is not > a regulation against so doing, but there is a regulation against my > responding with Stayman or a transfer). You may not, or at any rate > cannot meaningfully, assert your "right" to open a nine count in those > circumstances. > > All four of your statements at the head of this message are > simply false > (except for the one beginning "I have seen", and that is false also > because you do not realise that an "agreement" in the legal > sense is not > necessarily that on which partners "agree"). You do not see why they > should be false, but I cannot help that. Statement One: ============== This is not the law. The law says: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements" David Burn says: "And if you are in the habit of exercising your fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count, you will fall foul of a fundamentally lawful regulation that says: "Any partnership that, by agreement [whether explicit or implicit] opens any 9-count with 1NT may not play any conventions following an opening bid of 1NT." I say: That habitual violation only may create an implicit agreenment. And therefore what you wrote is not what the law says. Statement Two: ============== A habit does not necessarily create an implicit agreement. The law says: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements" My statement is consistent with the law. Statement Three: ================ I have seen many partnerships where habits create explicit disagreements. I can only reiterate that partnership experience is treated differently from partnership agreement in the law. I see no basis for your nonsensical statement 'that an "agreement" in the legal sense is not necessarily that on which partners "agree" '. IMO a partnership "agreement" is precisely that on which partner's "agree". Statement Four: =============== Even a habit that creates an expectation does not necessarily create an implicit agreement. If I expect partner to open every 9 count or nearly every 9 count then I agree 10-12 is not an accurate description of our agreements even if that is our explicit agreement. However if I expect occasional but habitual 9 counts then 10-12 could easily be an accurate description of our agreements. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 04:26:42 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:26:42 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <008401c349ae$eb3593c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000701c349b7$c0da7150$0e7758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 2:24 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Wayne, you really are so many miles adrift with this that I begin to > wonder whether you are arguing a complete non-case from some perverse > motive. At any rate, all that needs to be said has been said. Tim > West-Meads may not open a 6-5 seven count at the one level if his > partner might expect such a hand. You may not open a 9-count with 1NT. There is no law or regulation that says this. The regulation says that I may not agree to open 9-counts with my partner. The laws says I can make any bid not based on a partnership understanding. Wayne From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 04:44:57 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 04:44:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000701c349b7$c0da7150$0e7758db@Desktop> Message-ID: <00a001c349ba$4ba11b20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > The regulation says that I may not agree to open 9-counts with my > partner. > The laws says I can make any bid not based on a partnership > understanding. As I have said, you are very many miles adrift. You have adduced nothing that moderates your initial false premise in any shape, manner or form. You have shown not the least sign of understanding, let alone answering, what has been said to you in rebuttal. You do not seem to grasp this simple and obvious fact: that if you open 1NT, and your partner has any reason at all to expect that you may have only 9 high-card points, then you are acting illegally. By "only 9 high-card points", I refer to the value of your hand according to the Milton Work count, with which I assume that you are familiar, though nothing in your contributions to this thread encourages me in the belief that you are actually familiar either with the meaning of English words, or the integers from one to nine. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 04:47:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 04:47:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349b7$28014300$0e7758db@Desktop> Message-ID: <00ac01c349ba$981280c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > It is part of your partnership experience it is not necessarily an > agreement. Can someone else please deal with this? It is late, and I have had enough. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 07:01:11 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:01:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00a001c349ba$4ba11b20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 3:45 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne wrote: > > > The regulation says that I may not agree to open 9-counts with my > > partner. > > > The laws says I can make any bid not based on a partnership > > understanding. > > As I have said, you are very many miles adrift. You have > adduced nothing > that moderates your initial false premise in any shape, > manner or form. What is the false premise? > You have shown not the least sign of understanding, let alone > answering, > what has been said to you in rebuttal. I have answered many things. There is a great chasm from a partnership understanding to open with 9-12 to an expectation that partner might open with 9 points when we are playing 10-12 1NT. If you are saying that I do not understand this then that is true. I do not understand that partner's general bridge knowledge expectation nor partner's partnership experience expectation is congruous with our partnership understanding and agreement. I have an implicit agreement with other road users that we will drive on the left hand side of the road in this country. It is also the law that we drive on the left hand side of the road. Nevertheless I have an expectation that occasionally especially around corners some drivers will cross the centre line. I do not have an implicit agreement with those drivers that it is ok to cross the centre line. > > You do not seem to grasp this simple and obvious fact: that > if you open > 1NT, and your partner has any reason at all to expect that > you may have > only 9 high-card points, then you are acting illegally. This is not a fact this is an opinion and I believe that it is wrong. If it is not wrong tell me which law says that I cannot open a 9 count when that is not my partnership agreement but that partner from general knowledge or specific partnership experience knows that I might have only nine points? The regulations that I have read say something like you cannot agree to open 9 points that is different than in practice opening a particular hand that happens to have 9 points. The latter I believe is not subject to regulation. Wayne > By "only 9 > high-card points", I refer to the value of your hand according to the > Milton Work count, with which I assume that you are familiar, though > nothing in your contributions to this thread encourages me in > the belief > that you are actually familiar either with the meaning of > English words, > or the integers from one to nine. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 07:08:03 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:08:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <00ac01c349ba$981280c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000101c349ce$49ec0100$0e7758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 3:47 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne wrote: > > > It is part of your partnership experience it is not necessarily an > > agreement. > > Can someone else please deal with this? It is late, and I have had > enough. Experience is not the same as agreement David. It is simply not so. Therefore I do not see how you can 'deal with this'. Wayne > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 14 07:25:24 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:25:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <004a01c34930$9f373880$7f24e150@endicott> <001701c3493a$4e09c5e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001801c349d4$a7f8ca20$fee0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Grattan, > > I know for sure others can do a better job than > they do. I just mentioned the French and the > Dutch because they have by far the largest > standing organisations < +=+ Really? - no other European NBOs with organisations of comparable size and resources? which ones do you know about??? - and on the technologies, do I recall a major glitch with the French system a year or two ago? - and whose technology did we have in Montreal, was that perfect? +=+ < > and most if not all the equipment and a qualified > crew is directly available. If really necessary the > French and or the Dutch can organize a Menton > style event with two weeks notice or so (given a > venue). Nobody else can except maybe the ACBL. < +=+ Really? All this reference to nationalities gets us nowhere. The EBL is transnational and can pick and choose. There were some underlying problems in Menton that were unsuspected in advance, and in at least one matter subordinates who did know failed to speak up. +=+ < As for your 'the CTD is in charge'. Well I don't really care how you call the operational boss. I would not call him CTD because that is already used for another task. Anyway, someone has to be in charge of an event. < +=+ But you miss the point. The CTD is precisely the man designated to run the show, the whole show, and he should be given the resources, human, material, and technological, and be allowed to do it - with the people doing jobs all reporting ultimately to him. The responsibilities given the CTD in Law have tended to be split up and farmed out among a string of people. My argument is that to do this is a mistake and risks, as we see, a lack of unity and coordination in the preparation and management of the tournament. Wim Wagner used to go round with a blueprint specifying every detail of the tournament organization and he acted as adjutant to the CTD - not as the man in overall charge. We have drifted away from this - and I would suspect there is no blueprint existing these days carrying the accumulated experience and know-how for future reference. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 14 07:52:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:52:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349b7$28014300$0e7758db@Desktop> <00ac01c349ba$981280c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001201c349d5$03ba2b60$204ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Wayne wrote: > > > It is part of your partnership experience it is > >not necessarily an agreement. > > Can someone else please deal with this? It is > late, and I have had enough. > > David Burn > London, England < +=+ Yeah, Wayne, you know it will happen, I know it will happen, our experience together leads us to understand it will happen, we go on playing together and we say to the outside world that we have no agreement that it may happen. Of course, we are just a couple of honest guys, telling our opponents fairly, as the law requires, what our partnership understandings are. Not to my shame, we don't. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 14 07:42:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:42:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001101c349d5$02e15790$204ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Wayne wrote: > > > I have a fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count. > > So you do. And if you are in the habit of exercising > your fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count, you > will fall foul of a fundamentally lawful regulation that > says: "Any partnership that, by agreement [whether > explicit or implicit] opens any 9-count with 1NT may > not play any conventions following an opening bid > of 1NT." > > Now, don't get me wrong. I do not think that this > ought to be the Law. But it is the Law, and it is so > obviously the Law that any argument to the effect > that it is not falls into the category of fatuities too > monumental to be espoused even by a subscriber > to BLML on a bad day. It ought to be clear to any > keen follower of this list that if I agree with Herman, > that on which we agree must be so. You are not so > much barking up the wrong tree as completely in > the wrong forest. > +=+ And, for the record, my marker is down to say that if any people, organizations, are to be invited or expected to mount bridge tournaments, they should, in my opinion, have the right to determine what methods they will permit players to use in those tournaments. That in my view is fundamental to the powers they should have in law, and if sufficient demand exists - to allow given methods - there will be a supply of tournaments catering for it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:14:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:14:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F12583A.2000806@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 13:58 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Indeed, as you say, opening with 9 on 10-12 is the same as opening >> with 14 on 15-17. Both are minor misexplanations. But the first is >> also an illegal system (in some NCBOs) while the second one isn't. > > > Which ones? > Totally beside the point. I don't even know, nor care. For the sake of argument, let's assume a SO has issued a regulation forbidding an agreement to open 1NT on less than 10 HCP. All other existing regulations are mere copies of that and the principles I'm trying to get accross to Wayne and yourself apply to those in just the same manner. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:18:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:18:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000101c349a8$1b377ae0$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F12594B.7050406@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I do not believe that this is correct. > > What needs to be disclosed is: > > 1. explicit agreements > > 2. implicit agreements > > 3. experience > > Partner's expectations will be related to all three but only the first > two can be regulated. > I don't necessarily agree with this, but even if it were true, how are you going to make the distinction between what is experience and what is an implicit agreement? If I know that you always upgrade your point counts (open on 14 when our CC says 15-17 and such), is that experience, or is it also an implicit agreement? And if such a distinction were valid, what defence do we, poor TD's, have, against a player who tells me: "yes, I know he does this frequently, and I've even told opponents, but I've never agreed to it so you cannot regulate it and he's free to do it as long as we want". Don't you see, Wayne, that without my interpretation, any regulation is just dead letter. Or is that precisely what you want? > Wayne > > > >> ~ Grattan >>~ +=+ >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:19:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:19:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000201c349a9$b6844bd0$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F12599B.8000405@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >> >>Because by showing the 10s and 9s, the player explicitely states that >>in his opinion, the hand is "worth" an opening bid. That makes it >>systemic to me. >>It's as if the player were using a different point count, and stating >>that in his system 19QP are enough to open. If the hand with 19QP can >>be one with only 9HCP, then the system to open with 19QP is illegal. >>The player showing the 10s and 9s is doing exactly the same but less >>formally. >> >> > > "I judged this hand to be worth a 10 count" is different than "We agreed > to open this sort of 9 count in our 10-12 1NT". > No, Wayne, there is no difference. > A player can always choose to open any particular 9-count with 1NT and > there is no law that prevents that. > Yes, Wayne, there is. > Wayne > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:21:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:21:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000701c349b7$c0da7150$0e7758db@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F1259FF.3010007@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>Wayne, you really are so many miles adrift with this that I begin to >>wonder whether you are arguing a complete non-case from some perverse >>motive. At any rate, all that needs to be said has been said. Tim >>West-Meads may not open a 6-5 seven count at the one level if his >>partner might expect such a hand. You may not open a 9-count with 1NT. >> > > There is no law or regulation that says this. > > The regulation says that I may not agree to open 9-counts with my > partner. > > The laws says I can make any bid not based on a partnership > understanding. > Yes indeed it does, Wayne, and the Law also says that the TD has the final say about what he will call a partnership understanding. And your defences have convinced me that when you open a 9-count, that IS based on partnership understanding. > Wayne > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 08:30:03 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:30:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <001201c349d5$03ba2b60$204ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <000401c349d9$be5de020$702f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 6:53 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "My English text is chaste and all licentious > passages are left in the obscurity of a learned > language." [Edward Gibbon] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > > It is part of your partnership experience it is > > >not necessarily an agreement. > > > > Can someone else please deal with this? It is > > late, and I have had enough. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > < > +=+ Yeah, Wayne, you know it will happen, I know > it will happen, our experience together leads us to > understand it will happen, we go on playing together > and we say to the outside world that we have no > agreement that it may happen. Maybe. That is what the law says. Habitual violations may create understandings. Implicit in this is that habitual violations also do not necessarily create understandings. We certainly tell them if it has happened before - although I can understand players not telling the opponents if Herman is going to come along and rule against them telling them that they have an agreement when they have no such agreement. > Of course, we are > just a couple of honest guys, telling our opponents > fairly, as the law requires, what our partnership > understandings are. Of course we tell them our understandings and we tell them our partnership experience. Our understandings can be regulated our experience can not. Wayne > Not to my shame, we don't. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:27:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:27:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F125B54.7080808@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > This is not a fact this is an opinion and I believe that it is wrong. > > If it is not wrong tell me which law says that I cannot open a 9 count > when that is not my partnership agreement but that partner from general > knowledge or specific partnership experience knows that I might have > only nine points? > contradictio in terminis! If your partner has experience that tells him you might have only nine points, then your partnership agreement IS that you can open a 9 count! > The regulations that I have read say something like you cannot agree to > open 9 points that is different than in practice opening a particular > hand that happens to have 9 points. The latter I believe is not subject > to regulation. > When partner expects you to be able to do this - that is a partnership agreement - and that is subject to regulation. Wayne, we have been going far further than this. I have been saying that even if your partner does not know or expect this, he might know or expect it, and I would rule against the bidder anyway. Now you are here saying that partner DOES expect it, and still you refuse to see that this is partnership agreement, and therefore subject to regulation. You really are a player who tries to wriggle out of a regulation that he does not want, and you better not succeed, or the regulation is totally impossible. > Wayne > > >>By "only 9 >>high-card points", I refer to the value of your hand according to the >>Milton Work count, with which I assume that you are familiar, though >>nothing in your contributions to this thread encourages me in >>the belief >>that you are actually familiar either with the meaning of >>English words, >>or the integers from one to nine. >> >>David Burn >>London, 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 > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 08:36:08 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:36:08 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12594B.7050406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c349da$97d6f0d0$702f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 7:19 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > I do not believe that this is correct. > > > > What needs to be disclosed is: > > > > 1. explicit agreements > > > > 2. implicit agreements > > > > 3. experience > > > > Partner's expectations will be related to all three but > only the first > > two can be regulated. > > > > > I don't necessarily agree with this, but even if it were > true, how are > you going to make the distinction between what is experience and what > is an implicit agreement? > If I know that you always upgrade your point counts (open on 14 when > our CC says 15-17 and such), is that experience, or is it also an > implicit agreement? > And if such a distinction were valid, what defence do we, poor TD's, > have, against a player who tells me: "yes, I know he does this > frequently, and I've even told opponents, but I've never agreed to it > so you cannot regulate it and he's free to do it as long as we want". > Don't you see, Wayne, that without my interpretation, any regulation > is just dead letter. > Or is that precisely what you want? > With your interpretation L40A is dead letter. Is that precisely what you want? Wayne > > > Wayne > > > > > > > >> ~ Grattan > >>~ +=+ > >> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>blml mailing list > >>blml@rtflb.org > >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:30:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:30:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F125C21.3070807@skynet.be> No Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 16:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> So as I suspected, you are a favourite of weak openings. Probably >> miffed in that SOs are trying to regulate these. And trying to wriggle >> out of them. All the more evidence. It's always players like that who >> open too weakly, and then tell the TD that it's the first time they've >> done so. > > > Pfui. This is ridiculous. You have a preconceived idea, and you are > completely unwilling to give it up. There is *no* logic to these > conclusions from Wayne's statement. > No, Ed, I have experience. Experience that tells me that in the majority of cases I came accross a few years ago when the rule of 18 was hot in Belgium, the infractors were always the same people with always the same story. My way of ruling is based on those people. I will rule the same in future if the story is the same. I will not rule if the story is not. No preconceptions at all, just expectations. I shall llisten to the evidence and make up my mind in every single case. You are the one with preconceptions, in believing that this story can never be the one I have experience with, and in saying that my ruling is wrong regardless of the story relating to it. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 08:39:37 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:39:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F125E39.3030506@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>Well, I do anyway - I ask you to explain and I listen to your >>arguments. >> > > And whatever I say you rule against me. > No I don't. Although by now, I have a good picture in my mind of what it is you are going to tell me, and if that picture turns out to be true, I will rule against me. But if you can make me believe that you have miscounted your points, I will not rule against you. > >> >>Well, we all have to learn from experience, don't we? >>I don't mind you argueing, but I do mind you saying that I have no >>right to rule as I do, without telling me why not. >> > > You have no right to rule as you do as the law gives a player the right > to make any call and you need to determine that any player is not simply > exercising that right. > > If I have no agreement to open lighter than what my card says then I > expect to be believed when I tell the TD that I have no agreement. I do > not expect some arrogant TD to impose on me an agreement that I do not > have. > Well, the TD is there to gather your statements. If you say you have not revoked and I determine from the facts that I gather that you have, are you calling me arrogant? Besides Wayne, the problem we are having is not the one of a player saying he doesn't have an agreement and a TD saying he has, the problem we two are having is the one of two members of blml who cannot agree on the definition of "agreement". If we come off our mutual hobby-horses, we might get back to that discussion. It has been stated in numerous of my more recent messages. >> > > It is quite a simple matter. Departure begins where system ends. > And system ends where departure begins. Now that is a definition I can use on the floor ! > Open on 3 and announce 10-12 is a departure of 7 hcp. > Open on 9 and announce 10-12 is a departure of 1 hcp. > > Where is the problem. > The problem is that you announce 10-12 and the TD does not believe you. Just as he won't believe you when you announce 15-17 and open on 14. > I fundamentally disagree that hand valuation is systemic. > But that is not the problem. Because the reference hand to what you may or may not agree to open on is systemic. > System and agreements are partnership matters. > > Judgement and valuation are individual player skills. > > If I sit down to play with a partner and I agree to 10-12 1NT I > fundamentally have the right to open on any particular 9 count or 13 > count or any other count and it is not part of my agreement. L40 states > this. > Yes, you have, but by doing so, you are giving evidence that you have not agreed to open 10-12, but rather 9+-12. So while your statement above is true, it won't ever apply, because one of the sub-phrases ("and I agree to 10-12 NT") will not be true. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 08:50:53 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:50:53 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12599B.8000405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c349dc$a7da7310$702f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 7:20 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > >> > >>Because by showing the 10s and 9s, the player explicitely > states that > >>in his opinion, the hand is "worth" an opening bid. That makes it > >>systemic to me. > >>It's as if the player were using a different point count, > and stating > >>that in his system 19QP are enough to open. If the hand > with 19QP can > >>be one with only 9HCP, then the system to open with 19QP is > illegal. > >>The player showing the 10s and 9s is doing exactly the same > but less > >>formally. > >> > >> > > > > "I judged this hand to be worth a 10 count" is different > than "We agreed > > to open this sort of 9 count in our 10-12 1NT". > > > > > No, Wayne, there is no difference. One is partnership agreement the other is individual style. If there was no difference then every pair playing the same system would end in the same contract as their bids would all be system bids and there would be no room for judgement. > > > > A player can always choose to open any particular 9-count > with 1NT and > > there is no law that prevents that. > > > > > Yes, Wayne, there is. Which law is it that contradicts the right given in L40A? If I have a lawful agreement to open some range 1NT then I have an absolute right to depart from that agreement to open any 9 point hand and that right is independent of the range I play. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 08:56:36 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:56:36 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F1259FF.3010007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c349dd$73e0d3a0$702f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 7:22 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > >>Wayne, you really are so many miles adrift with this that I begin to > >>wonder whether you are arguing a complete non-case from > some perverse > >>motive. At any rate, all that needs to be said has been said. Tim > >>West-Meads may not open a 6-5 seven count at the one level if his > >>partner might expect such a hand. You may not open a > 9-count with 1NT. > >> > > > > There is no law or regulation that says this. > > > > The regulation says that I may not agree to open 9-counts with my > > partner. > > > > The laws says I can make any bid not based on a partnership > > understanding. > > > > > Yes indeed it does, Wayne, and the Law also says that the TD has the > final say about what he will call a partnership understanding. I don't accept your word for it Herman - I would like to read that law. I either have an understanding or I don't. I don't have one because someone else tells me I have one. > And your defences have convinced me that when you open a > 9-count, that > IS based on partnership understanding. With which partner? I don't have that agreement with any partner. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 14 08:51:49 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:51:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <001801c349d4$a7f8ca20$fee0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, grandeval wrote: Jaap wrote: > > If really necessary the French and or the Dutch can organize a Menton > > style event with two weeks notice or so (given a venue). Nobody else > > can except maybe the ACBL. > < > +=+ Really? > All this reference to nationalities gets us nowhere. The EBL is > transnational and can pick and choose. But the danger with this is that tasks get assigned based on nationality, not on capability. Look at the EU for examples. > +=+ But you miss the point. The CTD is precisely the man designated to > run the show, the whole show, and he should be given the resources, > human, material, and technological, and be allowed to do it - with the > people doing jobs all reporting ultimately to him. I agree with this: the structure should be that the EBL (WBF) board gives the responsibility of organizing the tournament to the CTD (Commander in Chief, Executive Manager, or whatever you want to call him). The CTD should be responsible selecting people to do the work, build a team out of them, and report to the EBL (WBF) board on progress. The EBL (WBF) boards, should not bypass the CTD on anything. If they are unhappy with the way he runs the event, replace him for the next event. > The responsibilities given the CTD in Law have tended to be split up and > farmed out among a string of people. My argument is that to do this is a > mistake and risks, as we see, a lack of unity and coordination in the > preparation and management of the tournament. Wim Wagner used to go > round with a blueprint specifying every detail of the tournament > organization and he acted as adjutant to the CTD - not as the man in > overall charge. This is up to the CTD, if he prefers to have a secretary monitoring progress on sub-projects while he looks at other tasks, then so be it. > We have drifted away from this - and I would suspect there is no > blueprint existing these days carrying the accumulated experience and > know-how for future reference. For a well organized event of this size, I'd expect that the CTD presents a written report of what went well and what went wrong to the EBL board afterwards. 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 14 09:02:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:02:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <006801c349de$52631b60$089868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne Burrows] ...Nevertheless I have an expectation that occasionally especially around corners some drivers will cross the centre line. I do not have an implicit agreement with those drivers that it is ok to cross the centre line. [Nigel Guthrie] I agree with all David Burn's comments on this topic. But please indulge my attempt to be Devil's Advocate and to argue the relevant Bridge analogy of Wayne's excellent example. On our first outing at an EBU level 3 event, my new partener opens 1S in third seat. We have never discussed third hand tactics. If partner is a among the few Walruses who have read and understood the Orange Book, then I expect that his bid will conform to rule of 19. But what if he is among the majority who have not read the Orange Book? Even if he has read the Orange book, what if he is a "Secretary Bird" who always uses his notorious "judgement" to "interpret" the literal rules into a subjective farrago? Inevitably, the HCP of some hand-types are mysteriously inflated. At the end of the board, I find my suspicions are confirmed: As is his custom, Partner has opened... AJTx Ax xxxx xxx or AQT9xx JT9xx x x Should I call the TD to report the possible infraction? Do we have an "agreement" in David Burn's terms? Who will rule against us, however. Surely, not any of the TDs who publicly advertise their law-breaking? OK, this is another law that is unenforced and unenforceable; it is kept on the books to handicap legal masochists like me. But it is still interesting in theory. My tentative conclusion is... Before the board, we had no "explicit agreement". Nevertheless my logical "expectation" was completely accurate. And IMO, that is what the law must mean by "implicit agreement". I know partner is an honest man but "if I go with the flow", then I am a cheat, at least in my own eyes. Hence, going back to Wayne's paradigm, I suppose I do have an "implicit agreement" with strangers on the road, that they will occasionally cross the central line. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 09:12:50 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:12:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F125B54.7080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c349df$b8912340$702f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 7:27 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > This is not a fact this is an opinion and I believe that it > is wrong. > > > > If it is not wrong tell me which law says that I cannot > open a 9 count > > when that is not my partnership agreement but that partner > from general > > knowledge or specific partnership experience knows that I might have > > only nine points? > > > > > contradictio in terminis! > If your partner has experience that tells him you might have > only nine > points, then your partnership agreement IS that you can open > a 9 count! Are you describing your own understanding Herman. My experience is not the same as my agreements. An agreement to have a certain number of high card points is not an undertaking to have that number every time that I open 1NT showing that number. > > > > The regulations that I have read say something like you > cannot agree to > > open 9 points that is different than in practice opening a > particular > > hand that happens to have 9 points. The latter I believe > is not subject > > to regulation. > > > > > When partner expects you to be able to do this - that is a > partnership > agreement - and that is subject to regulation. Patently untrue. > > Wayne, we have been going far further than this. I have been saying > that even if your partner does not know or expect this, he might know > or expect it, and I would rule against the bidder anyway. I can see no lawful justification for that approach nor have I seen any reasonable attempt at proving that it is lawful. You can only rule against the bidder if you can be sure that they have an illegal understanding. If they have not there is no infraction and therefore no basis on which to make any ruling other than score stands. > > Now you are here saying that partner DOES expect it, and still you > refuse to see that this is partnership agreement, and therefore > subject to regulation. What I don't see is the necessity for it to be a partnership agreement. I say that experience, expectation, the colour of your shirt are all irrelevant what is relevant is the partnership agreement - nothing else. For a start the other member of the partnership may not agree that 9-counts fall within the range. > > You really are a player who tries to wriggle out of a regulation that > he does not want, and you better not succeed, or the regulation is > totally impossible. I am not such a player. I do not play where such a regulation exists. The closest relevant regulation in New Zealand prohibits agreements to open 7-count 1NTs. The lowest range that I have played for over 10 years is good 11 to 14. I say that you better not succeed or L40A is meaningless. Wayne From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 09:43:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:43:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714103356.02575770@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:11 11/07/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > David Stevenson >......... > > >Taken to the limits this means that if declarer's RHO has the Ace of > > trumps > > >as a penalty card and declarer plays a small trump towards the Queen in > > >dummy then you as declarer's LHO must play the King from you holding of > > the > > >King and one small to the trick! (Do I need to elaborate on why?) > > > > This is wrong: read L50D1: it is authorised that he has to play htat > > card. > >Sure it is authorized that partner has to play that card, but is also the >identity of the card authorized information before it is actually played? > > > > > But all other things about the card [such as that he holds it] are > > unauthorised, and this is amazingly difficult to deal with accurately. > >Isn't the identity of the card part of such "other information" that is >unauthorized? AG : personal view - trying to guess Lawmakers' intent is hard. The reason why rules for an exposed card are quite harsh is that the Lawmakers very well knew that such a card always creates strong UI, and one would very often be faced with decisions about whether such UI has been used in any way. They therefore inposed mechanical penalties of two kinds : a) the fact that the card shall be played at the next opportunity means that the UI will remain for as short a time as possible ; b) on the suit to be played by partner : this covers ia the case where the card was a signal for some suit, and the case where the knowledge that partner has this card makes the suit a good switch. L50 therefore makes L16B unnecessary. Now for some logical resaoning outside personal views : if UI had to be taken into consideration in such a case, there would be no need for L57A and L62D2. L16B would have solved those cases. Best regards, Alain. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 08:19:23 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:19:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <37522522-B56D-11D7-AC8C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a701c349e7$834c6200$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ed, I am not a legal expert. When ruling on this kind of regulations on AC I/we do the ruling/judging but I let the CTD do the legal part. Like instructing the AC what we have to judge, computing the final score, applying the appropriate penalties (we decide whether there is a penalty), and so. I pretend to know something about bridge, I pretend to understand the general purpose of bridge laws, but I do not pretend to know all the details (which change from time to time and from SO to SO). But I know that when you violate an illegal system regulation at least in certain environments the board gets canceled, the NO get Av+ or so and the offenders get (in pairs) anything between 0 and Av-. At a French festival you might get away with Av- because they don't want to lose customers. I don't know how they back that legally but this is what they do. Anyway I guess that if you make illegal systems regulations you also put the penalty in the reg. If not you might be right you are heading for legal trouble. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 06:34 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > I do not support your final conclusion. If opening 9HCP is illegal, > > illegal > > it is, you open you lose the board (60-0 or such). > > Please show me the logical chain which, under the laws, leads to a > score of "60-0" on this board. For purposes of the demonstration, I > will accept that there is a regulation (made under which law, though?) > that says that opening on 9 HCP is prohibited, and waive the question > whether such a regulation is legal. > > If a score adjustment is appropriate, then it must be made IAW the > relevant law(s). If a DP or PP is appropriate, that is a different > matter entirely, and has nothing to do with the score on the board. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 10:08:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:08:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349b7$28014300$0e7758db@Desktop> <00ac01c349ba$981280c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00a901c349e7$83f43ac0$a8b64351@noos.fr> > Can someone else please deal with this? It is late, and I have had > enough. > Barking any which way ? David, I probably can not deal with 'this' but I will give it one small try. I think both you and Wayne are right but you don't want to communicate. I support David that if the SO says 'no opening on 9 HCP' then that is it (I hope this applies 1st and 2nd only). But then you should cancel any board were someone opens 9 points or less whatever the reason. Otherwise you end drowning in a swamp. Illegal is illegal. The regulation 'you can open 9 but then not play conventions' or 'you can open 9HCP but not by agreement' is absolutly terrible. This kind of legal tricks destroys the game. If a SO doesn't like 9 HCP openings forbid them. If it is illegal to forbid them outright (king below average !?) then don't forbid them. Anyway I agree with Wayne to the extend that opening 10-12 on a nice 9 (if legal) is exactly the same as on 15-17 on a nice 14. If you do this often it should be indicated on the CC but that is well known. But the fact that someone opens a 10-12 on xx K10x AQ109x 10xx doesn't give me any indication he does not play 10-12 because that is common sense judgement (QJx Qxx Qxx Qxxx is different). Now all this mess about explicit and implicit agreements and experience. All relevant knowledge should be disclosed. I agree with David that there is often no material difference between implicit and explicit agreements. If it is disclosable it is an 'agreement' for some purposes. But it is difficult. To agree and agreement means something different in plain English. But where does the Wayne vs. the rest discussion gets stuck. IMO it is this crazy regulation that permits you to open 9HCP as a mistake or whatever but not as an agreement. This you cannot solve. Of course it provokes endless discussions about 'what is an agreement'. For me it is simple. Either the reg says no 9HCP or it doesn't. If not you can IMHO decide to open 10-12 on xx K10x AQ109x xxx and to pass on QJxx QJx Qxx Qxxx. Just like we all do when playing another NT range. Bottom line, I would allow xx K10x AQ109x 10xx even if there was some 'no 9HCP agreements' reg, because this 9 is far better than a average 10 so for me this is judgement and not an agreement in any sense of the word. If someone would complain about a 15-17 NT on a comparable 14 (xx K10x AQJ109 A10x) we would all say 'come on, it is common knowledge people upgrade exceptional 14 HCP hands'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 5:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Wayne wrote: > > > It is part of your partnership experience it is not necessarily an > > agreement. > > Can someone else please deal with this? It is late, and I have had > enough. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 10:05:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:05:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <004a01c34930$9f373880$7f24e150@endicott> <001701c3493a$4e09c5e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> <001801c349d4$a7f8ca20$fee0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00a801c349e7$837ebca0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Grattan, > +=+ Really? - no other European NBOs with > organisations of comparable size and resources? > which ones do you know about??? - and on the > technologies, do I recall a major glitch with the French > system a year or two ago? - and whose technology > did we have in Montreal, was that perfect? +=+ Don't overdo. Of course the French and the Dutch also make silly mistakes. But they do have vastly more recources than any other European NCBO simply because they have 100.000 odd members each (together half the EBL) and a well equiped office with nice playing facilities with 20+ odd (NBB) and 30- odd (FFB) permanent staff. Besides they have the logistics and organization to multiply their already plentiful material (boards,screens, you name it) by 10 or so by bringing it in from local clubs within one or two days. And yes I know best of all (as a Dutchie living more or less in France) that the FFB (a commercial organization) and NBB (a volunteer based organization) can be completely different on certain issues. There are some things the Dutch do better, and there are things the French do better. They only other European NCBO that might compete IMO (my info is limited) is Italy. But this is because they have some big time sponsors (Lavazza, Angelini) which gives them lots of financial rescources allowing spending you don't have to justify to the tax-paying ordinary member. About your 'glitch'. I prefer the Dutch to the French when it comes to scoring and other technical issues. But the Dutch are less glamorous than the Italians and French. Dutch Rama technology is less ambitous than the others. If you want to be sure it works chose the Dutch. If nice design (big multiple fancy screens etc) is important pick the French or Italians. Another good example is websites. The site of the Dutch fed doesn't look very sexy. But all info is allways there. Very good maintenance. News within the day. The tournament schedule is up a year in advance. Once I send a mail when I spotted a (minor) mistake. It was fixed within hours. All relevant links (national and international) and easy to find. Of course they have a fast server. Brief if you need some info you find it. Unfortunately for the rest of you it is in Dutch only. Now try the French one. Absolutely fabulous design. But don't try to find some info quick. The organization is a big mess. Illogical cross-links. Missing info. Often slow. Brief design driven but nobody seems to have ever asked what the clients really wanted. Now it is improving a little recently but it is under permanent construction. > +=+ But you miss the point. The CTD is precisely the > man designated to run the show, the whole show, > and he should be given the resources, human, material, > and technological, and be allowed to do it - with the > people doing jobs all reporting ultimately to him. The > responsibilities given the CTD in Law have tended to be > split up and farmed out among a string of people. My > argument is that to do this is a mistake and risks, as we > see, a lack of unity and coordination in the preparation > and management of the tournament. Wim Wagner > used to go round with a blueprint specifying every > detail of the tournament organization and he acted as > adjutant to the CTD - not as the man in overall charge. > We have drifted away from this - and I would suspect > there is no blueprint existing these days carrying the > accumulated experience and know-how for future > reference. Grattan, I don't miss any point. I don't mind how you call certain jobs. But running an EC is not the same as a night at the local club. To run an local club evening you need a TD (to run the club you need a club manager). To run an EC you need a very good manager. You mentioned Wim Wagner. He was an excellent manager and so it seemed he was not there (we really need to find someone of his stature again). But he was the man in overall charge (given the normal meaning of the expression). And so the CTD could do his job in peace (bacause Wagner made sure the CTD got anything he needed). In the end the TD's have to run the bridge tournament itself. And that is easier if you don't have to worry about all those other things. Because running the event as a whole is a full time job. So if the CTD has to do that he is TD no more. And for me the CTD is the most senior TD. But once again, what is in a name. And don't forget, an excellent TD can make a terrible tournament manager and the other way around. It is just two different jobs. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Cc: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > " The gentle mind by gentle deeds is known, > For a man by nothing is so well bewrayed. > As by his manners." > 'The Faerie Queen' [Edmund Spenser] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > Grattan, > > > > I know for sure others can do a better job than > > they do. I just mentioned the French and the > > Dutch because they have by far the largest > > standing organisations > < > +=+ Really? - no other European NBOs with > organisations of comparable size and resources? > which ones do you know about??? - and on the > technologies, do I recall a major glitch with the French > system a year or two ago? - and whose technology > did we have in Montreal, was that perfect? +=+ > < > > and most if not all the equipment and a qualified > > crew is directly available. If really necessary the > > French and or the Dutch can organize a Menton > > style event with two weeks notice or so (given a > > venue). Nobody else can except maybe the ACBL. > < > +=+ Really? > All this reference to nationalities gets us > nowhere. The EBL is transnational and can pick > and choose. There were some underlying > problems in Menton that were unsuspected in > advance, and in at least one matter subordinates > who did know failed to speak up. +=+ > < > As for your 'the CTD is in charge'. Well I don't really > care how you call the operational boss. I would not > call him CTD because that is already used for another > task. Anyway, someone has to be in charge of an > event. > < > +=+ But you miss the point. The CTD is precisely the > man designated to run the show, the whole show, > and he should be given the resources, human, material, > and technological, and be allowed to do it - with the > people doing jobs all reporting ultimately to him. The > responsibilities given the CTD in Law have tended to be > split up and farmed out among a string of people. My > argument is that to do this is a mistake and risks, as we > see, a lack of unity and coordination in the preparation > and management of the tournament. Wim Wagner > used to go round with a blueprint specifying every > detail of the tournament organization and he acted as > adjutant to the CTD - not as the man in overall charge. > We have drifted away from this - and I would suspect > there is no blueprint existing these days carrying the > accumulated experience and know-how for future > reference. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 14 09:57:45 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:57:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> Message-ID: <006a01c349e8$08a0ebb0$ddebf1c3@LNV> > > Grattan: > > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > Is Grattan really saying this or did the scissors do its confusing job? As far as I know we discovered the wrong scale in the computer during the mixed teams. The way the Italians reacted makes it almost 100% sure that they were not aware of it before. And of course I was responsible and at least one of you will call me guilty. Let me add the following. Of course I told the Italians to change the table. (That is what the non-existing blue print tells us about this subject: if the imp-vp scale is not according to the wbf scale the operations director tells the soft ware programmer to change the scale. Yes, yes, this is of course remedy D. The blue print starts saying that the operations director checks at least 5 months in advance whether this scale is available and demands a print out as an assurance). Then to my big surprise it wasn't possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy solvable problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change the scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. To demonstrate how the riviera gods were punishing us apart from the heat the following: look at the ranking after the swiss-A in the open teams. (swiss-A with the teams ranked 1 -3 in each of the RR-groups of 8; swiss-B with the others) The first 27 qualified for the KO and there were 6 (I think) teams ranked equal on place 27! This is decided by 'resistance points': you need to find all the opponents of each of these teams and add their totals in VP's. The team with the highest score wins (it played the strongest opponents). But also rank 9 instead of 10 is important since that decides the opponent to play against in the round of 32 in the KO. And I think that half of the teams were ranked equal with others. The software easily showed the opponents but the calculation had to be done manually. It took more than an hour. The other 5 teams came from the swiss-B, interesting format, which made play in the open teams interesting for many teams for at least four days. But watching the results in the KO we discovered that this format showed a big disadvantage. These 5 teams were ranked 28 to 32 in the group of 32. And team 1 had to play team 32, team 2 played 31 etc. What could have been foreseen appeared in the results, the teams 28 - 32 were stronger than most of the teams in the ranking 1 - 27. Chagas hadn't qualified in the RR (became 4th out of 8) but won the swiss B. We need to change this regulation. Two suggestions: Number 1 in the swiss B becomes 4 (5,6)? in the total ranking of the 32 teams etc.(4, 9, 13, 18, 23) or, which is an idea PO Sundelin gave me, you put them 28 - 32 but then split the field in halves : 1 - 16 and 17 - 32 and let team 1 choose an opponent from the teams ranked 17 - 32 and so on. A preference for one of these or other ideas? ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 14 10:12:07 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:12:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <006b01c349e8$092a6700$ddebf1c3@LNV> Jaap > > Second, maybe Ton's language is nicer (but not > > by much) than mine but what he says and how he > > says it is far more insulting (IMHO) than just > > sometimes writing column-style (what I tend to do). > > Besides Ton doesn't even realise he insults people > > (see his last mail to Kojak). I still don't and Kojak didn't show me were I went wrong. Now of course this is not > > an excuse calling names but what else do you do to > > get through that thick skull of his You have done a lot to make it impenetrable, at least for your attacks. And it might be a good idea to let others speak for themselves. > to me that an interval between Swiss matches had > exceeded 40 minutes, That happened indeed but was not caused by delays in the result room but a decision made by the CTD. which seemed incredible, and > players were saying that manual assignment of the > matches would have moved the matches along much > more quickly, which was credible. It would have been > desirable to let players know what had held up the > procedure and to have made an apology for it. This apparently was a well thought about decision for which it is quite unusual to apologize. The > same applies to the delivery of non-comparing > boards to certain matches - to explain how it had > happened would have been good, to apologise in > grovelling terms excellent. In failure humility is a > commendable virtue even if one is not personally > to blame. A very good idea indeed, exactly what I did in the daily bulletin. Not grovelling enough? ton From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Mon Jul 14 10:38:33 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:38:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <006a01c349e8$08a0ebb0$ddebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <011601c349eb$b335de20$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ton, I am sure you did a great job handling all this difficult techical problems on the spot in Menton. You are really the best for that kind of stuff. But you failed in preventing the problems from arising. > Then to my big surprise it wasn't > possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy solvable > problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change the > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. How can you possibly accept software where they cannot change a scale (a data item) without causing problems in other part of the program. This means they have hardcoded data items and even then it is difficult to imagine what they did if changing some random data causes problems. Are they still programming in assembler or what. To my (remotely technical trained) judgement all alarms would go off and if possible at all (and even if not) I would change to another source of software on the spot. AND > The blue print starts saying that the operations director > checks at least 5 months in advance Maybe it should say as well that if the ops director finds something wrong he does something about it. AND > So the result room did change the > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. You say that 5 months ago they could not change the scales immediatly but I have to conclude at Menton five months later they still had not done it ? Who posted some weeks ago that in Lille someone was also manual doing a movement thing which resulted in a complete disaster ? Are you sure we are working with the best possible technical support ? I dare so no. Are you sure you are the best possible tournament manager ? I dare so no. By the way I am sure you are the best problem solver we have around. For that task (and some others) you are number one on my list without competition. But then good planning and managment eliminates much of the on the spot problem solving. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > > > Grattan: > > > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > > > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > > > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > > > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > > > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > > > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > > > > > > Is Grattan really saying this or did the scissors do its confusing job? > > As far as I know we discovered the wrong scale in the computer during the > mixed teams. The way the Italians reacted makes it almost 100% sure that > they were not aware of it before. And of course I was responsible and at > least one of you will call me guilty. > Let me add the following. Of course I told the Italians to change the table. > (That is what the non-existing blue print tells us about this subject: if > the imp-vp scale is not according to the wbf scale the operations director > tells the soft ware programmer to change the scale. Yes, yes, this is of > course remedy D. The blue print starts saying that the operations director > checks at least 5 months in advance whether this scale is available and > demands a print out as an assurance). Then to my big surprise it wasn't > possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy solvable > problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change the > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > To demonstrate how the riviera gods were punishing us apart from the heat > the following: look at the ranking after the swiss-A in the open teams. > (swiss-A with the teams ranked 1 -3 in each of the RR-groups of 8; swiss-B > with the others) The first 27 qualified for the KO and there were 6 (I > think) teams ranked equal on place 27! This is decided by 'resistance > points': you need to find all the opponents of each of these teams and add > their totals in VP's. The team with the highest score wins (it played the > strongest opponents). But also rank 9 instead of 10 is important since that > decides the opponent to play against in the round of 32 in the KO. And I > think that half of the teams were ranked equal with others. The software > easily showed the opponents but the calculation had to be done manually. It > took more than an hour. > > The other 5 teams came from the swiss-B, interesting format, which made play > in the open teams interesting for many teams for at least four days. But > watching the results in the KO we discovered that this format showed a big > disadvantage. These 5 teams were ranked 28 to 32 in the group of 32. And > team 1 had to play team 32, team 2 played 31 etc. What could have been > foreseen appeared in the results, the teams 28 - 32 were stronger than most > of the teams in the ranking 1 - 27. Chagas hadn't qualified in the RR > (became 4th out of 8) but won the swiss B. > > We need to change this regulation. Two suggestions: Number 1 in the swiss B > becomes 4 (5,6)? in the total ranking of the 32 teams etc.(4, 9, 13, 18, 23) > or, which is an idea PO Sundelin gave me, you put them 28 - 32 but then > split the field in halves : 1 - 16 and 17 - 32 and let team 1 choose an > opponent from the teams ranked 17 - 32 and so on. > > A preference for one of these or other ideas? > > ton > > > > From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 14 10:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000701c3499f$e4797a60$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > Ed wrote: > > > > Pfui. This is ridiculous. You have a preconceived idea, and you are > > > completely unwilling to give it up. There is *no* logic to these > > > conclusions from Wayne's statement. > > Yes, there is. What it comes down to is this: > > "Director, this man has opened 1NT on a nine count". > "Why did you do this?" > "Because I had a five-card suit, two aces, a couple of ten-nines..." > "So you were prepared to call this nine-count a ten-count?" > "Yes." > "Are you surprised that your partner was prepared to call his nine-count > a ten-count?" > "No, it looks like the kind of nine-count that I would also call a > ten-count." > "In that case, the method you are playing is illegal, and..." > > With what aspect of this scenario is it possible (or even conceivable) > to disagree? It is conceivable to disagree with the last statement. It is conceivable to say that regulation covers explicit agreements and is not intended to restrict player judgement. I know it is conceivable because DWS has said so repeatedly. I know that makes the regulation almost impossible to apply but I also believe it makes it slightly less stupid (in bridge terms). Absent an official EBU statement on the issue I choose to believe the "judgement allowed" camp rather than the "no judgement" camp. I realise that TDs will rule according to their own beliefs but that is just something up with which I will have to put. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 14 10:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <008401c349ae$eb3593c0$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: DALB wrote: > Tim West-Meads may not open a 6-5 seven count at the one level if his > partner might expect such a hand. This is an interesting point. My regular partners certainly don't expect me to have 6-5 seven count with fantastic intermediates when I open at the one level. Such hands account for a fraction of 1% of the hands I open. Contrariwise even my pick-up partners (knowing very little about me) might expect *anybody* holding AJTxxx,QT9xx,xx,- to open 1S. I had, until now, been pretty sure that even DALB would allow a 1S bid were I playing with a pick-up partner - but perhaps not. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 14 10:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <007801c349ad$33cc4220$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: DALB wrote: > > Now, if you open 1NT on 14-counts that are not "featureless", our > "agreement" is still 14-17, but at least I know (and at least I can tell > the opponents) what to expect (we will put "14-17" on our convention > cards, for a start). The same is true, mutatis mutandis, if we "agree" > on 10-12, but... you may not open 1NT on a "featureful" 9-count, because > there is a regulation against so doing (or, to be precise, there is not > a regulation against so doing, but there is a regulation against my > responding with Stayman or a transfer). Is this correct David? Does the regulation only come into play if a conventional call is used (rather than merely "being available"). Or is the regulation "One may not have an agreement to open sub rule of 19 hands while simultaneously having agreements to play conventions over 1 level openings."? Tim From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Mon Jul 14 11:03:15 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:03:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: >From: "Nigel Guthrie" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] HCP >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:02:49 +0100 > >[Wayne Burrows] > >...Nevertheless I have an expectation that >occasionally especially around corners some >drivers will cross the centre line. >I do not have an implicit agreement with those >drivers that it is ok to cross the centre line. > >[Nigel Guthrie] > >I agree with all David Burn's comments on this >topic. > >But please indulge my attempt to be Devil's >Advocate and to argue the relevant Bridge analogy >of Wayne's excellent example. > >On our first outing at an EBU level 3 event, my >new partener opens 1S in third seat. We have >never discussed third hand tactics. > >If partner is a among the few Walruses who have >read and understood the Orange Book, then I expect >that his bid will conform to rule of 19. > >But what if he is among the majority who have not >read the Orange Book? > >Even if he has read the Orange book, what if he is >a "Secretary Bird" who always uses his notorious >"judgement" to "interpret" the literal rules into >a subjective farrago? Inevitably, the HCP of some >hand-types are mysteriously inflated. > >At the end of the board, I find my suspicions are >confirmed: As is his custom, Partner has opened... > AJTx Ax xxxx xxx or > AQT9xx JT9xx x x > >Should I call the TD to report the possible >infraction? > >Do we have an "agreement" in David Burn's terms? > >Who will rule against us, however. Surely, not any >of the TDs who publicly advertise their law-breaking? > >OK, this is another law that is unenforced and >unenforceable; it is kept on the books to handicap >legal masochists like me. > >But it is still interesting in theory. My tentative >conclusion is... > >Before the board, we had no "explicit agreement". >Nevertheless my logical "expectation" was completely >accurate. And IMO, that is what the law must mean by >"implicit agreement". > >I know partner is an honest man but "if I go with the >flow", then I am a cheat, at least in my own eyes. > >Hence, going back to Wayne's paradigm, I suppose I do >have an "implicit agreement" with strangers on the >road, that they will occasionally cross the central >line. ++++Can't this whole matter be resolved by the partners of those who insist that they can open what they like under whatever the circumstances just "bidding up"? If you act as though partner's minimum is what the regulations say the minimum should be, without deviation, then no suspicious eyebrow will ever be raised. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 14 11:20:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:20:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <006801c349de$52631b60$089868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <012601c349f1$99991bc0$089868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne Burrows] ...Nevertheless I have an expectation that occasionally especially around corners some drivers will cross the centre line. I do not have an implicit agreement with those drivers that it is ok to cross the centre line. [Nigel Guthrie with some typos corrected] I agree with David Burn's comments on this topic. But please indulge my attempt to be Devil's Advocate and to argue the relevant Bridge analogy of Wayne's excellent example. On our first outing at an EBU level 3 event, my new partner opens 1S in third seat. We have never discussed third hand tactics. If partner is among the few Walruses who have read and understood the Orange Book, then I expect that his bid will conform to rule of 19. But what if he is among the majority who have not read the Orange Book? Even if he has read the Orange book, what if he is a "Secretary Bird" who always uses his notorious "judgement" to "interpret" the literal rules into a subjective farrago? Inevitably, the HCP of some hand-types are mystically inflated. At the end of the board, I find my suspicions are confirmed: As is his custom, Partner has opened... AJTx Ax xxxx xxx or AQT9xx JT9xx x x Do we have an "agreement" in David Burn's terms? Should I call the TD to report the possible infraction? Who will rule against us, however? Surely, not any of the TDs who publicly advertise their law-breaking? Of course, the WBFLC should urgently ensure that its laws are simple and comprehensive enough to render spurious such local legal aberrations. OK, yet another rule that is unenforced and unenforceable; are they kept on the books just to handicap legal masochists like me? But it is still interesting in theory. My tentative conclusions... Before the board, we had no "explicit agreement". Nevertheless my logical "expectation" was completely accurate. And IMO, that is what the law must mean by "implicit agreement". I know partner is an honest man but "if I go with the flow", then I am a cheat, at least in my own eyes. Finally, going back to Wayne's paradigm, I suppose that I do have an "implicit agreement" with strangers on the road, that they sometimes cross the central lines. IMO, whether I think its "OK" is irrelevant. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003 From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 11:29:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:29:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <001a01c349f2$c6a63340$a8b64351@noos.fr> > Jaap has indicated that the N/S pair may not be up to the standard indicated > in the post. He has also indicated that 100 good players, polled, would bid > 2S. I would have agreed with him before talking to South. The rdbl SOS > treatment and 2C as I have no preference or a suit of my own - bid yours - > is an excellent bidding treatment and maybe if the 100 good pairs had this > treatment available OR thought about it - they would find it a better bid > than 2S. It loses nothing and gains everything. It will become part of my > system (BTW 2C over the double as natural makes no sense). Reasoning along > Tim's lines - all the bididng till south's final pass is imo reasonable. Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is ridiculous. Of course partner can have a hand where another partscore is better than 2S but that would be at extremely long odds. Now this is when 1NT is natural. If it turns out they always double on balanced hands and 1NT is 'always' suit based it becomes a completely different story. Then it is normal to try to play the NT bidders suit (because you are 'sure' it exists). But in that case there is a disclosure problem. So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] a Club ruling > > DWS writes: > > > > Perhaps you could explain why it is right to be harsh to a pair that > > have done nothing wrong except made mistakes in bridge, but not to be > > harsh to a pair that are clearly in breach of L40, having without any > > doubt fielded a psyche? > > Whether they have fielded a psyche or not is far from clear. If, as I do, > one considers x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx as a perfectly respectable 1N overcall of > 1C then South's bidding is reasonable. If one is playing SOS redoubles > then 2D showing a good suit while 2C is pick a suit is something I would > hope a pick-up partner would work out. It would be grotesque to adjust on > the basis of a fielded psyche. > > +++ I agree with Tim here. I can see no evidence to indicate that this > partnership had any undisclosed Psyche information. L40 is not relevant. I > also agree with Tim's example of a possible offbeat 1NT and can produce > thousands more. I dont think the psyche as such is a cause for score > adjustment. The pause is what matters here. I think we can agree that an > in tempo 1NT would lead to 2D* making being the result. > > > However there is still the UI to worry > about. I'm not sure but I think the UI does suggest an off-shape hand, > but then so does the 2D bid. > > +++ Once again agree. The 2D bid by itself is a clear indication to all > that N has now bid 1NT (probably off beat or understrength or both) on a > very good diamond suit. West at this stage can be 100% certain that N has > psyched looking at DAKQ. > > Jaap has indicated that the N/S pair may not be up to the standard indicated > in the post. He has also indicated that 100 good players, polled, would bid > 2S. I would have agreed with him before talking to South. The rdbl SOS > treatment and 2C as I have no preference or a suit of my own - bid yours - > is an excellent bidding treatment and maybe if the 100 good pairs had this > treatment available OR thought about it - they would find it a better bid > than 2S. It loses nothing and gains everything. It will become part of my > system (BTW 2C over the double as natural makes no sense). Reasoning along > Tim's lines - all the bididng till south's final pass is imo reasonable. > > > I think I shall rule that 2S *is* a non > suggested LA. However I think there is not a chance in hell of North > standing for it. I'll adjust to 3Cx-2 absent discussion with others. > > Tim > > +++ Now at this stage over the 2nd double I'm not so sure what the ruling > should be .... but it comes down to two positions > > (a) The benefit of the doubt : The reason behind the pause is unclear at > best. The bidding to date indicates a 1NT bid something similar to Tim's > example. There is no reason to believe 2S will fare any better. South > passes and backs his judgement. South's testimony would be a major factor > in convincing you to believe this version of events. I, at the time was > convinced. > > (b) The cynical view. South has a clear cut 2S bid either 1st or 2nd time. > He didn't do so because, the pause, indicated a psyche bid. South is in > breach of L40 & has UI. > > > If you're in the (a) camp and I am just about 2D* stands. If in the (b) > camp then you've got to decide what the likely result will be. Again I > think Tim's 3C-2 doubled is a good choice. > > > In the discussion to date - no one has mentioned the amazing defence. This > whole case sounded awfully like sour grapes to me. 2D* with any sort of > competent defence is -2 or -3. Does E/W's abmissal defence not forfiet > their right to an adjusted score for them ?? > > Is a split score of 2D* making for NOS and 3C*-2 for the OS not a fairer > result for the (b) camp ?? > > Karel > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 14 11:37:09 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:37:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <013401c349f3$e2027bc0$089868d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Norman Scorbie] Can't this whole matter be resolved by the partners of those who insist that they can open what they like under whatever the circumstances just "bidding up"? If you act as though partner's minimum is what the regulations say the minimum should be, without deviation, then no suspicious eyebrow will ever be raised. [Nigel Guthrie] Unfortunately No. Light third-seat openers are theoretically sound, especially when they consume bidding space and direct killing leads. We have lost matches because we refrain from opening such hands against opponents without our inhibitions. Presumably more teams will lose more matches for similar reasons until the WBF/EBU clarify, publicise and enforce the rules (if they ever decide so to do). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 14 11:43:06 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:43:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <006a01c349e8$08a0ebb0$ddebf1c3@LNV> <011601c349eb$b335de20$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <012401c349f4$c09f5060$ddebf1c3@LNV> Jaap: > But > you failed in preventing the problems from > arising. yes, I did > > > Then to my big surprise it wasn't > > possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy > solvable > > problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change the > > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two > > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > How can you possibly accept software where they cannot change a scale (a > data item) without causing problems in other part of the program. This means > they have hardcoded data items and even then it is difficult to imagine what > they did if changing some random data causes problems. Are they still > programming in assembler or what. To my (remotely technical trained) > judgement all alarms would go off and if possible at all (and even if not) I > would change to another source of software on the spot. Easy said. > > AND > > > The blue print starts saying that the operations director > > checks at least 5 months in advance > > Maybe it should say as well that if the ops director finds something wrong > he does something about it. > > AND > > > So the result room did change the > > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two > > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > You say that 5 months ago they could not change the scales immediatly but I > have to conclude at Menton five months later they still had not done it ? Another ironical remark missed its purpose. I was referring to Grattan who came up with an all problems solving blue print and I tried to say that it won't help that much. We hadn't a blue print saying that the conversion scale should be the right one. And we discovered the wrong scale for the first time when using it in Menton. Didn't I say that somewhere? ton > Who posted some weeks ago that in Lille someone was also manual doing a > movement thing which resulted in a complete disaster ? > > Are you sure we are working with the best possible technical support ? I > dare so no. > Are you sure you are the best possible tournament manager ? I dare so no. > > By the way I am sure you are the best problem solver we have around. For > that task (and some others) you are number one on my list without > competition. But then good planning and managment eliminates much of the on > the spot problem solving. > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Grattan Endicott" > > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > > > > > > > > > Grattan: > > > > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > > > > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > > > > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > > > > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > > > > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > > > > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > > > > > > > > > > > Is Grattan really saying this or did the scissors do its confusing job? > > > > As far as I know we discovered the wrong scale in the computer during the > > mixed teams. The way the Italians reacted makes it almost 100% sure that > > they were not aware of it before. And of course I was responsible and at > > least one of you will call me guilty. > > Let me add the following. Of course I told the Italians to change the > table. > > (That is what the non-existing blue print tells us about this subject: if > > the imp-vp scale is not according to the wbf scale the operations director > > tells the soft ware programmer to change the scale. Yes, yes, this is of > > course remedy D. The blue print starts saying that the operations director > > checks at least 5 months in advance whether this scale is available and > > demands a print out as an assurance). Then to my big surprise it wasn't > > possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy > solvable > > problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change the > > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when two > > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > > > To demonstrate how the riviera gods were punishing us apart from the heat > > the following: look at the ranking after the swiss-A in the open teams. > > (swiss-A with the teams ranked 1 -3 in each of the RR-groups of 8; swiss-B > > with the others) The first 27 qualified for the KO and there were 6 (I > > think) teams ranked equal on place 27! This is decided by 'resistance > > points': you need to find all the opponents of each of these teams and add > > their totals in VP's. The team with the highest score wins (it played the > > strongest opponents). But also rank 9 instead of 10 is important since > that > > decides the opponent to play against in the round of 32 in the KO. And I > > think that half of the teams were ranked equal with others. The software > > easily showed the opponents but the calculation had to be done manually. > It > > took more than an hour. > > > > The other 5 teams came from the swiss-B, interesting format, which made > play > > in the open teams interesting for many teams for at least four days. But > > watching the results in the KO we discovered that this format showed a big > > disadvantage. These 5 teams were ranked 28 to 32 in the group of 32. And > > team 1 had to play team 32, team 2 played 31 etc. What could have been > > foreseen appeared in the results, the teams 28 - 32 were stronger than > most > > of the teams in the ranking 1 - 27. Chagas hadn't qualified in the RR > > (became 4th out of 8) but won the swiss B. > > > > We need to change this regulation. Two suggestions: Number 1 in the swiss > B > > becomes 4 (5,6)? in the total ranking of the 32 teams etc.(4, 9, 13, 18, > 23) > > or, which is an idea PO Sundelin gave me, you put them 28 - 32 but then > > split the field in halves : 1 - 16 and 17 - 32 and let team 1 choose an > > opponent from the teams ranked 17 - 32 and so on. > > > > A preference for one of these or other ideas? > > > > ton > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:16:56 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:16:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <006a01c349e8$08a0ebb0$ddebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3F129F38.9060400@skynet.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > The other 5 teams came from the swiss-B, interesting format, which made play > in the open teams interesting for many teams for at least four days. But > watching the results in the KO we discovered that this format showed a big > disadvantage. These 5 teams were ranked 28 to 32 in the group of 32. And > team 1 had to play team 32, team 2 played 31 etc. What could have been > foreseen appeared in the results, the teams 28 - 32 were stronger than most > of the teams in the ranking 1 - 27. Chagas hadn't qualified in the RR > (became 4th out of 8) but won the swiss B. > > We need to change this regulation. Two suggestions: Number 1 in the swiss B > becomes 4 (5,6)? in the total ranking of the 32 teams etc.(4, 9, 13, 18, 23) > or, which is an idea PO Sundelin gave me, you put them 28 - 32 but then > split the field in halves : 1 - 16 and 17 - 32 and let team 1 choose an > opponent from the teams ranked 17 - 32 and so on. > > A preference for one of these or other ideas? > I worked it out as putting them at places 20-24. They then play 9-13, and after that 4-8. Only then do they meet 1-3. > ton > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Jul 14 13:18:14 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:18:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030710220822.00b5f1b8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000001c34a02$00eeb5e0$204726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Sorry, disagree. My partner has opened =3D 10+ HCP I have responded at 2 level =3D 10+ HCP (unless playing negative free = bids?) My partner has supported me at 3 level =3D better than a minimum with 4 = card support They can't make 4S - I'm doubling for blood and leading a trump. What's = the problem? regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = David J. Grabiner Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:22 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Stop card continued At 02:13 PM 7/10/2003, Marvin French wrote: [snip] W N E S 1H 1S 2D 2S 3D 4S X P (X is made two seconds after 4S) P P The fast double gives UI, and thus if 5D was a LA to passing for West, = and=20 5D and 4Sx are both down, the score should be adjusted. [snip] _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:20:37 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:20:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000501c349da$97d6f0d0$702f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F12A015.6000303@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > With your interpretation L40A is dead letter. Is that precisely what > you want? > No it is not. I still allow you to open a 15-17NT on 9HCP, or on 3HCP. L40A speaks of deviation from system. I'm telling you that what you are doing is NOT deviation of system. > Wayne > > >>>Wayne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> ~ Grattan >>>>~ +=+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blml mailing list >>>>blml@rtflb.org >>>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blml mailing list >>>blml@rtflb.org >>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 13:25:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:25:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: References: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:12 PM 7/11/03, David wrote: > If pd led the HK [A from AK] and it is not his lead, then it becomes >an MPC. the following are UI: > >[a] He holds the HK In terms of a player's process of deciding what card to play to a trick, what is the difference between: (a) I know that partner has a penalty card which he must play at his next legal opportunity, but I don't know what it is, and (b) I know that partner must play a card to this trick when his turn comes, but I don't know what it will be? If you don't (aren't allowed by law to) "know" the identity of partner's penalty card, the knowledge that he must play it (AHNLO) is totally meaningless. Surely the Law tells you that you can "know" *something* and use this knowledge, and the mere fact that partner has an unknown penalty card cannot sensibly be it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:23:24 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:23:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349df$b8912340$702f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F12A0BC.1010405@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>contradictio in terminis! >>If your partner has experience that tells him you might have >>only nine >>points, then your partnership agreement IS that you can open >>a 9 count! >> > > Are you describing your own understanding Herman. > > My experience is not the same as my agreements. > > An agreement to have a certain number of high card points is not an > undertaking to have that number every time that I open 1NT showing that > number. > Wayne, you are telling me your agreement with your partner is that you count fuzzily. You tell me that if you open 1NT when playing 15-17, then 14 is also possible. Then your agreement with partner is not to play 15-17, but to play fuzzy 15-17. And you agreement to play 10-12 is not that, but to play fuzzy 10-12. Well, playing fuzzy 10-12 is illegal, no matter how many times you tell me you are playing 10-12. You are not playing that, you are playing fuzzy 10-12. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 14 13:23:11 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:23:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F125C21.3070807@skynet.be> References: <3F125C21.3070807@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3F125C21.3070807@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >No Ed, > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 16:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> So as I suspected, you are a favourite of weak openings. Probably >>> miffed in that SOs are trying to regulate these. And trying to wriggle >>> out of them. All the more evidence. It's always players like that who >>> open too weakly, and then tell the TD that it's the first time they've >>> done so. >> >> >> Pfui. This is ridiculous. You have a preconceived idea, and you are >> completely unwilling to give it up. There is *no* logic to these >> conclusions from Wayne's statement. >> > > >No, Ed, >I have experience. Experience that tells me that in the majority of >cases I came accross a few years ago when the rule of 18 was hot in >Belgium, the infractors were always the same people with always the >same story. My way of ruling is based on those people. I think Herman is right in the sense that "we know" who does it. for example "we know" that I do :). It's always the same pairs, and as it goes, when I'm playing with Tim I have concluded that it is *probably* illegal per EBU for me to open a ferdinand, and *probably not* with a pick-up partner. ...and so I agree with the 10-count 1NT opened with 9 too. So on this occasion I join forces with Herman. {Issues notarised document to Herman that John agrees with him} 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 john@asimere.com Mon Jul 14 13:25:17 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:25:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> References: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Wayne wrote: > >> I have a fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count. > >So you do. And if you are in the habit of exercising your fundamental >lawful right to open a 9-count, you will fall foul of a fundamentally >lawful regulation that says: "Any partnership that, by agreement >[whether explicit or implicit] opens any 9-count with 1NT may not play >any conventions following an opening bid of 1NT." > >Now, don't get me wrong. I do not think that this ought to be the Law. >But it is the Law, and it is so obviously the Law that any argument to >the effect that it is not falls into the category of fatuities too >monumental to be espoused even by a subscriber to BLML on a bad day. It >ought to be clear to any keen follower of this list that if I agree with >Herman, that on which we agree must be so. You are not so much barking >up the wrong tree as completely in the wrong forest. > >David Burn >London, England OMG. DALB, HdW and the MadDog *all* agree. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:28:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:28:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000401c349d9$be5de020$702f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F12A1D3.4020900@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > We certainly tell them if it has happened before - although I can > understand players not telling the opponents if Herman is going to come > along and rule against them telling them that they have an agreement > when they have no such agreement. > Which is precisely the reason why I, as TD, need to rule against them regardless of what they say. Because they know that if they are honest, I shall have to rule against them. So they prefer to be dishonest. Why should dishonest players have an advantage over honest ones? And before you say this, maybe I am also catching some honest ones. People who really never opened a hand like this before. Too bad. They should have counted, remembered the regulation, and not opened. Why should (even honest) people who have never done it before have an advantage over (honest or dishonest) people who have done it before? > >>Of course, we are >>just a couple of honest guys, telling our opponents >>fairly, as the law requires, what our partnership >>understandings are. >> > > Of course we tell them our understandings and we tell them our > partnership experience. > > Our understandings can be regulated our experience can not. > OK? so you are honest, I believe you. Now please believe me when I tell you that IMO this means you are playing an ileegal system. > Wayne > > >> Not to my shame, we don't. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 13:39:33 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:39:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <002101c34842$e5caf230$de86403e@endicott> References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714083212.023d4c10@pop.starpower.net> At 02:55 AM 7/12/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The problem with this is that it hasn't been, at least not > > unless we are talking about a strictly BLML-centric > > context. The WBFLC may modify the "official" text of a > > law, and even let us BLML (and other) "insiders" look it > > up on the Web, but the "reality of that text" doesn't > > change until it reaches those who routinely look to their > > lawbooks, along with any printed errata they may get > > subsequently, for the text of the laws. The WBFLC may > > nominally change the laws, but until those changes reach > > the real people who are affected by them their "reality" > > has not yet changed. > >+=+ Since ton arrived in the chair and I became Secretary >the WBFLC minutes have been promulgated to NBOs and >have been put up on blml. I am not sure whether they are >also to be found on the ecats website - Anna Gudge may >have put them there. We make them available; it is not >our responsibility to deliver them to individuals; it is >for the NBO to circulate information as it thinks fit to its >TDs/clubs etc. I'd have put that last bit rather more strongly: "it is the responsibility of the NBO to circulate information to those that need it to do their jobs properly." There is nothing wrong on paper with this division of responsibility for disseminating laws changes between the WBFLC and NCBOs. However, the reality is that many (most) NCBOs do not discharge their responsibility, the WBFLC knows that they don't, and it is futile and counter-productive to pretend otherwise. 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 Jul 14 14:07:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:07:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <000801c3491b$b2e2d2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714090156.023f3a70@pop.starpower.net> At 04:49 AM 7/13/03, Sven wrote: >Wayne Burrows > >2S* 4H** P P*** >P > >* Alerted > >** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" and >was told "yes" > >Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H >bidder? >- A natural weak two would not need to be alerted. >- The bid showed a weak two-suiter. > >Sven: > >As the question was posed the answer "yes" is correct and sufficient >(although it does not fully explain the call; and in particular it >does not >explain why the call was alerted). > >A question by South to the effect of obtaining a full explanation of the >alerted opening bid could be in order, the explanation given so far was >insufficient and South by asking does not give away the UI that he has no >need for the full explanation. Other questions by South will apparently be >more doubtful. This wouldn't be true in the ACBL, which has officially (and, IMO, sensibly) stated that although the officially blessed form in which to ask about an alerted call is "Please explain", *any* question about an alerted call should be answered with a full and complete explanation. IOW you should reply as though the inquiry had been "Please explain" regardless of the actual words used. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From David Stevenson Mon Jul 14 14:23:06 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200307110332.XAA00809@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200307110332.XAA00809@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> However, for anyone to open it at the three level, >> in the absence of UI, though legitimate, would be an >> action at the low end of probability > >But how about when partner is barred? Are you saying that partner >being barred is UI? If so, would you force a player to open 2D multi >with the hand, if multi is what they play? I am really very surprised >by this point of view. Partner being barred is AI. Partner not having the values for an opening bid is UI. -- 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 Jul 14 14:21:38 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:21:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <006401c347d7$78660b00$754127d9@pbncomputer> References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> <+z0O9WDC0tD$EwJG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c347d7$78660b00$754127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn writes >DWS writes: > >> I believe one of the main things that people who make and apply the >> Laws should do is to make it clear to the players what they should do. >> L73C is written for that: other Laws are not. So I always use L73C to >> tell players what they should do. > >Unfortunately, Law 73 does not tell players what they should do. It >expresses a pious hope, rather than anything that may suggest a course >of action. A player, told "you must not take advantage of some >information", will (correctly) construe this as licence to bid what he >would have bid anyway in the absence of the information. He will say to >himself (correctly) "I am not taking advantage of information; I am >making my normal bid". If told instead "you may not choose from among >alternatives anything suggested over anything else by the information", >he will at least stand a chance of construing this correctly, and not >committing an infraction. > >Law 73, like the rest of what used to be the Proprieties, should be >buried deep within the earth, with no monument to mark its resting >place. It should certainly not be used as a basis on which to tell >anybody anything, for as such it is utterly worthless. The wording may not be helpful, and I do not read it out to a plyer when I am explaining to him. But the pious hope, as oyu put it, is what we want players to do. A well worded comment based on L73C will be more helpful that a comment bristling with logical alternatives and the like. -- 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 Jul 14 14:35:10 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: References: <4jbPJhD$$tD$Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Bower writes >On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, David Stevenson wrote: > >> By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues >> are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, chatting >> to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking >> together between matches. > >Speaking of security issues... > >Are there any special concerns with having the hands made up a day or more >in advance? When you only make up one or two sets of boards in advance >it's a simple matter for the dealer and/or director to keep the boards >under their personal control until game time... but with making up 50 sets >a day for several days - seems like there are a lot more hazards with >someone seeing something he shouldn't, and with accidentally putting out >one of tomorrow's sets today, than there are with making them on the spot >with hand records as we do in the ACBL. > >Maybe I am just paranoid since I haven't seen it done. I cannot remember a single problem of people seeing the actual boards when they should not. I have just directed in Llandudno. The boards were made up in advance by a member of BLML who was not present in Llandudno and brought to the venue in the back of another TD's car. We carried them in, kept them in a particular area for TDs. We check them, put them out. How would someone have seen a hand by accident? On purpose, ok, possible. If someone really wanted to cheat in this way, perhaps - but I am sure they could do that just as well with ACBL hand records, perhaps by overnight burglary, or stealing a computer. Mistakes over the boards? Putting out the wrong set? Sure, it happens - but it used to happen with hand records and made-up at the table. It's no worse. I remember a Men's Pairs and A Ladies' Pairs in adjacent hotels in Coventry, before duplimate boards. A TD put out the wrong hand records. This spoilt it for the Ladies' Pairs as well since they were playing the same hands. For the rest of the weekend, ignoring the fact that it was a single TD error, the ladies were happily telling each other that having to deal hands at the table and not getting hand records "was all the fault of The Men"! -- 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 Jul 14 14:39:49 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: References: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7FqvQ5AlKrE$EwS9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Bower writes >The most common example of this in practice is someone makes an opening >lead of an honour out of turn. If it becomes a penalty card, I will say to >the other defender something like "you are allowed to use the information >that your partner has (say) the queen of hearts and must play it at first >opportunity; but you are not yet entitled to know whether your partner has >the king or jack, and must avoid using that information until it comes to >light legally." Unfortunately this is not correct: partner is allowed to know he will play it at the first legal opportunity but not to deduce things because he knows he has the card. So you should not be saying "you are allowed to use the info that your partner has the queen of hearts" because he is not: but he is allowed to know that it will be played on certain tricks. -- 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 Jul 14 14:40:56 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:40:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >> David Stevenson >......... >> >Taken to the limits this means that if declarer's RHO has the Ace of >> trumps >> >as a penalty card and declarer plays a small trump towards the Queen in >> >dummy then you as declarer's LHO must play the King from you holding of >> the >> >King and one small to the trick! (Do I need to elaborate on why?) >> >> This is wrong: read L50D1: it is authorised that he has to play htat >> card. > >Sure it is authorized that partner has to play that card, but is also the >identity of the card authorized information before it is actually played? You know that card will be played: that is AI: the law says so. -- 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 ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 14:52:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:52:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F125B54.7080808@skynet.be> References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> At 03:27 AM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>This is not a fact this is an opinion and I believe that it is wrong. >>If it is not wrong tell me which law says that I cannot open a 9 count >>when that is not my partnership agreement but that partner from general >>knowledge or specific partnership experience knows that I might have >>only nine points? >contradictio in terminis! >If your partner has experience that tells him you might have only nine >points, then your partnership agreement IS that you can open a 9 count! > >>The regulations that I have read say something like you cannot agree to >>open 9 points that is different than in practice opening a particular >>hand that happens to have 9 points. The latter I believe is not subject >>to regulation. >When partner expects you to be able to do this - that is a partnership >agreement - and that is subject to regulation. > >Wayne, we have been going far further than this. I have been saying >that even if your partner does not know or expect this, he might know >or expect it, and I would rule against the bidder anyway. This is not a "could have known" situation. You may not have an agreement. Either you do, and are in violation, or you don't, and aren't. From the perspective of the TD when called to the table, "he might know or expect it", or he might not, but the partner of the bidder either does or doesn't. Deciding which is the case in any particular instance is what TDs get paid for. This thread has fallen into a debate between extreme positions. When a player makes the sort of bid in question, Wayne would always accept it, and Herman would always disallow it. ISTM that a competent, conscientious TD will do neither. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From David Stevenson Mon Jul 14 14:48:01 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:48:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000c01c347e7$a739daf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000c01c347e7$a739daf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5FHvASBRSrE$EwTL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran writes >Thanks for another helpful post Jesper. > >I finally found the WBFLC minutes from Lille so I understand that I have not >been completely in-line with WBFLC when reading Law 50. > >This leads me to another suggestion which I believe is more important than >anybody can have imagined so far: > >Could we have an authorized WEB location with the official laws available, >and where the law text gets updated or notes added to the affected laws so >that when you look up on a particular law you find the current understanding >of that law and not just the official text from (currently) 1997 with no >indication that the reality of that text has been modified? > >I find it nearly impossible to search through all the WBFLC minutes whenever >I want to look up a particular law in case there should be cleverly hidden >away some minutes which amends or clarifies the original text. This latest >discussion is as I see it a very good example. > >The regular meetings of WBFLC is a good thing, but their minutes lack >indexing and accessibility. > >Anybody care to comment on this which I really intend to be a positive >suggestion and not just some sour critics? At the Chairman of the WBFLC's request and consequent on a suggestion from the WBF webmaster I wrote a simplified explanation of all WBFLC minutes that contained interpretations of Laws since the last law book. They are written in Law number order, and I believe are exactly what is required. However, the WBFLC did not accept them in Montreal, and said they needed more work. I have not heard of anything happening further. The EBU agrees with the interpretations that I have made from WBFLC minutes. They are not official, of course, because the WBFLC did not accept them, but they will appear in the new EBU White book as EBU interpretation. I hope the white book will appear in the autumn. -- 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 Jul 14 14:53:43 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:53:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L25(b) question In-Reply-To: <200307111940.PAA22023@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200307111940.PAA22023@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <$lquYdBnXrE$Ewwz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner writes >> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) >> Normaly there would be no problem; West has not yet called, >> a straight L25(b) ruling. However, what do we do if North reaches >> across the table and grabs CHO by the throat, yelling: >> "WHADAYA DOING, YOU MORON? YOU CAN'T PASS!!!"(or, perhaps, just >> a gentle roll of the eyes or quiet snort, for those who don't > >L73B1, L12A1, L12C2. What's the problem? (I won't mention 12C3 because >it seems wildly unlikely you would need it, but it might be an >additional step in some rare case.) L12C3 would be quite common here. You are going to adjust back to an unlikely contract in a poor fit. Rather than worry about whether it is going to take three, four, five or six tricks, L12C3 TDs will be able to rule much quicker by giving 25% of each. A couple of correspondences recently from the ACBL has made me realise that some people in NAMerica think L12C3 slows down rulings - it doesn't. You do not worry so much about extreme care in numbers of tricks, for example. -- 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 15:17:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:17:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <001a01c349f2$c6a63340$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:29 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one >way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is >ridiculous. AG : please note that a ridiculous bid is not an infraction in the strict sense of the term. >Of course partner can have a hand where another partscore is >better than 2S but that would be at extremely long odds. > >Now this is when 1NT is natural. If it turns out they always double on >balanced hands and 1NT is 'always' suit based it becomes a completely >different story. Then it is normal to try to play the NT bidders suit >(because you are 'sure' it exists). But in that case there is a disclosure >problem. > >So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an >argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT >natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going >on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT bid, which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough to make 1NT alertable. If NS can produce some evidence that this redouble asks North to bid his 5+ suit, and 2C if he hasn't any (this could be the reason why he didn't bid 2C here), I don't see what was illegal in this sequence. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 15:22:02 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:22:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714090156.023f3a70@pop.starpower.net> References: <000801c3491b$b2e2d2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161834.02571130@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:07 14/07/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >This wouldn't be true in the ACBL, which has officially (and, IMO, >sensibly) stated that although the officially blessed form in which to ask >about an alerted call is "Please explain", *any* question about an alerted >call should be answered with a full and complete explanation. IOW you >should reply as though the inquiry had been "Please explain" regardless of >the actual words used. AG : interesting. Now, as I said, (all) I want to know (is) whether 1C is forcing ; and according to the ACBL official position, I get a bunch of information from which the answer to my question isn't obvious (probably they said it, but the relevant information is buried in the long text). What do I do ? From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 15:11:09 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:11:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F125E39.3030506@skynet.be> References: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714095607.00a020c0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:39 AM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>>Well, I do anyway - I ask you to explain and I listen to your arguments. >>And whatever I say you rule against me. >No I don't. >Although by now, I have a good picture in my mind of what it is you >are going to tell me, and if that picture turns out to be true, I will >rule against me. >But if you can make me believe that you have miscounted your points, I >will not rule against you. That is simply a red herring. If you open 1NT on 9 points, in the face of a regulation that says you may not have an agreement to do so, the decision the TD must make is *not* whether you have miscounted your points or deliberately upgraded your 10s and five-card suit. It is whether your partner might have anticipated that you would do so or has been legitimately taken by surprise. If the latter, you have not violated the regulation, so your reasons for violating the agreement don't matter. Granted, your reason may be evidence as to what partner's expectation was, but it is far from definitive. Granted, too, it may not be easy to differentiate between "violating" an agreement and having an agreement which has subtly changed over time. Perhaps it was an unexpected departure the last time but not this time. Or perhaps it was an unexpected departure this time, but will not be the next time. Or perhaps pard was just as suprised this time as last time. Or perhaps pard was never surprised at all. Or etc. It is the job of the TD to ascertain the facts. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From rwilley@mit.edu Mon Jul 14 15:13:54 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:13:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <1058192034.3f12baa274915@webmail.mit.edu> I have been watching this discussion with some interest and would like to= make=20 an observation: As Wayne has noted repeatedly, many reasonable people believe that there = is a=20 difference between an explicit partnership agreement to open 9 HCP hands = with=20 1NT and individual judgment that a particular 9 HCP hand is equivalent to= 10+=20 HCP. To me, at least, the crux of the matter seems very similar to =93fielding= =94 a=20 psyche. If responder takes actions that makes it clear that the partners= hip=20 agreement is actually 9-11 or 9-12 HCP, this would seem to provide clear=20 evidence that the true partnership agreement has an official lower bound = below=20 the =93magical=94 10 HCP boundary. If the responder=92s actions are comp= letely=20 consistent with 10 HCP, then there does not seem to be clear evidence. I= n=20 which case, my upbringing in the US makes me most comfortable assuming in= nocent=20 until proven guilty =96 I certainly prefer this to trusting in the divine= ly=20 inspired wisdom of any particular TD. [I also have this strange believe = that=20 the purpose of the Laws is to protect the players from the NCBOs, but tha= t=92s a=20 whole different kettle of fish] From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 15:45:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:45:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: References: <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714103531.009fcec0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:40 AM 7/14/03, David wrote: >Sven Pran writes > > >Sure it is authorized that partner has to play that card, but is > also the > >identity of the card authorized information before it is actually > played? > > You know that card will be played: that is AI: the law says so. But if the identity of the card is UI, you don't "know [in the sense of "may legally use the information"] that card will be played"; you only "know *a* card will be played". Which, of course, you knew anyhow; it is always true, and has nothing to do with there being a penalty card. So what is the AI regarding the penalty card supposed to be? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 15:52:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:52:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161834.02571130@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714090156.023f3a70@pop.starpower.net> <000801c3491b$b2e2d2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714104943.009fe150@pop.starpower.net> At 10:22 AM 7/14/03, Alain wrote: >At 09:07 14/07/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>This wouldn't be true in the ACBL, which has officially (and, IMO, >>sensibly) stated that although the officially blessed form in which >>to ask about an alerted call is "Please explain", *any* question >>about an alerted call should be answered with a full and complete >>explanation. IOW you should reply as though the inquiry had been >>"Please explain" regardless of the actual words used. > >AG : interesting. Now, as I said, (all) I want to know (is) whether 1C >is forcing ; and according to the ACBL official position, I get a >bunch of information from which the answer to my question isn't >obvious (probably they said it, but the relevant information is buried >in the long text). What do I do ? (a) Listen carefully, and (b) if necessary, ask for clarification (and accept the risk that doing so might transmit UI; if the answer really wasn't obvious, this should not be a problem): "So is it forcing?" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@att.net Mon Jul 14 15:56:01 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:56:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <1058192034.3f12baa274915@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: rwilley@mit.edu > > As Wayne has noted repeatedly, many reasonable people > believe that there is a > difference between an explicit partnership agreement to > open 9 HCP hands with > 1NT and individual judgment that a particular 9 HCP > hand is equivalent to 10+ HCP. It's very hard to legislate judgement. The regulation in the ACBL seems to be written in absolute, objective terms. We have to live with this. Or change it. But denying that's the way it is ain't helpful. -Todd From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 14 16:08:36 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. Message-ID: <200307141508.LAA10509@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > How would someone have seen a hand by accident? On purpose, ok, > possible. If someone really wanted to cheat in this way, perhaps - but > I am sure they could do that just as well with ACBL hand records, > perhaps by overnight burglary, or stealing a computer. I don't think it could be done _without detection_ for the ACBL hand records. They come in sealed envelopes, and I don't think it would be possible to reseal an envelope once it is opened. Of course detection requires TD's to count the envelopes and make sure none has "disappeared." If twenty envelopes are sent to the site, and only nineteen are in hand when the event starts, somebody needs to notice. As for stealing a computer, the only computer that would help is in a locked room in Memphis. I don't know for sure whether it would help to break in, once the hand records have been sealed away. It would not help at all if the dealing program is Big Deal or something similar, but the ACBL may still be using an inferior program. If there is a security risk, measures could be taken to make sure a breakin is detected, but I don't know what is actually done. Precautions similar to those with hand records could be taken with predealt boards, but the sheer bulk of the boards makes it harder. Not impossible by any means, though. You could, for example, put each set of identical boards into a box and make sure the box cannot be opened without breaking a seal. Whether such precautions are worth the trouble is a matter for each SO to decide. If there are few enough boards that a single individual can oversee them all, that's probably good enough. Locking boards in a hotel room is not good enough, by the way. Vast numbers of low-paid hotel employees have access to all the rooms. It is easy to imagine tricking or even bribing one of them to obtain entry. From HauffHJ@aol.com Mon Jul 14 09:25:22 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 04:25:22 EDT Subject: [blml] Sit-in-tables Message-ID: <192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2@aol.com> --part1_192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, this message is directed to the specialist in scoring and sit-in-tables Question: should there be a special provision in the LAW? - - - - - - - - - - - Albeith a sit-in table is something very frequent with hometown clubs, the LAW has no specific regulation how to handle this in the process of scoring and establishing the ranking list. We must look for general instructions to be applied in this case. Relevant is Law 12.2: normal play of the board is impossible. This is quite obvious. The director may award an artificial adjusted score. This is a must, because a ranking list depends on scores. They are summed up in the case of LAW78D and serve to calculate Matchpoints in the case of LAW78A. There is no provision in the Law which says what numeric value this special type of "awarded score" (sit-in-score) must have *. The natural feeling of the players is that the effect should be the same for everybody; and that "average" is the indicated value. (Pauls opinion) The first practical difficulty is given by the fact, that each sitting pair "plays" different boards as the next/other pairs, and that the sit-in-score has influence on the matchpoint result of the other pairs within the board. There are two options to handle this: 1) input of a score which produces 50% MP , or 2) input of the lowest possible score in the board - which produces zero MP for the "sitter"- and followed by a correction MP value of 50%. The second practical difficulty is, that in movements up from seven tables not all pair "play" at a sit in table. One or more pairs have a real score, and this could be higher or lower then average. If it is higher, then there is no damage to the "sitter", but if this contestant has all MP below the 50% level, he could ask for compensation. The other way round, if the "sitter" did make all boards above 50%, all other contestants could aks for a deducting compensation. I personally cannot see any just solution to this. I take the "average" solution the for fair enough, and if a pair does not "play" at the sit-it is simple good/bad luck. The only just solution is to avoid sit-in-tables. * A player at a sit-in-table is "not offending " nor "not-offending" and he does not qualify as " not directly at fault" or "partially at fault" or "in no way at fault", legal properties cited in Law12 and Law88. Therefor there is no legal indication to apply the 60% value nor the "percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played". - - - - - - - - - - - - Paul Hauff www.bridgeassistant.com --part1_192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,
this message is directed to the specialist in scoring and
sit-in-tables
Question: should there be a special provision in the LAW?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Albeith a sit-in table is something very frequent with  hometown clubs,= the LAW has no specific regulation how to handle this in the process of sco= ring and establishing the ranking list. We must look for general instruction= s to be applied in this case.
Relevant is
Law 12.2: normal play of the board is impossible. This is quite obvio= us.
The director may award an artificial adjusted score. This is a must,=20= because a ranking list depends on  scores. They are summed up in the ca= se of LAW78D and serve to calculate Matchpoints in the case of LAW78A.

There is no provision in the Law which says what numeric value this special=20= type of "awarded score" (sit-in-score) must have *. The natural feeling of t= he players is that the effect should be the same for everybody; and that "av= erage" is the indicated value. (Pauls opinion)

The first practical difficulty is given by the fact, that each sittin= g pair "plays" different boards as the next/other pairs, and that the sit-in= -score has influence on the matchpoint result of the other pairs within the=20= board.
There are two options to handle this: 1) input of a score which produces&nbs= p; 50% MP , or 2) input of the lowest possible score in the board  - wh= ich produces zero MP for the "sitter"- and followed by a correction MP value= of 50%.

The second practical difficulty is, that in movements up from seven t= ables not all pair "play" at a sit in table. One or more pairs have a real s= core, and this could be higher or lower then average. If it is higher, then=20= there is no damage to the "sitter", but if this contestant  has all MP=20= below the 50% level, he could ask for compensation. The other way round, if=20= the "sitter" did make all boards above 50%,  all other contestants coul= d aks for a deducting compensation.

I personally cannot see any just solution to this.  I take the "average= " solution the for fair enough, and if a pair does not "play" at the sit-it=20= is simple good/bad luck.
The only just solution is to avoid sit-in-tables. 

* A  player at a sit-in-table is "not offending " nor  "= not-offending" and he does not qualify as " not directly at fault" or "partially at fault" or "in no way at fault", legal prope= rties cited in Law12 and Law88. Therefor there is no legal indication to app= ly the 60% value nor the "percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actu= ally played". 

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Paul Hauff
www.bridgeassistant.com
--part1_192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2_boundary-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 10:05:26 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:05:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714105056.02568390@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_2605110==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 19:54 13/07/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows \(cascade\) wrote: AG : this is a very interesting set of questions. >2S* 4H** P P*** >P > >* Alerted > >** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" and >was told "yes" > >*** This player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable. > >Is a question before (almost) imminently passing the board out reasonable? AG : you never know what the reason for the question would have been. There could have been a very good "bridge reason". For example, one might strongly believe that "one doesn't preempt over a preempt", which means that 4H would be stronger over a weak 2S than over a strong 2S. The question can create UI, of course but the answer might nevertheless be relevant. > >I can only think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an >inappropriate way of communicating with partner. > >Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H >bidder? >- A natural weak two would not need to be alerted. AG : this is irrelevant. The opponents don't have to know that a weak 2S has to be alerted (especially if they don't play it) ; to ask over non-obvious bid when it was alerted has to be allowed. It might even serve as a mark of interest (equivalent to the compulsory tempo). I have to ask questions over a 2-bid, even if not alerted, because we play three different defenses vs strong 2s, weak 2s and weak-5-card 2s. >- The bid showed a weak two-suiter. AG : you're now asking whether one has to answer the question as asked, or to say at once everything one knows. I've in the past expressed the opinion that it was the former, but was in the minority. My reasons for this is that, very often, the player will have a specific point in mind and doesn't want to hear a zillion of explanations from which one would find difficult extracting the relevant information. One basic case : 1C is alerted and you ask. They explain that it is a "little club" system and start explaining the twelve possibilities. But all you want to know is whether the bid is forcing or not, because that's what will guide your defenses. Why not ask directly the relevant question ? (yes, I'm aware that there could be UI in the question, but if i'm told it's NF and I pass, partner won't be able to infer anything, because there are so many hands which could fit with this set of events) Also, remark that a question "is it such-and-such ?" always creates UI (that you think it could be), while a question "what is it : A or B ?" seldom does. Best regards, Alain. --=====================_2605110==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 19:54 13/07/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows \(cascade\) wrote:

AG : this is a very interesting set of questions.

2S* 4H** P P***
P
 
* Alerted
 
** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" and was told "yes"
 
*** This player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable.
 
Is a question before (almost) imminently passing the board out reasonable?

AG : you never know what the reason for the question would have been. There could have been a very good "bridge reason". For example, one might strongly believe that "one doesn't preempt over a preempt", which means that 4H would be stronger over a weak 2S than over a strong 2S.
The question can create UI, of course but the answer might nevertheless be relevant.


 
I can only think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an inappropriate way of communicating with partner.
 
Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H bidder?
- A natural weak two would not need to be alerted. 

AG : this is irrelevant. The opponents don't have to know that a weak 2S has to be alerted (especially if they don't play it) ; to ask over non-obvious bid when it was alerted has to be allowed. It might even serve as a mark of interest (equivalent to the compulsory tempo).
I have to ask questions over a 2-bid, even if not alerted, because we play three different defenses vs strong 2s, weak 2s and weak-5-card 2s.

- The bid showed a weak two-suiter.

AG : you're now asking whether one has to answer the question as asked, or to say at once everything one knows. I've in the past expressed the opinion that it was the former, but was in the minority.
My reasons for this is that, very often, the player will have a specific point in mind and doesn't want to hear a zillion of explanations from which one would find difficult extracting the relevant information.

One basic case : 1C is alerted and you ask. They explain that it is a "little club" system and start explaining the twelve possibilities. But all you want to know is whether the bid is forcing or not, because that's what will guide your defenses. Why not ask directly the relevant question ?
(yes, I'm aware that there could be UI in the question, but if i'm told it's NF and I pass, partner won't be able to infer anything, because there are so many hands which could fit with this set of events)
Also, remark that a question "is it such-and-such ?" always creates UI (that you think it could be), while a question "what is it : A or B ?" seldom does.

Best regards,

        Alain.

--=====================_2605110==_.ALT-- From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jul 14 11:18:22 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:18:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation and LAs References: <000001c34754$902b07f0$404726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <004b01c349f1$4115a770$3d682452@mikeamos> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C349F9.A2C30500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageI dont think that Pass is a logical alternative Consider the South hand as a bidding problem Imagine partner had opened a Weak Two - by agreement 5-9 and perhaps 5 = cards Surely Game has a play :) opposite KQxxx and a bust Im sure some would consider 4S but at least a game try must be in order And so in the case presented by Noel and Pamela I do not feel Pass is a = LA NS are verry verry wicked --:)) but I guess they are not very good = bridge players or experienced In a club situation I certainly do not want to adjust - we need to talk = to North about the need to maintain an even tempo - but the poor bloke = doesn't know how to bid - If EW are more experienced and playing in a = game against novices they need to be told either to join a different = game or put up with it (IMHO) Best wishes Mike ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Noel and Pamela=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:31 AM Subject: [blml] Hesitation and LAs This happened last night: AKQ742 5 AJ KT98 93 T8 Q3 JT72 Q9732 KT85 J632 754 J65 AK9864 64 AQ Dlr: S Vul: N/S 1H P 1S(1) P 2H P 2S(2)(3) P 4S(4) P 4NT(5) P 5H(6) P 6S(7) Passed out (1) Long pause - out of tempo, at least 10 secs longer than necessary (2) Longer pause - 15 secs+, went to bid, stopped, then bid 2S (3) Systemically shows 5-9 with 5 spades, not forcing - I make no = apology for incompetent opponents (4) Is this a LA? (5) RKCB in Spades (6) 2, no Q (7) Another hesitation, probably thinking about 7, but more likely = dreaming of electric sheep! Making all 13 on a Spade lead. I don't know what North was thinking = about. As East, I asked before I led, whether 2S was forcing and = received the reply documented.=20 This is a non ABF club so the attitude to hesitations, inferences and = LAs is quite laid back - keeping the punters happy. [In fact some = players get VERY upset...] What are South's LAs after the hesitations? 3S, Pass, anything else? Informally, after the session, we discussed it with the Director - he = is a friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't actually called him. = This raised the question of Illogical Alternatives (ILA). Is 4S logical = or illogical? What about 6C say? If South chooses an ILA, what does = this mean for the purposes of Law 16? regards, Noel ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C349F9.A2C30500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I dont think that Pass is a logical=20 alternative
 
Consider the South hand as a bidding=20 problem
 
Imagine partner had opened a Weak Two - = by=20 agreement 5-9 and perhaps 5 cards
 
Surely Game has a play :)  = opposite KQxxx and=20 a bust
 
Im sure some would consider 4S but = at least=20 a game try must be in order
 
And so in the case presented by Noel = and Pamela I=20 do not feel Pass is a LA
 
NS are verry verry wicked --:))  = but I guess=20 they are not very good bridge players or experienced
In a club situation I certainly do not = want to=20 adjust - we need to talk to North about the need to maintain an even = tempo - but=20 the poor bloke doesn't know how to bid - If EW are more experienced and = playing=20 in a game against novices they need to be told either to join a = different game=20 or put up with it (IMHO)
 
Best wishes Mike
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Noel and = Pamela=20
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 = 3:31 AM
Subject: [blml] Hesitation and = LAs

This=20 happened last night:
 
       &nbs= p;      =20 AKQ742
       &nbs= p;      =20 5
       &nbs= p;      =20 AJ
       &nbs= p;      =20 KT98
 
93       &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           =20 T8
Q3       &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           JT72=
Q9732       = ;            =       =20 KT85
J632       =             &= nbsp;        =20 754
 
       &nbs= p;      =20 J65
       &nbs= p;      =20 AK9864
       &nbs= p;      =20 64
       &nbs= p;      =20 AQ
 
Dlr:=20 S
Vul:=20 N/S
 
1H      =20 P    =20 1S(1)        =20  P
2H      =20 P     2S(2)(3)     =20 P
4S(4)   P     = 4NT(5)        P
5H(6)   P     = 6S(7)         Passed=20 out
 
(1)  Long pause - out of tempo, at = least 10=20 secs longer than necessary
(2)  Longer pause - 15 secs+, went to = bid,=20 stopped, then bid 2S
(3)  Systemically shows 5-9 with 5 = spades, not=20 forcing - I make no apology for incompetent = opponents
(4)  Is this a LA?
(5)  RKCB in = Spades
(6)  2, no Q
(7)  Another hesitation, probably = thinking about=20 7, but more likely dreaming of electric sheep!
 
Making all 13 on a Spade lead.  I don't know what North was thinking = about.  As=20 East, I asked before I led, whether 2S was forcing and received the = reply=20 documented. 
 
This=20 is a non ABF club so the attitude to hesitations, inferences and LAs = is quite=20 laid back - keeping the punters happy. [In fact some players get VERY=20 upset...]
 
What=20 are South's LAs after the hesitations?  3S, Pass, anything=20 else?
 
Informally, after the session, we discussed = it with=20 the Director - he is a friend and sometimes teammate - we hadn't = actually=20 called him.  This raised the question of Illogical Alternatives=20 (ILA).  Is 4S logical or illogical?  What about 6C = say?  If=20 South chooses an ILA, what does this mean for the purposes of Law=20 16?
 
regards,
Noel
 
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C349F9.A2C30500-- From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 16:53:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:53:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F12D1F8.1030505@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > This thread has fallen into a debate between extreme positions. When a > player makes the sort of bid in question, Wayne would always accept it, > and Herman would always disallow it. ISTM that a competent, > conscientious TD will do neither. > I fully agree - and I've said a million times already that I would not "always" disallow. I would disallow in Wayne's case, though (and always so) because he is telling me his partner expects this opening to be possible. No amount of evidence can superseed this expectance from partner. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 16:55:43 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:55:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> <1058192034.3f12baa274915@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3F12D27F.1030901@skynet.be> Quite a nice observation, Richard, but... rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > I have been watching this discussion with some interest and would like to make > an observation: > > As Wayne has noted repeatedly, many reasonable people believe that there is a > difference between an explicit partnership agreement to open 9 HCP hands with > 1NT and individual judgment that a particular 9 HCP hand is equivalent to 10+ > HCP. > > To me, at least, the crux of the matter seems very similar to "fielding" a > psyche. If responder takes actions that makes it clear that the partnership > agreement is actually 9-11 or 9-12 HCP, this would seem to provide clear > evidence that the true partnership agreement has an official lower bound below > the "magical" 10 HCP boundary. If the responder's actions are completely > consistent with 10 HCP, then there does not seem to be clear evidence. In > which case, my upbringing in the US makes me most comfortable assuming innocent > until proven guilty - I certainly prefer this to trusting in the divinely > inspired wisdom of any particular TD. [I also have this strange believe that > the purpose of the Laws is to protect the players from the NCBOs, but that's a > whole different kettle of fish] > How do you determine whether a particular answer by partner has catered for 10, or for 9+ points? That is the crux of the matter. Wayne believes his 9 points to be worth 10, so how can partner act any differently when holding precisely 15? > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 16:57:26 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:57:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c3499c$271d3fe0$040358db@Desktop> <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3F12D2E6.7080708@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > OMG. DALB, HdW and the MadDog *all* agree. > Luckily DWS is back to throw a spanner in these particular works. >> -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 18:00:11 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:00:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12D1F8.1030505@skynet.be> References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714125317.022d3af0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:53 AM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>This thread has fallen into a debate between extreme positions. When >>a player makes the sort of bid in question, Wayne would always accept >>it, and Herman would always disallow it. ISTM that a competent, >>conscientious TD will do neither. > >I fully agree - and I've said a million times already that I would not >"always" disallow. I would disallow in Wayne's case, though (and >always so) because he is telling me his partner expects this opening >to be possible. No amount of evidence can superseed this expectance >from partner. Understood and agreed. But Herman has also said that he will always reject an explanantion along the lines of "I upgraded my point-count because of all those 10s and 9s and that five-card suit", which needn't have anything to do with what "partner expects". That is the position I have characterized as "extreme". I disagree with both Herman and Wayne that such an explanation can legally be either rejected (Herman's position) or accepted (Wayne's position) without giving any consideration to what partner expects. 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 Jul 14 18:08:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:08:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12D27F.1030901@skynet.be> References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> <1058192034.3f12baa274915@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714130131.022c9bb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:55 AM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: >How do you determine whether a particular answer by partner has >catered for 10, or for 9+ points? >That is the crux of the matter. Wayne believes his 9 points to be >worth 10, so how can partner act any differently when holding precisely 15? If he can't, he can't, and you cannot know whether he has "catered". Too bad. You'll just have to wait until he holds precisely 14, and see what he does then. Meanwhile, if he says he didn't, you take his word for it, and watch for evidence to the contrary that may emerge in the future. What is ultimately behind my view of such matters is a lifetime of experience that tells me that if a player believes that he was cheated, and that his opponent got away with it by lying to the director, he will piss and moan and grumble, but nevertheless come back next week, whereas if the TD calls a player a cheat and a liar, when he is in fact innocent, we will never see him again. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Jul 14 18:25:08 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> from "Wayne Burrows \(cascade\)" at Jul 13, 2003 07:54:11 PM Message-ID: <200307141725.h6EHP8cs006882@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Wayne Burrows \(cascade\)" > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:54:11 +1200 > > > 2S* 4H** P P*** > P > > * Alerted > > ** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" > and was told "yes" > > *** This player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable. > > Is a question before (almost) imminently passing the board out > reasonable? > Depending on whether the information is relevant to the asker's action. It is not reasonable if the answer would never have made a difference in the asker's action. It is reasonable if the answer can make a difference. For example, if the CC says that 2S shows Spades and a minor but doesn't explain strength, then the question may be quite relevant and reasonable. The question could be to highlight the fact that the opponents have an incomplete CC filled out and what part of the information is lacking. I've seen this often. > I can only think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an > inappropriate way of communicating with partner. > Did you assume that or try to ascertain that? You should ask the 4H bidder if it would have made a difference in his/her bid had the answer been different. Also, you should advise them how to ask a question without being either a leading question or of asking in a way that creates UI (such as Eric suggested, just asking "Please explain" which doesn't denote what information you might be trying to gain). And sometimes even if it creates UI, you have to ask a question because it is relevant. > Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H > bidder? > - A natural weak two would not need to be alerted. > - The bid showed a weak two-suiter. > Yes, as I mentioned above, suppose that the questioner had played against one or both of the opponents and knew the bid showed a 2-suiter but not the strength. Possible causes (all of which I have seen at the table) include: 1. CC not filled out completely and only mentioning 2-suiter, but not strength, 2. The opponents have played the system before with different ranges (some do different ranges depending on position, e.g. weak in 1st or 2nd and intermediate in 3rd or 4th, or even different ranges with different partners), or 3. The opponents were discussing two possibilities and it wasn't clear which one they settled on. In all these possible situations, the questioner knew the general method, but not the strength and asked for the relevant piece of information. Now, this may create UI, but it was reasonable, just perhaps inappropriate phrased. > While I have titled this as a 'Pro Question' in fact the 4H bidder was > not a client but an experienced player who has won national > championships. > It would be best to have more information about the situation of the questioner and what information they were trying to gain. Also, I would start by presuming innocent and just advising the player about the creation of UI for their partner. If this is a repeat offender, then you could treat it as a UI situation and evaluate the response of the offender's partner as in a UI situation, but I would want to have a history of impropriety before trying this out. -Ted. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 14 19:15:52 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <200307141815.OAA20473@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> It seems to me that Herman and Wayne have made their positions very clear to everyone (except perhaps each other), and there is little to be gained by reiteration. Could I ask, however, that if anyone decides to post again to please collect _all_ relevant quotations together and then post just one message? That will make things easier for the rest of us readers. > From: "David Burn" > The trouble is, I suppose, that the word "agreement" is capable of more > than one interpretation. Exactly so, and I think perhaps it is the underlying problem in the whole business. The Laws use various terms including 'agreement', "understanding', 'experience', 'meaning', and perhaps more, and it isn't clear what is included in any of them, let alone what differences these words may imply. There are, it seems to me, two basic categories the Laws need to establish: "that which must be disclosed," and "that which may be regulated." Some people are content to say the categories are identical, while others would like the second category to be distinctly smaller than the first one. The parenthetical phrase in L40E2 supports the second view, but the boundaries are by no means clear. It seems to me the 2005 Laws need to draw two boundaries: 1. between "general knowledge and experience" (which need not be disclosed) and "understandings" (which must be), and 2. between "understandings" (which may be regulated) and "style" which may not. The exact words are immaterial; the key thing is to have a consensus decision about where the boundaries are. This affects not only hand evaluation issues as discussed in the present thread but also psychic frequency and different tendencies between two partners. One approach to distinction 2 is to base it not on the action taken but instead on how partner reacts. This is the approach to psychics in the EBU, for example. Of course another approach is to say the boundary in 2 is the same as the boundary in 1. But whatever approach the LC takes, I hope they will make it clear and will press NCBO's to conform to any limits on their powers. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 19:32:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:32:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c349cd$54bb9a10$0e7758db@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714125317.022d3af0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F12F728.2020801@skynet.be> True, Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:53 AM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >> I fully agree - and I've said a million times already that I would not >> "always" disallow. I would disallow in Wayne's case, though (and >> always so) because he is telling me his partner expects this opening >> to be possible. No amount of evidence can superseed this expectance >> from partner. > > > Understood and agreed. But Herman has also said that he will always > reject an explanantion along the lines of "I upgraded my point-count > because of all those 10s and 9s and that five-card suit", which needn't > have anything to do with what "partner expects". That is the position I > have characterized as "extreme". I disagree with both Herman and Wayne > that such an explanation can legally be either rejected (Herman's > position) or accepted (Wayne's position) without giving any > consideration to what partner expects. > True. I have, in the last few days, concentrated on what Wayne is telling. He is talking about partner expecting the 9-counts, and still he refuses to call them systemic. I see I will have no success in convincing him, but I am quite certain that I am not alone in refusing to allow a call to be called a deviation is partner expects such deviations. I have recently not talked about the more general case of the player pointing to his tens and 5-card suits to justify his opening. Yet I believe the same principle should apply. Maybe the partner expects these things, maybe he does not. I'd rather not need to find out. After all, the partner is not going to honestly answer, if he realizes I'm asking the question in order to rule against him. Which is why I simply use the fact of the call, on a 9+ hand, as evidence of some form of partnership agreement to treat a 9+ as a 10-count. Combine that with a publicized range of 10-12 (though not if the publicized range is 15-17) and I believe the real range is 9+-12. After all, you are not going to treat a 14-count opener while playing 15-17 as a psyche, are you? So yes, my position is a little more extreme than what the recent exchange with Wayne has said. But the position is not, nor has ever been, that all 9-point openings are immediately banned. As an example I quite often give the 9-point opener who is playing the 15-17 NT range, and who tells me he has psyched. Perfectly legal IMO. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jul 14 19:42:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:42:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <200307141815.OAA20473@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3F12F98F.2040407@skynet.be> Quite useful contribution, Steve. Steve Willner wrote: > > There are, it seems to me, two basic categories the Laws need to > establish: "that which must be disclosed," and "that which may be > regulated." Some people are content to say the categories are > identical, while others would like the second category to be distinctly > smaller than the first one. The parenthetical phrase in L40E2 supports > the second view, but the boundaries are by no means clear. > > It seems to me the 2005 Laws need to draw two boundaries: > > 1. between "general knowledge and experience" (which need not be > disclosed) and "understandings" (which must be), and > I don't believe this is a distinction. The "general knowledge" part of a system is also disclosable. The only difference being that a player need not disclose it if ha is certain the opponent knows what it means. If I say "Stayman", I have told my opponents less than everything. But I am allowed to get away with that because I truely believe my opponents know what this means. If it happens that they don't know, and they ask me, I ma still obliged to tell. So I don't really believe this is an issue that the 2005 laws need to address. > 2. between "understandings" (which may be regulated) and "style" which > may not. > I don't happen to believe that style is not regulated. It's the same discussion all over again. If the lawmakers say you are not allowed to play a system by which you open on 9HCP, then you are not allowed (IMO) to use "style" to justify such an opening. Again, there is one place where this distinction is used. You can demand that both partners use the same system, but you cannot force on them the same "style". > The exact words are immaterial; the key thing is to have a consensus > decision about where the boundaries are. This affects not only hand > evaluation issues as discussed in the present thread but also psychic > frequency and different tendencies between two partners. > That is in fact a third distinction: 3) between "habitual violations" and "psychs". An opening of 1NT (15-17) on 14HCP is a habitual violation, an opening on 3HCP is a psych. habitual violations should be part of the system, psyches are not. But the frequency of both is disclosable. And habitual violations are (or should be) regularisable, psychs are not. The difference between the two must lie in the systemic catering by partner. > One approach to distinction 2 is to base it not on the action taken but > instead on how partner reacts. This is the approach to psychics in the > EBU, for example. Of course another approach is to say the boundary in > 2 is the same as the boundary in 1. But whatever approach the LC > takes, I hope they will make it clear and will press NCBO's to > conform to any limits on their powers. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 14 15:49:06 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:49:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: Message-ID: <000801c34a39$a98542a0$1082403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott> << ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 3:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Just checking > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grattan Endicott > > > > Second, writing a law is not the same exercise > > as writing teasingly on blml. Have you read a law > > drafted by me? > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Not that I can remember or am aware of. Can you > provide us with an example? > +=+ I can, but for the time being I mustn't. The drafting subcommittee restricts for the time being publication of its documents. But, please believe that I am well aware, the subcommittee is well aware, of the ambiguities and obscurities that are the curse of the present laws and my drafts, massaged by my colleagues, are moving as strongly as indisputability will allow in the direction of simplicity of statement. However, in relation to the threads currently running amok on blml I can reveal, for example, that in the replacement draft for Law 40 (and related drafts) the words "agreement" and "convention" do not appear. These terms are subsumed within the terms "partnership understanding" and "special partnership understanding", which are redefined. Please give the drafting subcommittee pause to achieve a simplification of the language, and in particular removal of doubt as to its meaning. There are traps but we are constantly scrubbing and polishing texts, and we do consult - though privately and Blml is not in the circle. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Mon Jul 14 17:34:24 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:34:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <04e301c34861$6bae04a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <04e301c34861$6bae04a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >David: >> I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up as the Supreme Being >> in my absence. > >Always funny that people that accuse my of being too direct or too rude >never fail to do so in a rather direct and rude way. Never mind. I probably >overdid a >little. Sorry. I just got irritated by the way you put yourself as the >Supreme Judge on 'perfect ethics'. That kind of language upsets me far more >(specially when part of the backing story seems to be inconsistent) when >someone calls me an >idiot or lunatic or whatever which I deserve from time to time because I am >from time to time. I made one comment which I do not even remember about one situation. How on earth is that setting myself up as a Supreme Judge on anything. Suppose I said that a 12-14 no-trump was better at pairs. Would you get annoyed and ask me when I set myself up as the Supreme Judge on all bidding? > It is normal bridge language you know. Ever analysed the >language of a random after play discussion among friends. Quote from you: "You don't seem to understand a lot about high-level competitive bidding." Do you really think my friends would say something this rude to me? Or that I would say anything like this to them? > Anyway just check >a >recent mail from David Burn on this subject. As is well known by anyone who has been taking BLML for some time my ideas on what constitute acceptable posts and David Burn's ideas are very different indeed. My absence for some time was in no small part caused by David Burn and his posts. If he is losing an argument then his words get longer, his language gets more flowery, and his comments become less polite. >Anyway I have to realise that a lot of people just stop discussing the issue >if they don't like the form so I guess I should adapt a little. Because the >issue at hand was quite interesting and with all due respect I still think >that your post misused the concept of 'perfect ethics'. Or maybe you will be >so kind as to explain me what it means and how it relates to Tony's case. I cannot remember what I said nor the original post. If you like to post it again with my reply I shall explain my reply if it seems 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 David Stevenson Mon Jul 14 17:46:33 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:46:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >> > 'HOT SEAT ' RULINGS. >> > >> > In the case of a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is >> > confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation >> > or high level pre-empt or competition) a >> > hesitation may be found not to suggest one >> > action over another if the extra time taken may be >> > occasioned by the need of the player to consider >> > what options he has, added to the normal time he >> > may then take in choosing among them. >> > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >At least you admit the need for 'extra time' in such situations. So why not >implement a simple rule rather than the above. Like a general STOP rule >which exist already in Norway if I understood Sven correctly. You ask the question .... >Anyway who is going to judge what is wholly unanticipated. A little bit >unanticipated is not enough ? .... and then point out the answer. The skip bid regulations in use throughout the world except Oceania have the merit of simplicity: it is not easy to think of an alternative regulation that is easy enough to understand. -- 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 Jul 14 18:14:08 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:14:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <002101c34842$e5caf230$de86403e@endicott> References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> <002101c34842$e5caf230$de86403e@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ Since ton arrived in the chair and I became Secretary >the WBFLC minutes have been promulgated to NBOs and >have been put up on blml. I am not sure whether they are >also to be found on the ecats website - Anna Gudge may >have put them there. We make them available; it is not >our responsibility to deliver them to individuals; it is >for the NBO to circulate information as it thinks fit to its >TDs/clubs etc. How soon they forget! Of course they are always available in several formats at http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm -- 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 Jul 14 18:04:53 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:04:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau writes >At 02:12 PM 7/11/03, David wrote: > >> If pd led the HK [A from AK] and it is not his lead, then it becomes >>an MPC. the following are UI: >> >>[a] He holds the HK > >In terms of a player's process of deciding what card to play to a >trick, what is the difference between: > >(a) I know that partner has a penalty card which he must play at his >next legal opportunity, but I don't know what it is, and > >(b) I know that partner must play a card to this trick when his turn >comes, but I don't know what it will be? > >If you don't (aren't allowed by law to) "know" the identity of >partner's penalty card, the knowledge that he must play it (AHNLO) is >totally meaningless. Surely the Law tells you that you can "know" >*something* and use this knowledge, and the mere fact that partner has >an unknown penalty card cannot sensibly be it. You know what you can do on a particular trick. If the penalty card is the HK, and you decide to lead a heart, then you are permitted to lead a low heart rather than the ace. But the decision-making process which leads to you leading a heart must not include knowing that partner has the HK. That distinction is not meaningless. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Jul 14 19:47:32 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:47:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pro Question In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161834.02571130@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000801c3491b$b2e2d2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714090156.023f3a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161834.02571130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 09:07 14/07/2003 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>This wouldn't be true in the ACBL, which has officially (and, IMO, >>sensibly) stated that although the officially blessed form in which to ask >>about an alerted call is "Please explain", *any* question about an alerted >>call should be answered with a full and complete explanation. IOW you >>should reply as though the inquiry had been "Please explain" regardless of >>the actual words used. > >AG : interesting. Now, as I said, (all) I want to know (is) whether 1C is >forcing ; and according to the ACBL official position, I get a bunch of >information from which the answer to my question isn't obvious (probably >they said it, but the relevant information is buried in the long text). >What do I do ? Most people tend to use commonsense. Generally there is no need to worry. For example, if you say "Is it forcing?" then an answer "Yes, but it may be weak or strong" is helpful. The ACBL have attacked a difficult problem with a sensible answer. Is it perfect? No, but all the regs form all SOs come under attack eventually on BLML because if you make regs you will find situations where the regs seem less than perfect. If in England a player asked whether a 2S bid was weak, was told yes, and it turned out to show a pre-empt in either minor, I would feel his opponents had been misinformed. It is a particularly peculiar case, the case of the weak two, because it is somewhat difficult to tell the difference between "Is it weak?" and "Is it Weak?". While I would feel he has been misinformed, I would not be as sure of my ground as in the ACBL, where I could quote a reg. In fact it is my current intention to ask our L&EC whether we might include a reg like the ACBL's in the next Orange book. On the other hand, people that take things to extremes are a pain in hte butt, and the ACBL reg if followed to excess could be troublesome. C'est la vie. -- 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 Jul 14 19:16:45 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <001a01c349f2$c6a63340$a8b64351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 12:29 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >>Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one >>way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is >>ridiculous. > >AG : please note that a ridiculous bid is not an infraction in the strict >sense of the term. > > >>Of course partner can have a hand where another partscore is >>better than 2S but that would be at extremely long odds. >> >>Now this is when 1NT is natural. If it turns out they always double on >>balanced hands and 1NT is 'always' suit based it becomes a completely >>different story. Then it is normal to try to play the NT bidders suit >>(because you are 'sure' it exists). But in that case there is a disclosure >>problem. >> >>So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an >>argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT >>natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going >>on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. > >AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North >could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT bid, >which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough >to make 1NT alertable. Where? Are you sure it is not alertable under Irish alerting regs? If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. Sure, it may be legal to play it that way, and probably is under most jurisdictions. But what about disclosure? It may be fun to bid 1NT on any 6421 hand you feel like, let pd tell the opponents it is a normal balanced hand, and then allow for it to be this shape, but that is not the way bridge is played. One of the ways you judge the fielding of psyches and the use of UI, both of which are relevant to this hand, is by considering what a players peers might do. OK, let us go and poll people. 1C from LHO, 1NT from pd, dbl on your right, you are 6=4=2=1, what's your plan? How many people you ask will consider playing in diamonds? -- 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jul 14 19:05:33 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:05:33 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <001f01c349a1$59659e20$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, David Burn asked a question: > With what aspect of this scenario is it possible to disagree? "Director, this man has opened 1NT on a nine count". "Why did you do this?" "Because I had a five-card suit, two aces, a couple of ten-nines..." "So you were prepared to call this nine-count a ten-count?" "Yes." "Are you surprised that your partner was prepared to call his nine-count a ten-count?" "No, it looks like the kind of nine-count that I would also call a ten-count." "In that case, the method you are playing is illegal, and..." Then in his next post, he answered his own question: > Wayne wrote: > > > I have a fundamental lawful right to open a 9-count. > > So you do. And if you are in the habit of exercising your fundamental > lawful right to open a 9-count, you will fall foul of a fundamentally > lawful regulation that says: "Any partnership that, by agreement > [whether explicit or implicit] opens any 9-count with 1NT may not play > any conventions following an opening bid of 1NT." So, in the hypothetical conversation above, director's next step is to find out whether the pair who opened a 9-count plays any conventions over it. If they do (most people do) and *if* they have used one, apply the standard "illegal convention adjustment" to the score. If they do play conventions over 1NT, but didn't actually use a convention over this 9-HCP 1NT, you can still say "you are playing an illegal system; you must either revise your NT range upwards or quit using conventions", and possibly apply a PP for having chosen to play (but not yet used) an illegal system. (I've not actually seen PPs given for this - usually just an order to fix the system immediately.) What you *can't* do is adjust the score on this board, because no infraction has occurred. All this just points up the silliness of using the "no conventions loophole" to stamp out unpopular but legal natural bids. GRB From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 21:18:01 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:18:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12A0BC.1010405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101c34a45$06eb5230$379737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:23 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > >>contradictio in terminis! > >>If your partner has experience that tells him you might have > >>only nine > >>points, then your partnership agreement IS that you can open > >>a 9 count! > >> > > > > Are you describing your own understanding Herman. > > > > My experience is not the same as my agreements. > > > > An agreement to have a certain number of high card points is not an > > undertaking to have that number every time that I open 1NT > showing that > > number. > > > > > Wayne, you are telling me your agreement with your partner is > that you > count fuzzily. You tell me that if you open 1NT when playing 15-17, > then 14 is also possible. Then your agreement with partner is not to > play 15-17, but to play fuzzy 15-17. > And you agreement to play 10-12 is not that, but to play fuzzy 10-12. > Well, playing fuzzy 10-12 is illegal, no matter how many times you > tell me you are playing 10-12. You are not playing that, you are > playing fuzzy 10-12. I am telling you that there is no agreement implicit or explicit to open anything other than 10-12 and the fact that I open a particular 9 count does not prove anything. I am playing what I have agreed with my partner not what the TD tells me that I have agreed when I have in fact not agreed that. Wayne > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Jul 14 21:11:41 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <001a01c349f2$c6a63340$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is ridiculous. +++ Jaap - this sounds phenomenally unobjective. Souths action may not be mainstream, certainly not popular but it is hardly ridiculous. If there is one thing I've learned from this forum it's not to judge people by our own "blinkered" standards. The concept of a round world was once ridiculous !! So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. +++ Goodness - nonsense it is now - even the spanish inquisition wasn't as swift to make judgement and pass sentence !! I think Alain's reply is more to the point. Unfortunately this pair could prove nothing as to their methods on this sequence as requested by Alain. They were bidding on feel. As already mentioned, this is an extremely hard 1st hand let alone 2nd hand case. The pause reflects badly for the OS and even though I believe them I can't help thinking that South while showing some interesting novel bidding wasn't swung (in a close call) in the end (subconsciously) to pass by the pause. Still good to see Blm is as unanimous as ever on a case :>> From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 21:27:11 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:27:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12A1D3.4020900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c34a46$4ed1bc00$379737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:28 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > We certainly tell them if it has happened before - although I can > > understand players not telling the opponents if Herman is > going to come > > along and rule against them telling them that they have an agreement > > when they have no such agreement. > > > > > Which is precisely the reason why I, as TD, need to rule against them > regardless of what they say. Because they know that if they are > honest, I shall have to rule against them. Absolute nonsense. They know that if they are honest you will choose to rule against them in spite of the evidence that their system is legal. > So they prefer to be > dishonest. Why should dishonest players have an advantage over honest > ones? > And before you say this, maybe I am also catching some honest ones. > People who really never opened a hand like this before. Too bad. They > should have counted, remembered the regulation, and not opened. Why > should (even honest) people who have never done it before have an > advantage over (honest or dishonest) people who have done it before? Whether or not you have done it before is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you have a partnership understanding. > > > > > >>Of course, we are > >>just a couple of honest guys, telling our opponents > >>fairly, as the law requires, what our partnership > >>understandings are. > >> > > > > Of course we tell them our understandings and we tell them our > > partnership experience. > > > > Our understandings can be regulated our experience can not. > > > > > OK? so you are honest, I believe you. Now please believe me when I > tell you that IMO this means you are playing an ileegal system. I honestly do not believe that. If I agree to play 10-12 that is what I my partnership agreement is. If my partner or I depart from that then that is a legal departure. Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 21:25:24 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:25:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714161446.02194ac0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:04 PM 7/14/03, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >If you don't (aren't allowed by law to) "know" the identity of > >partner's penalty card, the knowledge that he must play it (AHNLO) is > >totally meaningless. Surely the Law tells you that you can "know" > >*something* and use this knowledge, and the mere fact that partner has > >an unknown penalty card cannot sensibly be it. > > You know what you can do on a particular trick. If the penalty card >is the HK, and you decide to lead a heart, then you are permitted to >lead a low heart rather than the ace. But the decision-making process >which leads to you leading a heart must not include knowing that partner >has the HK. > > That distinction is not meaningless. It may not be, but it is surely not relevant. The language at issue (L50D1) is "the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from the facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner". The only thing open to interpretation here is whether the identity of the card is inherent in the knowledge "that offender must play the card" or is "other information arising from the facing of the... card". I don't see how this can change between the time you decide which suit to lead and the time you decide which card to lead. L50 neither says nor implies anything to suggest that what is AI and what is UI can ever depend on the "particular trick". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 21:38:39 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:38:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714094413.009fad90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c34a47$eaedeae0$379737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 1:53 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > At 03:27 AM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: > > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >>This is not a fact this is an opinion and I believe that it > is wrong. > >>If it is not wrong tell me which law says that I cannot > open a 9 count > >>when that is not my partnership agreement but that partner > from general > >>knowledge or specific partnership experience knows that I might have > >>only nine points? > >contradictio in terminis! > >If your partner has experience that tells him you might have > only nine > >points, then your partnership agreement IS that you can open > a 9 count! > > > >>The regulations that I have read say something like you > cannot agree to > >>open 9 points that is different than in practice opening a > particular > >>hand that happens to have 9 points. The latter I believe > is not subject > >>to regulation. > >When partner expects you to be able to do this - that is a > partnership > >agreement - and that is subject to regulation. > > > >Wayne, we have been going far further than this. I have been saying > >that even if your partner does not know or expect this, he > might know > >or expect it, and I would rule against the bidder anyway. > > This is not a "could have known" situation. You may not have an > agreement. Either you do, and are in violation, or you don't, and > aren't. From the perspective of the TD when called to the table, "he > might know or expect it", or he might not, but the partner of the > bidder either does or doesn't. Deciding which is the case in any > particular instance is what TDs get paid for. > > This thread has fallen into a debate between extreme > positions. When a > player makes the sort of bid in question, Wayne would always > accept it, > and Herman would always disallow it. ISTM that a competent, > conscientious TD will do neither. I won't always accept it. "What I don't see is the necessity for it to be a partnership agreement." "Habitual violations may create understandings. Implicit in this is that habitual violations also do not necessarily create understandings." "It is part of your partnership experience it is not necessarily an agreement." "A habit does not necessarily create an implicit agreement." "Even a habit that creates an expectation does not necessarily create an implicit agreement." "Because you have no evidence of an agreement. You merely have evidence of an occurrence. Go and do your work and find out what the agreement is." "For you to rule so without proof is in my opinion unbelievably arrogant." I hope you can see from these quotes that my position is most certainly not that I will always accept a deviation. But I most certainly will not rule that a deviation in itself is sufficient evidence to penalize or take any action against a player or a pair. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 21:44:51 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:44:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12D27F.1030901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c34a48$c6653c90$379737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 3:56 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Quite a nice observation, Richard, but... > > rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > > > I have been watching this discussion with some interest and > would like to make > > an observation: > > > > As Wayne has noted repeatedly, many reasonable people > believe that there is a > > difference between an explicit partnership agreement to > open 9 HCP hands with > > 1NT and individual judgment that a particular 9 HCP hand is > equivalent to 10+ > > HCP. > > > > To me, at least, the crux of the matter seems very similar > to "fielding" a > > psyche. If responder takes actions that makes it clear > that the partnership > > agreement is actually 9-11 or 9-12 HCP, this would seem to > provide clear > > evidence that the true partnership agreement has an > official lower bound below > > the "magical" 10 HCP boundary. If the responder's actions > are completely > > consistent with 10 HCP, then there does not seem to be > clear evidence. In > > which case, my upbringing in the US makes me most > comfortable assuming innocent > > until proven guilty - I certainly prefer this to trusting > in the divinely > > inspired wisdom of any particular TD. [I also have this > strange believe that > > the purpose of the Laws is to protect the players from the > NCBOs, but that's a > > whole different kettle of fish] > > > > > How do you determine whether a particular answer by partner has > catered for 10, or for 9+ points? > That is the crux of the matter. Wayne believes his 9 points to be > worth 10, so how can partner act any differently when holding > precisely 15? This is not the crux of my argument. Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jul 14 21:41:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:41:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12F98F.2040407@skynet.be> References: <200307141815.OAA20473@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714163056.021a2a10@pop.starpower.net> At 02:42 PM 7/14/03, Herman wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >>The exact words are immaterial; the key thing is to have a consensus >>decision about where the boundaries are. This affects not only hand >>evaluation issues as discussed in the present thread but also psychic >>frequency and different tendencies between two partners. > >That is in fact a third distinction: > >3) between "habitual violations" and "psychs". >An opening of 1NT (15-17) on 14HCP is a habitual violation, an opening >on 3HCP is a psych. habitual violations should be part of the system, >psyches are not. But the frequency of both is disclosable. And >habitual violations are (or should be) regularisable, psychs are not. >The difference between the two must lie in the systemic catering by >partner. That is in fact two distinctions: between "habitual" and "not habitual", and between "violations" and "psychs". The Law says that "habitual" implies "potentially consequent to an implicit agreement", which in turn implies "subject to regulation of agreements". "Not habitual" implies "not consequent to an implicit agreement", which implies "not subject to regulation of agreements". The distinction between "violations" and "psychs" has nothing to do with this. Steve is quite correct to suggest that, in the context of regulations about agreements, whatever the legal distinction is between "habitual" and "not habitual" applies not only to violations, but, equally, to psychs and tendencies as well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 14 21:56:02 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:56:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12F98F.2040407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c34a4a$56804cb0$379737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 6:42 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > That is in fact a third distinction: > > 3) between "habitual violations" and "psychs". > An opening of 1NT (15-17) on 14HCP is a habitual violation, Not true. "An opening" on anything is not habitual. A habit needs a series of events. > an opening > on 3HCP is a psych. habitual violations should be part of the system, 'habitual violations ... may ... create partnership understandings' > psyches are not. But the frequency of both is disclosable. And > habitual violations are (or should be) regularisable, Only if they become partnership understandings. > psychs are not. > The difference between the two must lie in the systemic catering by > partner. > Wayne From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jul 14 20:37:13 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:37:13 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Re: More on L16C2 Message-ID: I wrote previously: >> If it becomes a penalty card, I will say to >> the other defender something like "you are allowed to use the >> information that your partner has (say) the queen of hearts and must >>play it at first opportunity; but you are not yet entitled to know >>whether your partner has the king or jack, and must avoid using that >>information until it comes to light legally." and David Stevenson responded: > Unfortunately this is not correct: partner is allowed to know he will >play it at the first legal opportunity but not to deduce things because > he knows he has the card. > > So you should not be saying "you are allowed to use the info that your > partner has the queen of hearts" because he is not: but he is allowed to > know that it will be played on certain tricks. I am sorry, I must disagree. When in receipt of UI, my obligations are to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI, and in particular, to not choose my line of play from among alternatives suggested by the UI. But it is still my right to deduce what I may from the AI I receive. In the bidding we often see situations where UI is present, but conveys only the same information as the AI already has. For instance, suppose you are playing somewhere where "alert all conventions immediately" is the rule. You, holding AKxxx Axx Axxx x, agree on spades then bid 4NT, and partner bids 5S. It is abundantly clear that a wheel has come off. If partner failed to alert, I have UI, but you can't make me bid as if there are six aces in the pack. I may or may not be free to speculate whether partner took 4NT as D-I, or whether he was showing HKQ+CA thinking it was RKC for hearts, depending what other UI I may have. In the case of a penalty card, I have AI that my partner must play that card at the first legal opportunity. _Using that AI alone_, I can deduce that partner now holds the card I have been told he must play. I know he is not void in that suit, and might be able to deduce something else about his distribution; if a face card, I might be able to place the other high-card points. No matter how much UI I have, this does not change. The UI places plenty of other constraints on me (for instance, if I know partner has 5-6 HCP and he leads HQ playing standard leads, I might be required to defend on the assumption he holds HKQ not SK+HQJ, since "HQ promises jack and denies king" is UI.) Can someone enlighten me as to what basis in law there is to claim I cannot make deductions based on the AI arising from a major penalty card? It sure isn't what I see in 50D2. GRB From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Jul 14 22:18:03 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:18:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. One of the ways you judge the fielding of psyches and the use of UI, both of which are relevant to this hand, is by considering what a players peers might do. OK, let us go and poll people. 1C from LHO, 1NT from pd, dbl on your right, you are 6=4=2=1, what's your plan? How many people you ask will consider playing in diamonds? +++ Whats that got to do with it ?? How many people do you know who would overcall 1NT with this hand?? North did and it worked out great. Even 3C*-2 is 70+% score. No one is advocating opening 1NT on various distributions and not alerting the opposition nor is anyone suggesting that the normal bid with the 6421 hand isn't 2S either direct or via a transfer. But, just because 2S is what the majority may bid ... doesn't mean you can disallow any other logical or sound action. The rdbl is a perfectly sound option, which co incidently puts South in that group of imaginative bidders and not part of the norm. South's action allows him time to make a more informed decision. Assuming a reasonable partner, the 2D bid speaks volumes. It expresses N's view that diamonds is where N wants to play if South has an ok hand for this. South's hand is hardly unsuitable for diamonds. It may be the majority opinion that 2S is now still a better bid - but quite a few would now respect their partners view and pass 2D's doubled, visualising the type of hands Alain & Tim have posted. The better/sounder the North the more this would hold. The possibility of the pause influencing South's bid is though quite real. Still I'd imagine had South bid 2S and it made with the deporable defence shown so far, E/W would have complained that South should have passed North's 2D !! I'm not arguing that 2D's doubled is the correct ruling. This is the decision I made on this South's testimony. Another South another day I'd rule 3C-2* or 2S-3*. Just out of interest, should a defenders ability effect an adjusted result ?? I mean god knows what this E/W would have done versus 2S's or 3C's. K. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jul 15 01:26:21 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:26:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Stop card continued In-Reply-To: <000001c34a02$00eeb5e0$204726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030710220822.00b5f1b8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030714201428.00badf48@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:18 AM 7/14/2003, Noel and Pamela wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: > >W N E S > >1H 1S 2D 2S > >3D 4S X P (X is made two seconds after 4S) > >P P > > >The fast double gives UI, and thus if 5D was a LA to passing for West, and > >5D and 4Sx are both down, the score should be adjusted. >Sorry, disagree. > >My partner has opened = 10+ HCP >I have responded at 2 level = 10+ HCP (unless playing negative free bids?) >My partner has supported me at 3 level = better than a minimum with 4 card >support > >They can't make 4S - I'm doubling for blood and leading a trump. What's the >problem? The East hand wasn't given because this was not an actual case; I wanted to illustrate a situation in which the skip-bid warning is important. Yes, East may have a clear double, but he may also have a difficult decision, particularly at matchpoints, where he cannot accept +300 if 5D or 6D is making. He may want to double, bid 5D, or make a forcing pass, and he probably wasn't expecting to have a decision at this level. If East bids as soon as he makes his decision, then he will make a fast double with a balanced minimum, and a slow double with extra values. The skip-bid warning protects against the UI problem that this poses for West, who might pull a double. From David Stevenson Mon Jul 14 21:55:00 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:55:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714103531.009fcec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000901c347d7$d27cc980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714103531.009fcec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau writes >At 09:40 AM 7/14/03, David wrote: > >>Sven Pran writes >> >> >Sure it is authorized that partner has to play that card, but is >> also the >> >identity of the card authorized information before it is actually >> played? >> >> You know that card will be played: that is AI: the law says so. > >But if the identity of the card is UI, you don't "know [in the sense of >"may legally use the information"] that card will be played"; you only >"know *a* card will be played". Which, of course, you knew anyhow; it >is always true, and has nothing to do with there being a penalty >card. So what is the AI regarding the penalty card supposed to be? So we assume the Law is not meaningless, and we assume that the way we interpret it [and the WBFLC has said so] is the correct interpretation. The AI regarding the card is that partner is permitted to know that that card will be played to the trick. I know you don't like it, and you can produce semantic arguments why it should not be the case. But that has been the trouble with BLML after the first couple of years: we do not agree even when there is only one answer. When we really know what the Law means we should accept it. Whether you like it or not, and whether you approve of the Law or not, if your partner has [say] the HK as a penalty card, you cannot deduce that he has 3 points, or that a heart switch is a good idea, or anything like that. But you do know that partner will play the HK if a heart is led. -- 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 Jul 14 23:47:33 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:47:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sit-in-tables In-Reply-To: <192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2@aol.com> References: <192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2@aol.com> Message-ID: <$fiOWzIFMzE$EwTA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> writes > this message is directed to the specialist in scoring and > sit-in-tables > Question: should there be a special provision in the LAW? > - - - - - - - - - - - > Albeith a sit-in table is something very frequent with  hometown > clubs, the LAW has no specific regulation how to handle this in the > process of scoring and establishing the ranking list. We must look > for general instructions to be applied in this case. I presume that by a "sit-in table" [a term I have never heard] you refer to a sit-out table, to a pair that does not play a particular board, perhaps because you have an odd number of pairs. Scoring events is not a matter of Law. > Relevant is > Law 12.2: normal play of the board is impossible. This is quite > obvious. > The director may award an artificial adjusted score. This is a > must, because a ranking list depends on  scores. They are summed up > in the case of LAW78D and serve to calculate Matchpoints in the > case of LAW78A. This is not the way it is done. This applies to a board which would normally be played but is not because of some infraction. But I understand you are talking about boards that are not played because of the movement in some way. The normal way to deal with these is to give no score at all. If you are scoring by computer the software will allow for this so I presume you are talking of scoring by hand. This leads to two problems. First, you may get boards which are played different numbers of times. Second, you may get pairs that play different numbers of boards. If boards are played a different number of times the simplest way to do it is to make sure all boards have the same average score. So if most boards are played 5 times, you would be scoring from 0 to 8 matchpoints [or 0 to 4 if you are in North America]. If one set of three boards is played 4 times, you score them from 1 to 7 [0.5 to 3.5 in North America]. Easiest is to score them normally then add 1 MP [0.5 in NAm] to each score. Now every board has the same average 4 [2 in NAm]. In many ways the best way of showing people's score is as a percentage of what they did score divided by what they could score [and multiply by 100]. This is the modern style, and it does not matter if pairs have played a different number of boards. What they could score is their number of boards played times the average times 2. However, if you do show the final matchpoint score, then you should factor the scores. Suppose half you pairs have played 24 boards, and half have played 21. All the players who have played 21 should have their score increased: multiply it by 24/21. My main advice is simple: get a computer with a scoring program. Then it does not matter whether anyone sits out, sits in, or anything else: the computer will cope!!!! Feel free to ask about anything further, or anything you have not understood above. -- 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 adam@tameware.com Tue Jul 15 02:09:01 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:09:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal Message-ID: Here's the text of a proposal I plan on submitting to the ACBL's C&C (Competition and Conventions) committee. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions, especially any suggestions as to how I could reduce its length! I've put this off too long, so I'll be sending it in tomorrow morning my time (Tuesday July 15.) If you have comments after that I'll still be interested, but they won't effect the proposal I submit. For reference here is the ACBL's current policy: http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1834&PID=9689&RID=9687 __________________________ Stop Card use I propose that the ACBL adopt the Stop Card regulation used by the WBF, with the clarification that the appropriate amount of time to leave the Stop card out is ten seconds. The effect of this regulation would be the same as the one the ACBL used until November of 1995. ======== Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the Stop card has been used correctly.) ======== The main advantage of this procedure is that there need never be a dispute as to whether a player waited long enough after a skip bid. If a player makes a call before the Stop Card is removed his opponents will summon the director. The TD need only observe that the Stop Card is on the table and that the card for LHO's subsequent call is also on the table. We will explain that UI is present and what that implies. Contrast this with the current procedure. If, as happens in the vast majority of cases, a player does not wait a full ten seconds, the opponents must decide on a case by case basis whether to summon the TD. Occasionally they do. Then a "He said/she said" kind of argument usually ensues. The TD has no objective way or determining whether or not the pause was sufficient, and usually settles for "call me back if you think there's been a problem." As a practical matter any pause between five and fifteen seconds is usually judged to have been made in proper tempo -- Rich Colker has said as much in the NABC Casebooks. This is a sad state of affairs -- such a difference can easily make UI available, and many partnerships must be subconsciously attuned to the difference. Another advantage of the proposed procedure is that many players find it difficult to simultaneously contemplate their call and estimate the passage of time. Under the WBF method the passage of time is estimated by a player who has nothing else to do -- if he's so inclined he can even use his watch. Another advantage is that making our regulation closer to the WBF's contributes to making the rules more similar everywhere, which will make things easier both for ACBL players who play in the WBF and WBF players playing in the ACBL. Is the procedure I propose perfect? Surely not. One problem is that players may not leave the Stop card out for an appropriate interval, replacing it after two or three seconds. This is addressed by the WBF regulation, and in any case we would be no worse off in this respect than at present. In my experience calls that are too hasty vastly outnumber those that are too deliberate. I have also heard the objection that this method gives control to the player who made the skip bid. I don't understand this objection at all. The skip bidder is the one who ought to have control. If he leaves the card out too long someone can just call the TD -- players will learn the correct procedure soon enough. In the WBF compliance is so easy and flaunting the regulation so obvious that one almost never needs to call the TD. Respectfully submitted, Adam Wildavsky -- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 15 05:40:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:40:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <007801c349ad$33cc4220$f63423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <725A0FCF-B67E-11D7-9326-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 22:11 US/Eastern, David Burn wrote: > The same is true, mutatis mutandis, if we "agree" > on 10-12, but... you may not open 1NT on a "featureful" 9-count, > because > there is a regulation against so doing (or, to be precise, there is not > a regulation against so doing, but there is a regulation against my > responding with Stayman or a transfer). Uh huh. So when an opponent calls you to the table and complains that "Wayne opened on a 9 count" why are you ruling the method illegal when (a) his partner has not yet called, and (b) you haven't determined whether or not they are playing any conventions after a 1NT opening? I've had it with this thread. I'm outta here. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 15:32:21 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c34a9c$553cafe0$a8b64351@noos.fr> David said he was too tired. Sometimes I get tired too. At blml sometimes we get endless legal smart talk and we forget all about playing bridge. > AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North > could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT bid, > which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough > to make 1NT alertable. > If NS can produce some evidence that this redouble asks North to bid his 5+ > suit, and 2C if he hasn't any (this could be the reason why he didn't bid > 2C here), I don't see what was illegal in this sequence. Alain, all this is complete nonsense. Of course south CAN have a hand where 2D plays better than 2S. We all know that sometimes the 1NT has xx xx AKQJxxx Ax. But normally partner does NOT have 6 diamonds. And normally partner DOES have at least 2 spades. So even if he bids 2D over the redouble we rate to have 62 spades (maybe 63) and just 52 diamonds (and on a very good day 62). But even if I am 1 card wrong equal fits are normally better played with the trump length in the weak hand. So for this very simple obvious reasons any sane player bids 2S. We try to get to a normal contract in 99% of the cases you know. Now look at your own example. With this hand 2D is better than 2S. 2D is cold but 2S still has fair chances. But you have given partner 6 solid diamonds and a single spade. Don't you realise it is 100 to 1 or so partner has that extreme a hand. Besides very few sane players would overcall 1NT on that. If I try it my partner always bid some number of spades. But maybe he doesn't if I hesistate long enough before bidding 1NT. Or if I bid 2D the right way. Don't worry, it is too long ago I played anything serious without screens. Anyway even if I know how to control partner I still don't see what is wrong with overcalling 1D. Brief for me south never bidding spades means that either the pause meant something to him or he had another way to smell a rat. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > At 12:29 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one > >way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is > >ridiculous. > > AG : please note that a ridiculous bid is not an infraction in the strict > sense of the term. > > > >Of course partner can have a hand where another partscore is > >better than 2S but that would be at extremely long odds. > > > >Now this is when 1NT is natural. If it turns out they always double on > >balanced hands and 1NT is 'always' suit based it becomes a completely > >different story. Then it is normal to try to play the NT bidders suit > >(because you are 'sure' it exists). But in that case there is a disclosure > >problem. > > > >So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an > >argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT > >natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going > >on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. > > AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North > could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT bid, > which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough > to make 1NT alertable. > If NS can produce some evidence that this redouble asks North to bid his 5+ > suit, and 2C if he hasn't any (this could be the reason why he didn't bid > 2C here), I don't see what was illegal in this sequence. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 15:47:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:47:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3o3ugvsogbqsh343pfp8e5kshcgbup25rr@nuser.dybdal.dk> <5.2.0.9.0.20030711171142.022b75a0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714083212.023d4c10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c34a9c$55783240$a8b64351@noos.fr> > There is nothing wrong on paper with this division of responsibility > for disseminating laws changes between the WBFLC and NCBOs. However, > the reality is that many (most) NCBOs do not discharge their > responsibility, the WBFLC knows that they don't, and it is futile and > counter-productive to pretend otherwise. What do you mean. Many? Most? Make that (almost) all. I am 15 odd years member of the Dutch national appeals committee. Without being chauvinistic, the Dutch fed is one of the best run and equiped NCBO's in the world. The chairman of the WBFLC is also on this body. All my life I have never ever formally received any info that the WBFLC existed (I found out myself) let alone what they are doing. Maybe (probably) our laws committee (which is seperate from the appeal body) is better informed. But for all practical purposes the WBFLC is operating in outer space. Apart from a new laws booklet once in a while. Now that I start to think about it, it is rather strange that Ton never put us on the mailing list. Anyway communication and management has never been his strongest point. I probably will instruct the office myself to do so. Next question, why did not I do that some years ago. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > At 02:55 AM 7/12/03, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > The problem with this is that it hasn't been, at least not > > > unless we are talking about a strictly BLML-centric > > > context. The WBFLC may modify the "official" text of a > > > law, and even let us BLML (and other) "insiders" look it > > > up on the Web, but the "reality of that text" doesn't > > > change until it reaches those who routinely look to their > > > lawbooks, along with any printed errata they may get > > > subsequently, for the text of the laws. The WBFLC may > > > nominally change the laws, but until those changes reach > > > the real people who are affected by them their "reality" > > > has not yet changed. > > > >+=+ Since ton arrived in the chair and I became Secretary > >the WBFLC minutes have been promulgated to NBOs and > >have been put up on blml. I am not sure whether they are > >also to be found on the ecats website - Anna Gudge may > >have put them there. We make them available; it is not > >our responsibility to deliver them to individuals; it is > >for the NBO to circulate information as it thinks fit to its > >TDs/clubs etc. > > I'd have put that last bit rather more strongly: "it is the > responsibility of the NBO to circulate information to those that need > it to do their jobs properly." > > There is nothing wrong on paper with this division of responsibility > for disseminating laws changes between the WBFLC and NCBOs. However, > the reality is that many (most) NCBOs do not discharge their > responsibility, the WBFLC knows that they don't, and it is futile and > counter-productive to pretend otherwise. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 14 17:24:56 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:24:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <009d01c342dc$d8709100$b92a24d5@Default> <3F0BB936.7090408@skynet.be> <04e001c34861$6adcf900$a8b64351@noos.fr> <002d01c348a6$1033d830$884ae150@endicott> <003501c34901$adf1b640$a0a953d4@Default> <006a01c349e8$08a0ebb0$ddebf1c3@LNV> <011601c349eb$b335de20$a8b64351@noos.fr> <012401c349f4$c09f5060$ddebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000401c34a9c$55bb55c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ton: > Easy said. OK, of course it is 'easy' to criticise. And then it is not if you want to do it in a serious way. But once again, 'your' clients paid a lot of money to play in Menton and they were disgusted by the product. They have every right to complain. And they are not interested in your endless stories how well you did given the circumstances. I am to a certain extend because I know what I am talking about and I have some knowledge of all those technical problems. Ton: > Another ironical remark missed its purpose. I was referring to Grattan who > came up with an all problems solving blue print and I tried to say that it > won't help that much. We hadn't a blue print saying that the conversion > scale should be the right one. And we discovered the wrong scale for the > first time when using it in Menton. Didn't I say that somewhere? No you did not and if this is what you tried to say put a little bit more effort in phrasing your meassages. Anyway, maybe better to stop using the word irony and stop trying to be ironic. Of course a blueprint or checklist in itself doesn't do anything when used by incompetent people. I get completely fed up with endless you blaming others, and others someone else again. The blueprint said, or should say, that 5 months or so before Menton that the software should be ok. Now software testing is an art in itself, it is a job better left to proffesionals. But if you try it yourself it amounts to one or more succesfull simulations (test run) of all program functions by an end user (not anybody involved building the product). Besides you should know by now that the Italian scoring/software team is unreliable. You ended up in Menton with faulty software. Great. Quite normal at EBL events by now. If something as simple as a conversion scale (in every second rate program any moron can change such a scale in a couple of minutes or seconds) is too difficult how can we take the correct computation of a pairs tournament for granted. Or anything else that that kind of programs do. Now I understand a political problem. The president of the EBL is an Italian. This goes a long way to explaining why we have to put up with an Italian scoring room. Baldi c.s. has been around for 10 years and everybody knows by now he doesn't deliver. Every time we are promised it will be ok but in the end it never is. There are plenty of teams that do a better job. In a way I agree with Grattan. Nationality should be irrelevant. We should simply pick the best available. But I don't think it will work that way. Knowing the right people is and probably will remain (far) more important than competence. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Jaap: > > > But > > you failed in preventing the problems from > > arising. > > yes, I did > > > > > > Then to my big surprise it wasn't > > > possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy > > solvable > > > problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change > the > > > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when > two > > > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > > > How can you possibly accept software where they cannot change a scale (a > > data item) without causing problems in other part of the program. This > means > > they have hardcoded data items and even then it is difficult to imagine > what > > they did if changing some random data causes problems. Are they still > > programming in assembler or what. To my (remotely technical trained) > > judgement all alarms would go off and if possible at all (and even if not) > I > > would change to another source of software on the spot. > > > Easy said. > > > > > > AND > > > > > The blue print starts saying that the operations director > > > checks at least 5 months in advance > > > > Maybe it should say as well that if the ops director finds something wrong > > he does something about it. > > > > AND > > > > > So the result room did change the > > > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when > two > > > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > > > You say that 5 months ago they could not change the scales immediatly but > I > > have to conclude at Menton five months later they still had not done it ? > > Another ironical remark missed its purpose. I was referring to Grattan who > came up with an all problems solving blue print and I tried to say that it > won't help that much. We hadn't a blue print saying that the conversion > scale should be the right one. And we discovered the wrong scale for the > first time when using it in Menton. Didn't I say that somewhere? > > ton > > > > > Who posted some weeks ago that in Lille someone was also manual doing a > > movement thing which resulted in a complete disaster ? > > > > Are you sure we are working with the best possible technical support ? I > > dare so no. > > Are you sure you are the best possible tournament manager ? I dare so no. > > > > By the way I am sure you are the best problem solver we have around. For > > that task (and some others) you are number one on my list without > > competition. But then good planning and managment eliminates much of the > on > > the spot problem solving. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Grattan Endicott" > > > > Cc: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:57 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grattan: > > > > > It did appear, early on, that the scoring system > > > > > in the computer had a wrong imps scale in it; it was > > > > > said to me that it was known beforehand this was > > > > > the case and, if this was true, one is entitled to ask > > > > > who knew as much and should have ensured it was > > > > > corrected before it was ever used in Menton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is Grattan really saying this or did the scissors do its confusing job? > > > > > > As far as I know we discovered the wrong scale in the computer during > the > > > mixed teams. The way the Italians reacted makes it almost 100% sure that > > > they were not aware of it before. And of course I was responsible and at > > > least one of you will call me guilty. > > > Let me add the following. Of course I told the Italians to change the > > table. > > > (That is what the non-existing blue print tells us about this subject: > if > > > the imp-vp scale is not according to the wbf scale the operations > director > > > tells the soft ware programmer to change the scale. Yes, yes, this is of > > > course remedy D. The blue print starts saying that the operations > director > > > checks at least 5 months in advance whether this scale is available and > > > demands a print out as an assurance). Then to my big surprise it wasn't > > > possible to change the scale immediately, that would cause not easy > > solvable > > > problems in other parts of the program. So the result room did change > the > > > scores manually and 'of course' forgot one which became apparent when > two > > > teams ranked equal on a qualifying position after the round robin. > > > > > > To demonstrate how the riviera gods were punishing us apart from the > heat > > > the following: look at the ranking after the swiss-A in the open teams. > > > (swiss-A with the teams ranked 1 -3 in each of the RR-groups of 8; > swiss-B > > > with the others) The first 27 qualified for the KO and there were 6 (I > > > think) teams ranked equal on place 27! This is decided by 'resistance > > > points': you need to find all the opponents of each of these teams and > add > > > their totals in VP's. The team with the highest score wins (it played > the > > > strongest opponents). But also rank 9 instead of 10 is important since > > that > > > decides the opponent to play against in the round of 32 in the KO. And I > > > think that half of the teams were ranked equal with others. The software > > > easily showed the opponents but the calculation had to be done manually. > > It > > > took more than an hour. > > > > > > The other 5 teams came from the swiss-B, interesting format, which made > > play > > > in the open teams interesting for many teams for at least four days. But > > > watching the results in the KO we discovered that this format showed a > big > > > disadvantage. These 5 teams were ranked 28 to 32 in the group of 32. And > > > team 1 had to play team 32, team 2 played 31 etc. What could have been > > > foreseen appeared in the results, the teams 28 - 32 were stronger than > > most > > > of the teams in the ranking 1 - 27. Chagas hadn't qualified in the RR > > > (became 4th out of 8) but won the swiss B. > > > > > > We need to change this regulation. Two suggestions: Number 1 in the > swiss > > B > > > becomes 4 (5,6)? in the total ranking of the 32 teams etc.(4, 9, 13, 18, > > 23) > > > or, which is an idea PO Sundelin gave me, you put them 28 - 32 but then > > > split the field in halves : 1 - 16 and 17 - 32 and let team 1 choose an > > > opponent from the teams ranked 17 - 32 and so on. > > > > > > A preference for one of these or other ideas? > > > > > > ton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 07:55:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:55:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F13A54E.5050609@skynet.be> Ed and Gordon made similar comments. But please don't cloud the issue. I know how the ACBL rule works. I'm not talking about the ACBL. I'm talking about a fictitious regulation which bans 9-11 NT ranges. Or any other such regulation which is described in HCP (like the rule of 18). All these problems (and the ACBL one) are alike in the sense of what to do about the 9-point opener (or the rule-17 one). We are not discussing what to do about the opener once he's been judged to have played an illegal system - that's a totally different problem, and not needed in this thread. Gordon Bower wrote: > > an order to fix the system immediately.) What you *can't* do is adjust the > score on this board, because no infraction has occurred. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 08:23:32 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:23:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <005c01c34aa2$004b5440$a8b64351@noos.fr> Karel, I just ansered to Alain. Probably you don't like the language as well. But I am not the inquisition. I just happen to have decades of experience ruling this kind of cases, mostly in a group that is extremely critical of each others arguments. By now I know what is a close call and what is not. This one is not. Just read the response of DWS as well. I have one simple question, give me a reasonable natural NT hand where 2D is better than 2S (I can imagine hearts making more tricks than spades opposite a perfect fit, but then we are discussing the kind of dummies that make game with this hand). Now I don't deny such a hand might exist but it is against all odds. You do not agree to my description of 'nonsense'. Bad luck. I think it is a rather restrained choice of word for explaining 1NT as 'natural' and never bidding spades with a reasonble 64 (it can easily be game opposite the right hand). Opposite AKxx Ax xxxx xxx 4S is already 'cold', less is needed for an odds on game, and dummy is supposed to be way stronger than that. I remember a recent case where Peter Gill said he was woried so many blml members held all kind of views on a for him (and for me) completely evident hand. The problem there IMO was that all those vieuws in itself were fine, but few people realised the bridge reality. And now back to the legal issue. After a long pause you know that something might well be fishy with partners 1NT. This is a strong suggestion that passing 2D might be the right thing to do. So this is simply not the moment you can take such an extreme view anymore. You are not going to tell me 2S is not an LA do you. By the way. I agree completely that if xx is takeout it is a clever bid. Once every 20 years partner might bid 2H. But the real advantage is that first xx and then 2S should show some values as compared to bidding 2S directly. With this hand I am worried I might miss game rather than that I don't know which partscore to play. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: RE: [blml] a Club ruling > [snip] > If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play > in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. > > One of the ways you judge the fielding of psyches and the use of UI, > both of which are relevant to this hand, is by considering what a > players peers might do. OK, let us go and poll people. 1C from LHO, > 1NT from pd, dbl on your right, you are 6=4=2=1, what's your plan? > > How many people you ask will consider playing in diamonds? > > +++ Whats that got to do with it ?? How many people do you know who would > overcall 1NT with this hand?? North did and it worked out great. Even > 3C*-2 is 70+% score. No one is advocating opening 1NT on various > distributions and not alerting the opposition nor is anyone suggesting that > the normal bid with the 6421 hand isn't 2S either direct or via a transfer. > But, just because 2S is what the majority may bid ... doesn't mean you can > disallow any other logical or sound action. The rdbl is a perfectly sound > option, which co incidently puts South in that group of imaginative bidders > and not part of the norm. South's action allows him time to make a more > informed decision. Assuming a reasonable partner, the 2D bid speaks > volumes. It expresses N's view that diamonds is where N wants to play if > South has an ok hand for this. South's hand is hardly unsuitable for > diamonds. It may be the majority opinion that 2S is now still a better > bid - but quite a few would now respect their partners view and pass 2D's > doubled, visualising the type of hands Alain & Tim have posted. The > better/sounder the North the more this would hold. > > The possibility of the pause influencing South's bid is though quite real. > Still I'd imagine had South bid 2S and it made with the deporable defence > shown so far, E/W would have complained that South should have passed > North's 2D !! I'm not arguing that 2D's doubled is the correct ruling. > This is the decision I made on this South's testimony. Another South > another day I'd rule 3C-2* or 2S-3*. > > Just out of interest, should a defenders ability effect an adjusted result > ?? I mean god knows what this E/W would have done versus 2S's or 3C's. > > > K. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 08:45:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:45:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <008c01c34aa5$0f62d360$a8b64351@noos.fr> DWS: > .... and then point out the answer. The skip bid regulations in use > throughout the world except Oceania have the merit of simplicity: it is > not easy to think of an alternative regulation that is easy enough to > understand. Why not ? Now it is STOP applies after any skipbid. Proposed is STOP applies after any skipbid AND any bid in the first round of bidding (for reasons similar that there should be a pause when dummy comes down) AND any bid when both sides have made a bid other than pass in the last round of bidding (competitive situations are way more sensitive than the average skipbid). Not that complicated compared to the complexity of the game we are playing. A beter argument against is that we play serious bridge with screens and the social players don't want to be bothered. The problem being that still a lot of serious bridge is played without screens. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >> > 'HOT SEAT ' RULINGS. > >> > > >> > In the case of a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is > >> > confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation > >> > or high level pre-empt or competition) a > >> > hesitation may be found not to suggest one > >> > action over another if the extra time taken may be > >> > occasioned by the need of the player to consider > >> > what options he has, added to the normal time he > >> > may then take in choosing among them. > >> > > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >At least you admit the need for 'extra time' in such situations. So why not > >implement a simple rule rather than the above. Like a general STOP rule > >which exist already in Norway if I understood Sven correctly. > > You ask the question .... > > >Anyway who is going to judge what is wholly unanticipated. A little bit > >unanticipated is not enough ? > > .... and then point out the answer. The skip bid regulations in use > throughout the world except Oceania have the merit of simplicity: it is > not easy to think of an alternative regulation that is easy enough to > understand. > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 09:26:17 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000101c34a48$c6653c90$379737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00d601c34aaa$c6af9f80$a8b64351@noos.fr> Wayne, Keep up the good work. Even if you tire some people, some time ago you did it to me, I like your persistence and your line of reasoning. Because 'they' seem to be unable to counter your rather simple line of reasoning. Not a big surprise because those regulations they are defending are completely crazy IMHO. I don't mind regulating bidding systems but then please do it in a simple way. Like it is illegal to open on 9HCP balanced. At least that one is easy to enforce. By the way I have never played anywhere where this kind of regulations existed. It must be an English disease I guess. Anyway I have two objections/adjustments to your arguments: Wayne But I most certainly will not rule that a deviation in itself is sufficient evidence to penalize or take any action against a player or a pair. They way you put it I might say ok. But on AC we have made that kind of decisions. But then we are not discussing cases like someone being 1 point short for his official range. Most of the cases were that the (enormity of the) deviation was in itself enough proof (to us, we have to decide something as AC you know) the pair was not playing that particular convention at all or that they did not understood themselves the system they pretented to be playing. Wayne: 'habitual violations ... may ... create partnership understandings' BLML: > psyches are not. But the frequency of both is disclosable. And > habitual violations are (or should be) regularisable, Wayne: Only if they become partnership understandings. This is not your strongest point. It is difficult to establish what is a habitual violations but they might (or not) become implicit partnership understandings. Back to the 9-11 discussion. If partner (always) opens on xx Kxx AQ109x xxx and the like I would never rule against you. The big majority of all players would upgrade that one so it has nothing to do with any agreement, it is just common sense. If he opens a bad 9 green against red at the end in a KO match when down 20 I would rule that is just bridge. But if your partner openes quite often on not too special 9 counts you have a problem. You might claim you have no explicit agreement, I am sure you don't have, but you develop an implicit one over time. You have to disclose this to opponents (we play 10-12 but he often has 9). Now it becomes difficult for me to accept you have no agreement in the regulation sense of the word. But don't ask me how a TD/AC is supposed to establish the facts on that one. There is also another side to the story. You open 1NT on a featureless 9 in an environment where anti 9HCP regs exists. You do create a problem for the TD. He cannot really call you a liar (when given the usual first time argument or you say you miscounted) but he also has to protect your oponents (that regulation exists for a reason). Ok lets say he accepts your defence. What is the poor guy to do if it happens next week again ? I will rule a violation. Not because I like to but simply because that is what the rest of the players expect me to do. This is also why TD's are helped enormously with simple regulations that are as objective as possible. It is so much easier to tell you 'sorry sir down here opening 9HCP is illegal, I have to rule AV+-AV-, please play the next board'. Jaap From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 09:46:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:46:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F13BF81.1080508@skynet.be> Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Ed and Gordon made similar comments. >>But please don't cloud the issue. >>I know how the ACBL rule works. >>I'm not talking about the ACBL. >>I'm talking about a fictitious regulation which bans 9-11 NT ranges. >> > > I didn't think I was talking about the ACBL: last I checked, "everyone" > knew that SOs did not have a right to ban 9-11 NT outright. Given such a > regulation, we would, of course, not enforce it because it conflicts with > the current law, and write to the SO to have it fixed. > That's yet another problem. I'm not asking if the SO has the right to ban the 9-11NT, i'm just trying to figure out how to rule on a 9-point opener when it _has_ banned it. > >>Or any other such regulation which is described in HCP (like the rule >>of 18). >> > > I agree that there is a basic problem that the laws don't specify how to > handle "a king or more below average strength", and somewhere between 6 > and 9 hcp there is a boundary none of us can see clearly. > Again, totally different discussion. An interesting one, yes, but not in the scope of this thread as I saw it. > I can imagine an SO trying to impose its standard on its members (e.g., > HCP, and 7 is a king below average.) I can also imagine a contestant that > uses another evaluation method successfully arguing its methods were legal > ("I use AKQ-points, an average hand is 6, a king below average is 4, so I > should be allowed to open 7-counts consisting of an ace and a king.") If > your agreed valaution is HCP+length+half a point for tens, then your > average is up to 12 or 12.5, and now, aha, you have a basis for banning > bad 9-counts. > There you are simply wrong. The WBF authorizes the SO to ban certain things. The SO bans something. A player questions whether this ban conforms to WBF authorization. He should do so away from the table. In the mean time, the SO ban is valid, and the TD does not have to figure out about this, just apply it. > >>All these problems (and the ACBL one) are alike in the sense of what >>to do about the 9-point opener (or the rule-17 one). >> > >>We are not discussing what to do about the opener once he's been >>judged to have played an illegal system - that's a totally different >>problem, and not needed in this thread. >> > > That's fine. A few of us are a tad concerned about directors ruling > illegal system on shaky evidence, but I suppose we can drop that since > no-one is convincing anyone else to change his mind. > > The hint Grattan dropped about rewriting Law 40, on the other hand, scares > me. Removing the right to bid naturally as one wishes, enshrined in past > and current law books, would be a sad day indeed. I am already scared by > how much power to regulate has been given to SOs, and it will only get > worse. > Why would that be worse? Why do you assume that the WBF needs to limit the bans SOs can put on systems policy? > "if there is a demand for games with certain rules, they will be provided" > is a myth. There is already a demand for them - but SOs do not run them. > SOs run whatever format attracts the largest number of entries. Open games > attract more entries than games. which some players are ineligble for or > refuse to enter. All it takes is a handful of people shouting "we won't > play in an anything-goes game" to guarantee no-one will start one. We do > not have Senior games because people want them: we have Senior games > because there are more people saying "I refuse to play against good young > players" than there are people ineligible for senior games. > > GRB > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 09:53:32 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:53:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000101c34a48$c6653c90$379737d2@Desktop> <00d601c34aaa$c6af9f80$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F13C10C.80407@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Wayne, > > > Back to the 9-11 discussion. If partner (always) opens on xx Kxx AQ109x xxx > and the like I would never rule against you. The big majority of all players > would upgrade that one so it has nothing to do with any agreement, it is > just common sense. Yes it is Jaap. But the problem with that hand is not the upgrading, it is the regulation. For better or worse, we want a regulation banning the possibility of opening (systemically) on weak hands. Now we need a definition of weak. And someone said "10 HCP is not weak". Now I know that "xx Kxx AQ109x xxx" is a stronger hand than "Jxx Kxx AQ9x xxx" but how are we going to put that in a regulation? So if 10HCP is the regulation, then the first hand cannot be opened while the second one can. Too bad. > If he opens a bad 9 green against red at the end in a KO > match when down 20 I would rule that is just bridge. But if your partner > openes quite often on not too special 9 counts you have a problem. You might > claim you have no explicit agreement, I am sure you don't have, but you > develop an implicit one over time. You have to disclose this to opponents > (we play 10-12 but he often has 9). Now it becomes difficult for me to > accept you have no agreement in the regulation sense of the word. But don't > ask me how a TD/AC is supposed to establish the facts on that one. > Well, how about simply saying "10 is allowed, 9 not"? > There is also another side to the story. You open 1NT on a featureless 9 in > an environment where anti 9HCP regs exists. You do create a problem for the > TD. He cannot really call you a liar (when given the usual first time > argument or you say you miscounted) but he also has to protect your oponents > (that regulation exists for a reason). Ok lets say he accepts your defence. > What is the poor guy to do if it happens next week again ? I will rule a > violation. Not because I like to but simply because that is what the rest of > the players expect me to do. This is also why TD's are helped enormously > with simple regulations that are as objective as possible. It is so much > easier to tell you 'sorry sir down here opening 9HCP is illegal, I have to > rule AV+-AV-, please play the next board'. > Exactly Jaap, so you see you agree with me after all? Just accept the super-9 as well and we can be all in the same ship. > Jaap > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 15 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <001201c349d5$03ba2b60$204ce150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Yeah, Wayne, you know it will happen, I know > it will happen, our experience together leads us to > understand it will happen, we go on playing together > and we say to the outside world that we have no > agreement that it may happen. Of course, we are > just a couple of honest guys, telling our opponents > fairly, as the law requires, what our partnership > understandings are. > Not to my shame, we don't. Do not confuse disclosure and regulation. I (and I'm pretty sure Wayne) will quite happily disclose the fact that we regard HCPs as a guideline and expect partner to exercise a degree of judgement when evaluating his hand. We can see how many players take this approach and how some in authority seem to endorse it. We can see how an "agreement" can be one thing (rigid and subject to regulation) while an "understanding" can be another (more fluid yet subject to disclosure). There is a good reason for the use of two different terms in the laws (OK this last is an assumption but the alternative is to assume that the lawmakers were stupidly careless or deliberate saboteurs). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 15 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I think Herman is right in the sense that "we know" who does it. for > example "we know" that I do :). It's always the same pairs, and as it > goes, when I'm playing with Tim I have concluded that it is *probably* > illegal per EBU for me to open a ferdinand, and *probably not* with a > pick-up partner. John, it sounds I should no longer expect you to open sub Ro19 hands. In which case we don't have a problem if you do, in which case I expect you to... Oh G*D my head is spinning!! PS. I think John is probably wrong and if he isn't he ought to be. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 15 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F12594B.7050406@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > If I know that you always upgrade your point counts (open on 14 when > our CC says 15-17 and such), is that experience, or is it also an > implicit agreement? > And if such a distinction were valid, what defence do we, poor TD's, > have, against a player who tells me: "yes, I know he does this > frequently, and I've even told opponents, but I've never agreed to it The TD can surely apply judgement. If through investigation he discovers that the vast majority of 14 counts are *not* opened in this way he can rule it is an understanding. If he establishes the majority of 14 counts are opened this way by both parties he can rule it as an implicit agreement. > so you cannot regulate it and he's free to do it as long as we want". > Don't you see, Wayne, that without my interpretation, any regulation > is just dead letter. Not any regulation. Any regulation which attempts to restrict player judgement. > Or is that precisely what you want? And yes, dead is exactly where regulations of judgement should end up (take a look at L40d if you have any doubts). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 15 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > >AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that > North >could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for > his 1NT bid, >which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since > that's not enough >to make 1NT alertable. > > Where? Are you sure it is not alertable under Irish alerting regs? I am damn sure it isn't alertable under EBU (or WBF/EBL) regulations. I'd bid it in a New York Second over 1H or 1C (particularly if the 1C is part of a 5 card major system). And I have an option of bidding 2D (IJO) - If playing WJOs then 1N seems even clearer. > If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play > in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. Why not. Approximately 15-17 points, stop in opps suit, suggestion to play in 1NT opposite some odds and ends. > Sure, it may be legal to play it that way, and probably is under most > jurisdictions. But what about disclosure? If asked one would say something like the above and include "may be off-shape with a good minor". The 1NT was not asked about in the original posting and disclosure did not appear to be an issue (this sort of detail isn't something that appears on CCs). > It may be fun to bid 1NT on any 6421 hand you feel like, let pd tell > the opponents it is a normal balanced hand, and then allow for it to be > this shape, but that is not the way bridge is played. I fully agree with the last bit. However there was no suggestion that this was what the OS did. Of course a TD could rule that way after investigation and give a suitable pp. > One of the ways you judge the fielding of psyches and the use of UI, > both of which are relevant to this hand, is by considering what a But only one of which can be relevant to the ruling. Either it is a fielded psyche OR it is a UI/LA case. It can't be both. Whether it is the former or the latter is a matter of the partnership methods/style. I would suggest that playing an SOS XX in this sequence implies that the pairs' methods encompass off-shape NT overcalls. > players peers might do. OK, let us go and poll people. 1C from LHO, > 1NT from pd, dbl on your right, you are 6=4=2=1, what's your plan? Can we also inform the people that you have an SOS XX available after which pard will show a good suit if he has one and bid 2c if he doesn't (or even that pard is likely to take a XX that way despite a lack of discussion)? How many would even consider bidding an immediate 2S then? I mean if you XX and pard bids 2H then 4H looks to have great chances. But for pard to bid 1N on Qx,AQJ9x,Kxx,AJx would be outrageous I suppose? > How many people you ask will consider playing in diamonds? Very few. But would you respect their bridge-playing ability more if they asked "how off-shape can the 1N be?" before answering your question. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 15 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <005c01c34aa2$004b5440$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: > Karel, > > I just ansered to Alain. Probably you don't like the language as well. > But I am not the inquisition. I just happen to have decades of > experience ruling this kind of cases, mostly in a group that is > extremely critical of each others arguments. Which sadly does not prevent you being completely clueless at times. If you refuse to take into account the methods being played your rulings will be wrong. > By now I know what is a close call and what is not. This > one is not. Just read the response of DWS as well. > > I have one simple question, give me a reasonable natural NT hand where > 2D is better than 2S (I can imagine hearts making more tricks than > spades opposite a perfect fit, but then we are discussing the kind of > dummies that make game with this hand). Now I don't deny such a hand > might exist but it is against all odds. Reasonable and non-alertable hands exist where both Diamond and Heart contracts may play better than 2S (at least in my approach, Alain's and Karel's). That is usually enough for people to accept that XX and passing 2D is an LA. > You do not agree to my description of 'nonsense'. Bad luck. I think it > is a rather restrained choice of word for explaining 1NT as 'natural' An explanation of the 1NT bid was neither requested nor given (at least to BLML). Had such an explanation been given and we later discovered that 1N often includes off-shape hands with good suits we would be considering MI adjustments as well. > and never bidding spades with a reasonble 64 (it can easily be game > opposite the right hand). Opposite AKxx Ax xxxx xxx 4S is already > 'cold', less is needed for an odds on game, and dummy is supposed to be > way stronger than that. Then make Dummy AKxx, Ax,xxxx,KQx. Now bid the hand. (1C) 1N (X) XXa P 2Ca (X) 2S P 3S - ? > And now back to the legal issue. This is only one legal issue. It only becomes a legal issue if you accept that passing 2D is an LA (suggested or not). If you decide that 2D is not an LA given the way this pair play 1N (possible) then you adjust using the psyche/CPU regulations. > After a long pause you know that something > might well be fishy with partners 1NT. This is a strong suggestion that > passing 2D might be the right thing to do. So this is simply not the > moment you can take such an extreme view anymore. You are not going to > tell me 2S is not an LA do you. No. Which is why I would adjust appropriately under the UI laws rather than inappropriately under the psyche laws. > By the way. I agree completely that if xx is takeout it is a clever bid. > Once every 20 years partner might bid 2H. But the real advantage is that > first xx and then 2S should show some values as compared to bidding 2S > directly. Not necessarily. There are 3 sequences (immediate S, XX then S, 2C then S) available. Would playing the latter two as being "two places to play, one with values, one without" be stupid? Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 10:51:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:51:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F13CEB8.7020504@skynet.be> No Tim, certainly not. Tim West-Meads wrote: > > The TD can surely apply judgement. If through investigation he discovers > that the vast majority of 14 counts are *not* opened in this way he can > rule it is an understanding. If he establishes the majority of 14 counts > are opened this way by both parties he can rule it as an implicit > agreement. > That is no, and should not be, the criterion. If a particular 14-count is opened as a 15-17NT, then there is probably a reason for it (perhaps tens or diamond length). If every 14-count with that particular extra is opened 1NT, then that is part of the system, and this is regardless of the relative occurence of this particular 14-count among all 14-counts. If my system is that every 14-count that holds the SA AND the D7 and the C2 is opened 1NT, then that is my system, and it does not matter that only one in every 64 14-counts holds precisely those three cards. > >>so you cannot regulate it and he's free to do it as long as we want". >>Don't you see, Wayne, that without my interpretation, any regulation >>is just dead letter. >> > > Not any regulation. Any regulation which attempts to restrict player > judgement. > But a regulation which includes player judgment is also dead letter. "this particular 8-count, in my judgment, is worth 10 points". What are you going to say to that? Whose judgment should prevail? Wayne's, or yours, or mine? > >>Or is that precisely what you want? >> > > And yes, dead is exactly where regulations of judgement should end up > (take a look at L40d if you have any doubts). > No, what you are trying to do is to bury any regulation which attempts to curtail your (god-given!) right to open on any kind of rubbish you want. Sorry sir, but the SO has regulated against you. Live with it or fight it out in the right place, but don't try and squeeze your light openings past this director. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 10:58:33 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:58:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F13D049.2040809@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> > > Do not confuse disclosure and regulation. I (and I'm pretty sure Wayne) > will quite happily disclose the fact that we regard HCPs as a guideline > and expect partner to exercise a degree of judgement when evaluating his > hand. We can see how many players take this approach and how some in > authority seem to endorse it. We can see how an "agreement" can be one > thing (rigid and subject to regulation) while an "understanding" can be > another (more fluid yet subject to disclosure). There is a good reason > for the use of two different terms in the laws (OK this last is an > assumption but the alternative is to assume that the lawmakers were > stupidly careless or deliberate saboteurs). > OK Tim, so you implicitely agree that your fluid openings are part of your system. Great. Now all we need to do is agree on what the regulation actually deals with: "agreement" or "understanding" (your use of the words). IMO, the regulation includes the words "by agreement" in order to make clear that psychs and miscounts are not targeted. The regulation does target, again IMO, those "understandings" (your word use) which provide for fluid use of HCP as method of hand valuation. If you open 1NT on xx Qxx AQJ109 xxx (Jaap's hand) then what is the difference between saying "this hand is worth 10HCP in my judgment" and "this hand is worth 17TWP - Tim/Wayne'sPoints - and we open all 17-20TWP by 1NT"? I'll tell you, there is no difference, and so if you consider this hand to be worth a 1NT opener, then you are playing a system which according to the definition (hands under 10HCP can be opened 1NT) is illegal. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 13:15:53 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:15:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <019d01c34acc$21b500c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Tim: > No. Which is why I would adjust appropriately under the UI laws rather > than inappropriately under the psyche laws. That is exacly what I tried to say. But then I am from an NCBO that doesn't have psyche laws so I cannot use those if only because I don't know what they say. Officially I will rule that the pause suggested passing 2D compared to bidding 2S (or xx instead of 2S). That gets me to 60-40/60-0 because too many things can happen. Like over 2S the guy bids 3C but this probably gets corrected to 3D (if the 2S came after 2D). And the number of tricks in diamonds is also unclear. Or someone gets tired of all that and bids 3NT after all. I agree that you have to talk to the pair and that all kind of info is always missing on paper but I start out being very suspicious when I see a case like this. But already in my first post I said that I leave the penalties always to the local people because they tend to know all kind of things I do not. So I will involve the local TD in the decision between 60-40 and 60-0 or whatever. Also one might give 2D* making to the defenders. But this really depends how good, smart and experienced they are. If you or I did so of course the score should stand. > > By the way. I agree completely that if xx is takeout it is a clever bid. > > Once every 20 years partner might bid 2H. But the real advantage is that > > first xx and then 2S should show some values as compared to bidding 2S > > directly. > > Not necessarily. There are 3 sequences (immediate S, XX then S, 2C then > S) available. Would playing the latter two as being "two places to play, > one with values, one without" be stupid? Of course I agree on the not necessarily. I just try to say that bidding 2S slowly MIGHT get some values across. And although I worry about missing a game it is not likely we can still find out. It was just to say that in my evalution of this hand game is a more interesting problem than which suit to pick. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > Karel, > > > > I just ansered to Alain. Probably you don't like the language as well. > > But I am not the inquisition. I just happen to have decades of > > experience ruling this kind of cases, mostly in a group that is > > extremely critical of each others arguments. > > Which sadly does not prevent you being completely clueless at times. > If you refuse to take into account the methods being played your rulings > will be wrong. > > > By now I know what is a close call and what is not. This > > one is not. Just read the response of DWS as well. > > > > I have one simple question, give me a reasonable natural NT hand where > > 2D is better than 2S (I can imagine hearts making more tricks than > > spades opposite a perfect fit, but then we are discussing the kind of > > dummies that make game with this hand). Now I don't deny such a hand > > might exist but it is against all odds. > > Reasonable and non-alertable hands exist where both Diamond and Heart > contracts may play better than 2S (at least in my approach, Alain's and > Karel's). That is usually enough for people to accept that XX and passing > 2D is an LA. > > > You do not agree to my description of 'nonsense'. Bad luck. I think it > > is a rather restrained choice of word for explaining 1NT as 'natural' > > An explanation of the 1NT bid was neither requested nor given (at least to > BLML). Had such an explanation been given and we later discovered that 1N > often includes off-shape hands with good suits we would be considering MI > adjustments as well. > > > and never bidding spades with a reasonble 64 (it can easily be game > > opposite the right hand). Opposite AKxx Ax xxxx xxx 4S is already > > 'cold', less is needed for an odds on game, and dummy is supposed to be > > way stronger than that. > > Then make Dummy AKxx, Ax,xxxx,KQx. Now bid the hand. > (1C) 1N (X) XXa > P 2Ca (X) 2S > P 3S - ? > > > > And now back to the legal issue. > > This is only one legal issue. It only becomes a legal issue if you accept > that passing 2D is an LA (suggested or not). If you decide that 2D is not > an LA given the way this pair play 1N (possible) then you adjust using the > psyche/CPU regulations. > > > After a long pause you know that something > > might well be fishy with partners 1NT. This is a strong suggestion that > > passing 2D might be the right thing to do. So this is simply not the > > moment you can take such an extreme view anymore. You are not going to > > tell me 2S is not an LA do you. > > No. Which is why I would adjust appropriately under the UI laws rather > than inappropriately under the psyche laws. > > > By the way. I agree completely that if xx is takeout it is a clever bid. > > Once every 20 years partner might bid 2H. But the real advantage is that > > first xx and then 2S should show some values as compared to bidding 2S > > directly. > > Not necessarily. There are 3 sequences (immediate S, XX then S, 2C then > S) available. Would playing the latter two as being "two places to play, > one with values, one without" be stupid? > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 13:25:03 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:25:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000101c34a48$c6653c90$379737d2@Desktop> <00d601c34aaa$c6af9f80$a8b64351@noos.fr> <3F13C10C.80407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <019e01c34acc$2208ed20$a8b64351@noos.fr> Herman I do and don't agree with you at all. I DO. If we want to ban 9HCP openers the regulation should say ' balanced 9HCP openers are illegal'. You can refine such a reg with half and quarter points to allow really good 9HCP hands but forget about that. That is just redefining a boundary. If people do open 9HCP, whatever the reason, the board gets thrown out. Simple to understand, simple to rule, and if the reg makes sense it might even be accepted by most. Anyway that is what they do in a French festival when you break the rule of 17 (or was it 19 after all, I forget those things). And they really don't bother why you did it. I DO NOT. But the current regulations like 'you cannot open 9HCP by agreement' are bullshit IMHO. Because this implies (I agree 100% with Wayne) you can open certain 9 counts always and some 9 counts sometimes without violating the regulation. Besides that kind of text starts a endless fight about the definition of agreement. So dear Herman, I might agree on the goals (not specifically the 9HCP thing but some system regulation in general makes sense) but not on the means. If you make a reg please make a decent one. And if the current laws don't permit you making decent regs the SO should maybe accept that the laws did not meant to do so. Or maybe we should change the law on this one. >From another post: Herman If a particular 14-count is opened as a 15-17NT, then there is probably a reason for it (perhaps tens or diamond length). If every 14-count with that particular extra is opened 1NT, then that is part of the system, and this is regardless of the relative occurence of this particular 14-count among all 14-counts. You are lost. If a certain 14 count is opened as 15-17 by the vast majority of the players then it is normal judgement. The fact that I expect my partner to upgrade a hand that most of his peers upgrade doesn't mean anything to anybody. It is just common sense. I doesn't create any form of understanding. But if you insist I will change the 15-17 entry on my CC to 14-18 meaning I play a normal 15-17 NT. Just how many serious players do you expect not to open 1NT on xx K10x AQJ109 A10x (if the alternative is 1D-1HS-1NT 12-14)? My guess: zilch. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Wayne, > > > > > > Back to the 9-11 discussion. If partner (always) opens on xx Kxx AQ109x xxx > > and the like I would never rule against you. The big majority of all players > > would upgrade that one so it has nothing to do with any agreement, it is > > just common sense. > > > Yes it is Jaap. > But the problem with that hand is not the upgrading, it is the regulation. > For better or worse, we want a regulation banning the possibility of > opening (systemically) on weak hands. Now we need a definition of > weak. And someone said "10 HCP is not weak". > Now I know that "xx Kxx AQ109x xxx" is a stronger hand than "Jxx Kxx > AQ9x xxx" but how are we going to put that in a regulation? > So if 10HCP is the regulation, then the first hand cannot be opened > while the second one can. Too bad. > > > If he opens a bad 9 green against red at the end in a KO > > match when down 20 I would rule that is just bridge. But if your partner > > openes quite often on not too special 9 counts you have a problem. You might > > claim you have no explicit agreement, I am sure you don't have, but you > > develop an implicit one over time. You have to disclose this to opponents > > (we play 10-12 but he often has 9). Now it becomes difficult for me to > > accept you have no agreement in the regulation sense of the word. But don't > > ask me how a TD/AC is supposed to establish the facts on that one. > > > > > Well, how about simply saying "10 is allowed, 9 not"? > > > > There is also another side to the story. You open 1NT on a featureless 9 in > > an environment where anti 9HCP regs exists. You do create a problem for the > > TD. He cannot really call you a liar (when given the usual first time > > argument or you say you miscounted) but he also has to protect your oponents > > (that regulation exists for a reason). Ok lets say he accepts your defence. > > What is the poor guy to do if it happens next week again ? I will rule a > > violation. Not because I like to but simply because that is what the rest of > > the players expect me to do. This is also why TD's are helped enormously > > with simple regulations that are as objective as possible. It is so much > > easier to tell you 'sorry sir down here opening 9HCP is illegal, I have to > > rule AV+-AV-, please play the next board'. > > > > > Exactly Jaap, so you see you agree with me after all? > Just accept the super-9 as well and we can be all in the same ship. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From David Stevenson Tue Jul 15 12:05:26 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:05:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karel writes >[snip] > If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play >in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. > > One of the ways you judge the fielding of psyches and the use of UI, >both of which are relevant to this hand, is by considering what a >players peers might do. OK, let us go and poll people. 1C from LHO, >1NT from pd, dbl on your right, you are 6=4=2=1, what's your plan? > > How many people you ask will consider playing in diamonds? > >+++ Whats that got to do with it ?? How many people do you know who would >overcall 1NT with this hand?? North did and it worked out great. It worked out great because he used illegal information. I can do very well at this game using any methods you like so long as I do not bother to follow the rules. -- 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 Tue Jul 15 12:03:27 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:03:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <008c01c34aa5$0f62d360$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> <008c01c34aa5$0f62d360$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >DWS: >> .... and then point out the answer. The skip bid regulations in use >> throughout the world except Oceania have the merit of simplicity: it is >> not easy to think of an alternative regulation that is easy enough to >> understand. > >Why not ? > >Now it is STOP applies after any skipbid. > >Proposed is STOP applies after any skipbid AND any bid in the first round of >bidding (for reasons similar that there should be a pause when dummy comes >down) AND any bid when both sides have made a bid other than pass in the >last round of bidding (competitive situations are way more sensitive than >the average skipbid). I can get the players in my club to understand a STOP card before a jump - that's easy. I do not believe that I can get them to understand your rule. -- 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 Tue Jul 15 12:07:54 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:07:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714161446.02194ac0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714161446.02194ac0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau writes >At 01:04 PM 7/14/03, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> >> >If you don't (aren't allowed by law to) "know" the identity of >> >partner's penalty card, the knowledge that he must play it (AHNLO) is >> >totally meaningless. Surely the Law tells you that you can "know" >> >*something* and use this knowledge, and the mere fact that partner has >> >an unknown penalty card cannot sensibly be it. >> >> You know what you can do on a particular trick. If the penalty card >>is the HK, and you decide to lead a heart, then you are permitted to >>lead a low heart rather than the ace. But the decision-making process >>which leads to you leading a heart must not include knowing that partner >>has the HK. >> >> That distinction is not meaningless. > >It may not be, but it is surely not relevant. The language at issue >(L50D1) is "the requirement that offender must play the card is >authorized information for his partner; however, other information >arising from the facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for >partner". The only thing open to interpretation here is whether the >identity of the card is inherent in the knowledge "that offender must >play the card" or is "other information arising from the facing of >the... card". I don't see how this can change between the time you >decide which suit to lead and the time you decide which card to >lead. L50 neither says nor implies anything to suggest that what is AI >and what is UI can ever depend on the "particular trick". This is the sort of argument that gets BLML a bad name in some quarters. You have two interpretations, one of which assumes the wording is meaningless. You say there is only one interpretation in the face of commonsense and an interpretation from the WBFLC. What for? What is the point? -- 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 Tue Jul 15 12:14:04 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:14:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky writes >======== >Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing >the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, >and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until >the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed >hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the >Stop card has been used correctly.) >======== I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". From David Stevenson Tue Jul 15 12:12:03 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:12:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Bower writes > >I wrote previously: > >>> If it becomes a penalty card, I will say to >>> the other defender something like "you are allowed to use the >>> information that your partner has (say) the queen of hearts and must >>>play it at first opportunity; but you are not yet entitled to know >>>whether your partner has the king or jack, and must avoid using that >>>information until it comes to light legally." > >and David Stevenson responded: > >> Unfortunately this is not correct: partner is allowed to know he will >>play it at the first legal opportunity but not to deduce things because >> he knows he has the card. >> >> So you should not be saying "you are allowed to use the info that your >> partner has the queen of hearts" because he is not: but he is allowed to >> know that it will be played on certain tricks. > >I am sorry, I must disagree. > >When in receipt of UI, my obligations are to carefully avoid taking >advantage of UI, and in particular, to not choose my line of play from >among alternatives suggested by the UI. But it is still my right to deduce >what I may from the AI I receive. > >In the bidding we often see situations where UI is present, but conveys >only the same information as the AI already has. For instance, suppose you >are playing somewhere where "alert all conventions immediately" is the >rule. You, holding AKxxx Axx Axxx x, agree on spades then bid 4NT, >and partner bids 5S. It is abundantly clear that a wheel has come off. If >partner failed to alert, I have UI, but you can't make me bid as if there >are six aces in the pack. I may or may not be free to speculate whether >partner took 4NT as D-I, or whether he was showing HKQ+CA thinking it was >RKC for hearts, depending what other UI I may have. > >In the case of a penalty card, I have AI that my partner must play that >card at the first legal opportunity. _Using that AI alone_, I can deduce >that partner now holds the card I have been told he must play. I know he >is not void in that suit, and might be able to deduce something else about >his distribution; if a face card, I might be able to place the other >high-card points. No matter how much UI I have, this does not change. > >The UI places plenty of other constraints on me (for instance, if I know >partner has 5-6 HCP and he leads HQ playing standard leads, I might be >required to defend on the assumption he holds HKQ not SK+HQJ, since "HQ >promises jack and denies king" is UI.) > >Can someone enlighten me as to what basis in law there is to claim I >cannot make deductions based on the AI arising from a major penalty card? >It sure isn't what I see in 50D2. L50D1 makes it clear that the fact pd will play it is the only AI: you have told us something else is AI: that cannot be right. -- 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 hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 14:19:24 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:19:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000101c34a48$c6653c90$379737d2@Desktop> <00d601c34aaa$c6af9f80$a8b64351@noos.fr> <3F13C10C.80407@skynet.be> <019e01c34acc$2208ed20$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F13FF5C.4020207@skynet.be> OK Jaap, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman > > I do and don't agree with you at all. > > I DO. > If we want to ban 9HCP openers the regulation should say ' balanced 9HCP > openers are illegal'. You can refine such a reg with half and quarter points > to allow really good 9HCP hands but forget about that. That is just > redefining a boundary. > If people do open 9HCP, whatever the reason, the board gets thrown out. > Simple to understand, simple to rule, and if the reg makes sense it might > even be accepted by most. Anyway that is what they do in a French festival > when you break the rule of 17 (or was it 19 after all, I forget those > things). And they really don't bother why you did it. > This is completely correct - both in content and in the reasons behind it. It is the only way a regulation such as this makes sense. > I DO NOT. > But the current regulations like 'you cannot open 9HCP by agreement' are > bullshit IMHO. Because this implies (I agree 100% with Wayne) you can open > certain 9 counts always and some 9 counts sometimes without violating the > regulation. Besides that kind of text starts a endless fight about the > definition of agreement. > This is also correct. Both in the content and the reason behind it. BUT: (you knew I was going to say that :-)) The regulation cannot simply say - you are not allowed to open 1NT on less than 10HCP. That would be tantamount to banning psychs, and for various reasons we don't want to do that. If next time we meet, and you want to open a 1NT (announced range 15-17) on 3 points, I'm not going to stop you (either as opponent or as director). > So dear Herman, I might agree on the goals (not specifically the 9HCP thing > but some system regulation in general makes sense) but not on the means. If > you make a reg please make a decent one. And if the current laws don't > permit you making decent regs the SO should maybe accept that the laws did > not meant to do so. Or maybe we should change the law on this one. > Yes, maybe we should. We should at least clarify the difference between a psych (and a misbid) and a systemic bid. And that difference should include that a minor deviation does not make a bid non-systemic. >>From another post: > > Herman > If a particular 14-count is opened as a 15-17NT, then there is > probably a reason for it (perhaps tens or diamond length). If every > 14-count with that particular extra is opened 1NT, then that is part > of the system, and this is regardless of the relative occurence of > this particular 14-count among all 14-counts. > > You are lost. If a certain 14 count is opened as 15-17 by the vast majority > of the players then it is normal judgement. Well, that means that some 14s are always opened in a 15-17NT (well, that's not true- some people are point-hoggers and they would not) > The fact that I expect my > partner to upgrade a hand that most of his peers upgrade doesn't mean > anything to anybody. It is just common sense. And as such, it is no crime not to divulge it. That's not the same as: > I doesn't create any form of > understanding. But if you insist I will change the 15-17 entry on my CC to > 14-18 meaning I play a normal 15-17 NT. Just how many serious players do you > expect not to open 1NT on xx K10x AQJ109 A10x (if the alternative is > 1D-1HS-1NT 12-14)? My guess: zilch. > And they all play 15-17, and I don't expect them to put anything else on their CC, and we all know that 15-17 includes some 14s, and there is no MI when not saying so. But it does not make the 14-opener non-systemic (quite the reverse). And the same is true for the 9-point opener : no problem as far as MI is concerned (opponents must realize that all point ranges can be fuzzy and they are allowed to ask for the degree of fuzziness). But the opening is systemic, and - in the case of our fictitious SO - illegal. > Jaap > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 14:31:36 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:31:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> <008c01c34aa5$0f62d360$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <031e01c34ad8$18d1cd60$a8b64351@noos.fr> DWS: > I can get the players in my club to understand a STOP card before a > jump - that's easy. > > I do not believe that I can get them to understand your rule. I agree. But I already said so. At low level it is not relevant. Leave all those social players in peace. But serious players will understand my rule very well because it boils down to 'you say stop when it is a sensitive situation'. Now this is too vague for being a rule. But you get the message. Anyway, the rule I propose is way simpler than the alert rule. Maybe not on paper but in real life. Still the powers that be decided to bother the social players with the alert rule. This rule according to quite a lot competent TD's creates more problems (at low level) than it solves. I happen to agree. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >DWS: > >> .... and then point out the answer. The skip bid regulations in use > >> throughout the world except Oceania have the merit of simplicity: it is > >> not easy to think of an alternative regulation that is easy enough to > >> understand. > > > >Why not ? > > > >Now it is STOP applies after any skipbid. > > > >Proposed is STOP applies after any skipbid AND any bid in the first round of > >bidding (for reasons similar that there should be a pause when dummy comes > >down) AND any bid when both sides have made a bid other than pass in the > >last round of bidding (competitive situations are way more sensitive than > >the average skipbid). > > I can get the players in my club to understand a STOP card before a > jump - that's easy. > > I do not believe that I can get them to understand your rule. > > -- > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 15 14:59:04 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:59:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <6973112.1058277544644.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >Can we also inform the people that you have an SOS XX available after whic= h pard will show a good suit if he has one and bid 2c if he doesn't? No. It's all very well to "guess" that the redouble might be for takeout, b= ut to suggest that 2C would, in an unpractised partnership, deny a good sui= t elsewhere is just nonsense. We have overcalled 1C with 1NT; partner has a= sked us to name a playable suit; why should our longest, strongest and most= playable suit not be clubs? The actions of North-South on this board are deeply disturbing. First, Nort= h should not have told anyone that redouble was for rescue if redouble was = not discussed. His motive is almost certain to have been that by doing so, = he would conceal from his opponents the fact that he did not have a 1NT ove= rcall (if he had said that redouble was to play, or undiscussed, and then r= emoved it, everyone would have known that he had a psyche, but the opponent= s would have been entitled to this information while South would not). Seco= nd, South's actions are almost certainly those of someone who knows that hi= s partner has a psyche; an SOS redouble could easily be removed into four s= mall diamonds in a 3-3-4-3 shape (because two clubs, regardless of what Wes= t-Meads and other clueless individuals think, is natural). Why did North no= t bid a natural two clubs anyway? Because he knew that South would not pass= that, and he hoped that South would have some diamond length. North was ba= sically cheating from start to finish, while South was cheating from about = of the third of the way through to finish. This ruling was not good. David Burn London, England David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 15 16:32:52 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <200307151532.LAA15699@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > This is the sort of argument that gets BLML a bad name in some > quarters. You have two interpretations, one of which assumes the > wording is meaningless. You say there is only one interpretation in the > face of commonsense and an interpretation from the WBFLC. [L50D1] There is at least one interpretation of the wording that makes sense. Unfortunately, the WBFLC has given a different interpretation. I don't think it is BLML that "gets a bad name" by this. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 15 16:40:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Another L25(b) question Message-ID: <200307151540.LAA16021@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > >L73B1, L12A1, L12C2. What's the problem? (I won't mention 12C3 because > >it seems wildly unlikely you would need it, but it might be an > >additional step in some rare case.) > From: David Stevenson > L12C3 would be quite common here. You are going to adjust back to an > unlikely contract in a poor fit. Rather than worry about whether it is > going to take three, four, five or six tricks, L12C3 TDs will be able to > rule much quicker by giving 25% of each. While I take your point, it seems to me the time is the same whether you give a weighted score or not. At matchpoints, all of the possible scores are zeroes, so it doesn't matter what score you give. At IMPs, if there really is doubt about the number of tricks, just give the worst of four scores to the OS and the second best to the NOS. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 15 16:52:07 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <200307151552.LAA16742@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > It seems to me the 2005 Laws need to draw two boundaries: > > > > 1. between "general knowledge and experience" (which need not be > > disclosed) and "understandings" (which must be), and > From: Herman De Wael > I don't believe this is a distinction. The "general knowledge" part of > a system is also disclosable. The only difference being that a player > need not disclose it if ha is certain the opponent knows what it means. > If I say "Stayman", I have told my opponents less than everything. Sorry, Herman, you are missing the point. If the partnership has agreed Stayman, then of course all details need to be disclosed. The question is what happens where there is no explicit discussion, but there may be experience in common. For example, if I play with another player from North America, I will expect 5cM, even if undiscussed. What must be disclosed here? "I know he is from North America?" "In my experience, 5cM is common in NA?" Both? Or what about light third-hand openings? It is general knowledge that some players make them, but what if I have no knowledge of my partner's views on the question. (Imagine an individual tournament, for example.) What could I possibly disclose? Somewhere there is a line to be drawn, and the next Laws version should try to draw it. > > 2. between "understandings" (which may be regulated) and "style" which > > may not. > I don't happen to believe that style is not regulated. Perhaps a different word would have been better, or perhaps the decision will be that everything that must be disclosed can also be regulated. However, if there is _anything_ that must be disclosed but cannot be regulated, there is a line to be drawn. > That is in fact a third distinction: > > 3) between "habitual violations" and "psychs". This distinction is only needed in the Laws if one of the above can be regulated and the other cannot. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 15 16:58:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:58:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <3750563.1058284685911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Steve wrote: >There is at least one interpretation of the wording that makes sense. Unfortunately, the WBFLC has given a different interpretation. I don't think it is BLML that "gets a bad name" by this. It doesn't. The WBFLC "interpretation" makes no sense at all; the English words of the Law cannot be construed to render the WBFLC interpretation possible. But this does not matter. Remember that you are dealing with a body to whom the phrase "related to a specified suit or suits" does not include the meaning "related to a specified suit". The Laws are not in English, and their interpretations cannot be deduced by anyone who relies only on an understanding of that language. Instead, we have to wait for someone to tell us what the Laws are supposed to have been. The wording of Law 50 is not meaningless; it means that you are allowed to know that partner will play a card. You are not allowed to know what that card is (just as you would not be allowed to know in advance what card partner was going to play in normal circumstances). That is what the words say. It is not what they were intended to say, and it is (as usual) necessary to wait for some ridiculous event to occur at the table before the WBFLC swings into action and points out that henceforth, "the Law is what we meant it to be, not what we actually said that it was when we wrote it". In the meantime, we derive what entertainment we may from the absurd posturings of those who assert that whatever the WBFLC does must be right, even the completely wrong bits... David Burn London, England From adam@irvine.com Tue Jul 15 17:24:02 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:24:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:50:42 BST." Message-ID: <200307151624.JAA10445@mailhub.irvine.com> Karel wrote: > DWS writes: > > > > Perhaps you could explain why it is right to be harsh to a pair that > > have done nothing wrong except made mistakes in bridge, but not to be > > harsh to a pair that are clearly in breach of L40, having without any > > doubt fielded a psyche? > > Whether they have fielded a psyche or not is far from clear. If, as I do, > one considers x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx as a perfectly respectable 1N overcall of > 1C then South's bidding is reasonable. If one is playing SOS redoubles > then 2D showing a good suit while 2C is pick a suit is something I would > hope a pick-up partner would work out. It would be grotesque to adjust on > the basis of a fielded psyche. > > +++ I agree with Tim here. I can see no evidence to indicate that this > partnership had any undisclosed Psyche information. L40 is not relevant. I > also agree with Tim's example of a possible offbeat 1NT and can produce > thousands more. I dont think the psyche as such is a cause for score > adjustment. The pause is what matters here. I think we can agree that an > in tempo 1NT would lead to 2D* making being the result. I don't direct, so I don't have any experience ruling on psych fielding cases. So anything I say should be taken with that in mind. Having said that, the notion that it's "obvious" that South has fielded a psych bothers me a little. The main reason is that Karel said in his original post: "They've played on occasion but are not a partnership". To me, the fact that one player psyched and the other player took some unusual action is not, by itself, enough to determine that a psych has been fielded. There has to be a little something more, one of the following: (1) The partnership is an established one, so that one could suspect that they know each other's habits. (2) The psycher has a reputation that his partner would likely have known about. (3) The partners come from a bridge culture where psyching is frequent enough that it can be expected. Is there anyone here that thinks it's OK to rule "fielded psych" when none of the above three elements is present? If so, why? In the actual case, it appears that #1 is not the case. We don't know anything about whether North was a known "operator". Regarding #3: I live in America, where psyching is not at all common, for whatever reason. Maybe the ACBL has been successful in waging a campaign against it, maybe the players themselves disapprove, maybe people here just don't think it's worth it. The reason doesn't matter. But psyching here is uncommon enough that if a strange auction like this happened in a first-time partnership, I would presume there was some other reason for the strangeness besides a fielded psych. My impression from reading posts on r.g.b and BLML is that psyching in Britain is significantly more common than it is here (even if you don't count J(MD)P's adventures). So if this occurred in Britain, a "fielded psych" ruling might make more sense. I can also understand why it might seem obvious to DWS that a psych was fielded. However, I'm assuming that the original hand took place in Ireland, and I don't know anything about the psych culture there. -- Adam From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Jul 15 18:06:30 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:06:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <200307151552.LAA16742@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3F143496.5080907@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>I don't believe this is a distinction. The "general knowledge" part of >>a system is also disclosable. The only difference being that a player >>need not disclose it if ha is certain the opponent knows what it means. >>If I say "Stayman", I have told my opponents less than everything. >> > > Sorry, Herman, you are missing the point. If the partnership has > agreed Stayman, then of course all details need to be disclosed. > No Steve, you are missing the point. The point is that all details are disclosable, but one is not required to answer with more than Stayman, the rest being covered by "general bridge knowledge". The answer "Stayman", which is of course insufficient, is made sufficient by L75C. > The question is what happens where there is no explicit discussion, but > there may be experience in common. For example, if I play with another > player from North America, I will expect 5cM, even if undiscussed. > What must be disclosed here? "I know he is from North America?" "In > my experience, 5cM is common in NA?" Both? Or what about light > third-hand openings? It is general knowledge that some players make > them, but what if I have no knowledge of my partner's views on the > question. (Imagine an individual tournament, for example.) What > could I possibly disclose? > > Somewhere there is a line to be drawn, and the next Laws version should > try to draw it. > > >>>2. between "understandings" (which may be regulated) and "style" which >>>may not. >>> > >>I don't happen to believe that style is not regulated. >> > > Perhaps a different word would have been better, or perhaps the > decision will be that everything that must be disclosed can also be > regulated. However, if there is _anything_ that must be disclosed but > cannot be regulated, there is a line to be drawn. > > And I prefer to need no extra lines when they are not needed. >>That is in fact a third distinction: >> >>3) between "habitual violations" and "psychs". >> > > This distinction is only needed in the Laws if one of the above can be > regulated and the other cannot. > Well, I happen to think the one can, the other cannot. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jul 15 17:24:57 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:24:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:14 PM +0100 7/15/03, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky writes > >I propose that the ACBL adopt the Stop Card regulation used by the WBF... ... > >======== >>Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing >>the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, >>and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until >>the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed >>hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the >>Stop card has been used correctly.) >>======== > > I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". Suggest it to the WBF! In fact I prefer "may pause". It's a step towards making the use of the Stop card mandatory. I appreciate your pointing out the difference -- I hadn't noticed it. I'll address the difference in my proposal. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 15 16:00:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:00:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <725A0FCF-B67E-11D7-9326-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004a01c34af7$eef09e70$624be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > Uh huh. So when an opponent calls you to < the table and complains that "Wayne opened > on a 9 count" why are you ruling the method > illegal when (a) his partner has not yet called, > and (b) you haven't determined whether or > not they are playing any conventions after a > 1NT opening? > +=+ Sorry. I haven't understood why the opponent thinks Wayne has a 9-count? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 15 16:04:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sit-in-tables References: <192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2@aol.com> <$fiOWzIFMzE$EwTA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <004b01c34af7$f0243c70$624be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sit-in-tables >> > I presume that by a "sit-in table" [a term I have > never heard] you refer to a sit-out table, < +=+ That figures. In Menton when someone said a section was 'on the left' I found it was usually best to go right.+=+ From nancy@dressing.org Tue Jul 15 18:47:34 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:47:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal References: Message-ID: <003501c34af9$2ceae6d0$6501a8c0@hare> This is what we do in my clubs already... I would make the "must" or "shall" whichever one is the strongest in legalese. I would guess the chances of getting this change are "slim and none"!!! Works with beginners!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal > At 12:14 PM +0100 7/15/03, David Stevenson wrote: > >Adam Wildavsky writes > > > >I propose that the ACBL adopt the Stop Card regulation used by the WBF... > > ... > > > >======== > >>Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing > >>the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, > >>and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until > >>the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed > >>hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the > >>Stop card has been used correctly.) > >>======== > > > > I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". > > Suggest it to the WBF! > > In fact I prefer "may pause". It's a step towards making the use of > the Stop card mandatory. > > I appreciate your pointing out the difference -- I hadn't noticed it. > I'll address the difference in my proposal. > > -- > 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 karel@esatclear.ie Tue Jul 15 18:58:19 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:58:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <6973112.1058277544644.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: [Snip ...] The actions of North-South on this board are deeply disturbing. First, North should not have told anyone that redouble was for rescue if redouble was not discussed. His motive is almost certain to have been that by doing so, he would conceal from his opponents the fact that he did not have a 1NT overcall (if he had said that redouble was to play, or undiscussed, and then removed it, everyone would have known that he had a psyche, but the opponents would have been entitled to this information while South would not). +++ Maybe my original post wasn't clear on this point but N/S had no agreement about the redouble. North said at the table "no agreement but most likely SOS". I must say David that I admire your Sherlock holmes like mind. To think up such deviousness in what 4/5 seconds and forsee what partner is going to do is clearly godlike or maybe disturbingly Burnslike. I'm getting the impression that even though our laws do allow psyches, it seems the majority favour putting "smartalics" like North in their place at every opportunity. Second, South's actions are almost certainly those of someone who knows that his partner has a psyche; an SOS redouble could easily be removed into four small diamonds in a 3-3-4-3 shape (because two clubs, regardless of what West-Meads and other clueless individuals think, is natural). +++ ahhhh is that so - I don't recall seeing your definitive works on bridge on sale anywhere David. I apologize for being in the same boat as this North and not being at all sure what 2C's would mean in this sequence. Why did North not bid a natural two clubs anyway? Because he knew that South would not pass that, and he hoped that South would have some diamond length. +++ goodness a criminal act !! Seems like a phenomenally good idea to me. Partner is unlikely to pass 2C's - probably will bid a major and oops the diamonds are lost. So instead North bids 2D's which may find 2/3 or god forbid 4 diamonds opposite (certainly a vastly greater chance of a fit than 2C's) and has no possibility of confusion. North was basically cheating from start to finish, while South was cheating from about of the third of the way through to finish. This ruling was not good. +++ I'm not even going to comment on the cheating part, its pathetic. As for the ruling, I'd hardly have posted it if I thought it was clear cut or if I had any misgivings about it. David any chance you could post your mobile number ?? It will save me an enormous amount of mental energy in the future to have a divine source at hand. Karel From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 15 19:45:14 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:45:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> In article , Tim West-Meads writes >John wrote: > >> I think Herman is right in the sense that "we know" who does it. for >> example "we know" that I do :). It's always the same pairs, and as it >> goes, when I'm playing with Tim I have concluded that it is *probably* >> illegal per EBU for me to open a ferdinand, and *probably not* with a >> pick-up partner. > >John, it sounds I should no longer expect you to open sub Ro19 hands. In >which case we don't have a problem if you do, in which case I expect you >to... Oh G*D my head is spinning!! > >PS. I think John is probably wrong and if he isn't he ought to be. > Further grist to the mill. Max Bavin thinks AJ9x Ax xxxx xxx is an opener in 3rd seat nv. >Tim > >_______________________________________________ >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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 15 20:31:10 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:31:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Sit-in-tables References: <192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2@aol.com> <$fiOWzIFMzE$EwTA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <002101c34b07$a66691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > > This leads to two problems. First, you may get boards which are > played different numbers of times. Second, you may get pairs that play > different numbers of boards. > > If boards are played a different number of times the simplest way to > do it is to make sure all boards have the same average score. So if > most boards are played 5 times, you would be scoring from 0 to 8 > matchpoints [or 0 to 4 if you are in North America]. If one set of > three boards is played 4 times, you score them from 1 to 7 [0.5 to 3.5 > in North America]. Easiest is to score them normally then add 1 MP [0.5 > in NAm] to each score. Now every board has the same average 4 [2 in > NAm]. We used to do that over here, David, many years ago. But now, with computers ubiquitous, the scores on boards with lower tops are Neuberged by the ACBLscore program. For this example, a unique zero would change to 0.125 (one chance in four that a 5th score would tie), and a unique top score would be factored up (x 4/3) to the greater top and then reduced by 0.125 (one chance in four that a 5th score would tie) to become 3.875. The average of those two scores would be (0.125 + 3.875) / 2 = 2, so every board has the same average, QED. This is much more fair than giving the zero score a whole half-matchpoint and the top score only 3.5, which says in effect that their scores would certainly be tied if 4 were top instead of 3. A computer makes Neuberging much easier, and David's suggestion is perhaps better for those who don't have one. > However, if you do show the final matchpoint score, then you should > factor the scores. Suppose half you pairs have played 24 boards, and > half have played 21. All the players who have played 21 should have > their score increased: multiply it by 24/21. No one has come up with a better method, even though this one is slightly unfair for those playing 24 boards. This method ("factoring") assumes that a pair playing 21 boards would have the same percentage score if they played 24 boards. However, the greater the number of boards the more difficult it is to score well. To see that this is so, consider that it is not unusual for a pair to have an 80% game after playing 12 boards, but 80% after 26 boards is very rare. > > My main advice is simple: get a computer with a scoring program. Then > it does not matter whether anyone sits out, sits in, or anything else: > the computer will cope!!!! > Good advice. Then use pickup slips instead of travelers so that scoring can be nearly complete when the game is over (and pairs cannot see how their rivals are doing). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jul 15 21:31:35 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:31:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F13FF5C.4020207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c34b10$16abe5b0$cd2d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 1:19 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > OK Jaap, > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman > > > > I do and don't agree with you at all. > > > > I DO. > > If we want to ban 9HCP openers the regulation should say ' > balanced 9HCP > > openers are illegal'. You can refine such a reg with half > and quarter points > > to allow really good 9HCP hands but forget about that. That is just > > redefining a boundary. > > If people do open 9HCP, whatever the reason, the board gets > thrown out. > > Simple to understand, simple to rule, and if the reg makes > sense it might > > even be accepted by most. Anyway that is what they do in a > French festival > > when you break the rule of 17 (or was it 19 after all, I > forget those > > things). And they really don't bother why you did it. > > > > > This is completely correct - both in content and in the > reasons behind > it. It is the only way a regulation such as this makes sense. Unfortunately the SO have no right to make such a regulation. The SO can stop an agreement to open 9-counts by the underhand tactic of refusing that pair the right to use conventions after that bid. The SO has no mandate to issue a regulation that states that opening on a 9-count is illegal. Every player has absolute right to decide whether to open on any particular 9-count provided that that is not based on a partnership understanding. I chose to open this hand when our agreement is 10-12 is a complete defense. Wayne From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 15 19:52:03 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:52:03 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Re: More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, David Stevenson wrote: > L50D1 makes it clear that the fact pd will play it is the only AI: you > have told us something else is AI: that cannot be right. No, I haven't told you anything else is AI. We agree on what the AI is. And just now I finally found something in the law book that sheds a little light on this problem. The laws never spell out, in one place, exactly what the full list of things that are AI. In the beginning of Law 16 it says just "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." So, on the surface, there is some basis for thinking that a player can't base his plays on anything else. L16 says "may," not "is," however. The obvious (to me) interpretation of 16C1, 50D1, 72A4, etc., is that whenever any other piece of information is "authorized," it becomes fair game for basing calls and plays, just as if it was information from a legal call or play or an opponent's mannerism. According to that view, once you are in possession of AI, you are allowed to draw conclusions based on it. For instance, if your partner will play the king of hearts, that card must have somehow gotten into your partner's hand - and I see no logical alternative to assuming it was dealt to him. The alternative is to create (ugh) a fourth class of information. We already have AI on which calls and plays can be based; UI; and extraneous/irrelevant information not clearly labelled as either one. Do you really believe that there is "half-authorized information," information authorized by some law other than the first sentence of L16, which you are entitled to know, but forbidden to use in any way? I can just barely conceive of someone reading the first sentence of L16 so strictly as to believe that *nothing* else can *ever* be used to choose a call or play, effectively treating various other types of AI almost as if they were UI (not required to avoid taking advantage, but not allowed to take advantage either). That, if you ask me, is silly, and looks like an outright contradiction of you try to apply it to 16C1 or 72A4. And to me, it looks equally silly to apply it to 50D1 and tell me I can't conclude partner has the king of hearts given that he is about to play the king of hearts. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 15 22:30:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:30:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030714161446.02194ac0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A68E@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <000701c347bc$6a68c260$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714081554.00a03ec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030714161446.02194ac0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030715172109.02303ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:07 AM 7/15/03, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > >At 01:04 PM 7/14/03, David wrote: > > > >> You know what you can do on a particular trick. If the penalty card > >>is the HK, and you decide to lead a heart, then you are permitted to > >>lead a low heart rather than the ace. But the decision-making process > >>which leads to you leading a heart must not include knowing that > partner > >>has the HK. > >> > >> That distinction is not meaningless. > > > >It may not be, but it is surely not relevant. The language at issue > >(L50D1) is "the requirement that offender must play the card is > >authorized information for his partner; however, other information > >arising from the facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for > >partner". The only thing open to interpretation here is whether the > >identity of the card is inherent in the knowledge "that offender must > >play the card" or is "other information arising from the facing of > >the... card". I don't see how this can change between the time you > >decide which suit to lead and the time you decide which card to > >lead. L50 neither says nor implies anything to suggest that what is AI > >and what is UI can ever depend on the "particular trick". > > This is the sort of argument that gets BLML a bad name in some >quarters. You have two interpretations, one of which assumes the >wording is meaningless. You say there is only one interpretation in the >face of commonsense and an interpretation from the WBFLC. > > What for? What is the point? I have not said that there is only one possible interpretation; there are several. Most of them are consistent with common sense, but I'm not sure the WBFLC's is one of those. In an attempt to make it so, the WBFLC has apparently decided that there is a class of information which is UI before a player on lead decides which suit he will lead, but then becomes AI before he decides which card he will lead. That might make their interpretation consistent with common sense but also makes it inconsistent with TFLB, in which there is absolutely nothing that can be interpreted to justify the existence of such a class of information. "The point" was to point that out to whomever might be inclined to listen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 15 23:24:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:24:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030715172109.02303ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c34b1f$d0891520$6900a8c0@WINXP> How much simpler were not bridge life before 1997 when information from = an irregularity was authorized also to the offenders "after payment of any penalty imposed by law".=20 Unless I have completely misunderstood the minutes from Lille 1998 WBFLC then agreed that Law 72B1 was to be understood so that an offender shall never gain from his own irregularity. A curious fact is that the present L72B1 was new with the laws of 1997, = but according to commentaries the WBFLC drafted almost exactly the text that eventually became L72B1 as a possible new L16C3 some time after 1987 = (and before 1992). With the present L72B1 I really see no problem if Law 16C2 were to be altered back to the text before 1997 (which I quoted above). Offenders = would however not be able to collect on any advantage from the illicit = information becoming available because any such advantage would be taken away from = them under L72B1 at the judgment of the Director. The Director must already = today apply such judgment; the difference would be that he can concentrate = upon the question of damage alone without having to consider the question of = UI or AI, only that the advantage (and damage) is a result of the = irregularity. Regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 15 23:30:54 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:30:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <001501c34b20$c13ddf00$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Karel wrote: > +++ Maybe my original post wasn't clear on this point but N/S had no > agreement about the redouble. North said at the table "no agreement but > most likely SOS". I must say David that I admire your Sherlock Holmes like > mind. To think up such deviousness in what 4/5 seconds and forsee what > partner is going to do is clearly godlike or maybe disturbingly Burnslike. No, it's not. It's extended observation of the ways and works of Man, that's all. You make a strength-showing call in the hope of deceiving your opponents that you have strength; this (perfectly legitimate) deception is what is uppermost in your mind when you do it. They double, so you are going to remove it. In the normal run of events, they will now know that you were trying to fool them. Happily, though, partner produces an undiscussed redouble. Now, you are in a position where you can remove it *without showing weakness* - in other words, you can perhaps continue with your original deception instead of having to reveal it. To do this, all you have to do is explain that you are removing it because you are systemically constrained to do so, not because you didn't mean it it the first place. Deception is still uppermost in your mind. It's just human nature. > I'm getting the impression that even though our laws do allow psyches, it > seems the majority favour putting "smartalics" like North in their place at > every opportunity. The majority, I conjecture, do not favour people continuing to deceive the opponents by means of bogus explanations, while admitting their perfect right to deceive them by making bogus calls or plays. > Second, South's actions are almost certainly those of someone who knows that > his partner has a psyche; an SOS redouble could easily be removed into four > small diamonds in a 3-3-4-3 shape (because two clubs, regardless of what > West-Meads and other clueless individuals think, is natural). > > +++ ahhhh is that so - I don't recall seeing your definitive works on bridge > on sale anywhere David. They aren't. But this is just bridge. Suppose you have such as: xx Ax Axx AQJ109x You overcall 1C with 1NT. After (double) redouble [SOS] pass, what call do you make? It's not exactly Master Solvers' Club stuff, now is it? (Oh, and those who tell me they would pass anyway - as Bobby Wolff said: I admire their courage; I just don't want their results.) > I apologize for being in the same boat as this > North and not being at all sure what 2C would mean in this sequence. Oh, that's all right. It's only that you, like a lot of people, tend to ignore the simple rule that if an undiscussed bid can logically be natural, it is natural. I can't help that. You see, I play a less complicated game than you do. > Why did North not bid a natural two clubs anyway? Because he knew that South > would not pass that, and he hoped that South would have some diamond length. > +++ goodness a criminal act !! Seems like a phenomenally good idea to me. > Partner is unlikely to pass 2C's - probably will bid a major and oops the > diamonds are lost. So instead North bids 2D's which may find 2/3 or god > forbid 4 diamonds opposite (certainly a vastly greater chance of a fit than > 2C's) and has no possibility of confusion. That's all right also. I did not say that there was anything wrong with North's two diamonds per se; merely that he might have bid two clubs. I can understand why he didn't. > North was basically cheating from start to finish, while South was cheating > from about a the third of the way through to finish. This ruling was not > good. > +++ I'm not even going to comment on the cheating part, its pathetic. Indeed it is. This wasn't even a very good attempt at it. > As > for the ruling, I'd hardly have posted it if I thought it was clear cut or > if I had any misgivings about it. David any chance you could post your > mobile number ?? It will save me an enormous amount of mental energy in the > future to have a divine source at hand. This is what is known as "doing a Damiani", by which is meant asking questions and then refusing to believe the answers when they don't agree with yours. My telephone number is in the EBU Yearbook, and is available from Aylesbury on request. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 16 00:10:17 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:10:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: More on L16C2 References: Message-ID: <000601c34b26$42ffb2c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, David Stevenson wrote: > > > L50D1 makes it clear that the fact pd will play it is the only AI: you > > have told us something else is AI: that cannot be right. > > No, I haven't told you anything else is AI. We agree on what the AI is. > > And just now I finally found something in the law book that sheds a little > light on this problem. > > The laws never spell out, in one place, exactly what the full list of > things that are AI. In the beginning of Law 16 it says just "Players are > authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls > and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on > other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." > > So, on the surface, there is some basis for thinking that a player can't > base his plays on anything else. L16 says "may," not "is," however. > > The obvious (to me) interpretation of 16C1, 50D1, 72A4, etc., is that > whenever any other piece of information is "authorized," it becomes fair > game for basing calls and plays, just as if it was information from a > legal call or play or an opponent's mannerism. > > According to that view, once you are in possession of AI, you are allowed > to draw conclusions based on it. For instance, if your partner will play > the king of hearts, that card must have somehow gotten into your partner's > hand - and I see no logical alternative to assuming it was dealt to him. > > The alternative is to create (ugh) a fourth class of information. > > We already have AI on which calls and plays can be based; UI; and > extraneous/irrelevant information not clearly labelled as either one. Do > you really believe that there is "half-authorized information," > information authorized by some law other than the first sentence of L16, > which you are entitled to know, but forbidden to use in any way? > > I can just barely conceive of someone reading the first sentence of L16 so > strictly as to believe that *nothing* else can *ever* be used to choose a > call or play, effectively treating various other types of AI almost as if > they were UI (not required to avoid taking advantage, but not allowed to > take advantage either). That, if you ask me, is silly, and looks like an > outright contradiction of you try to apply it to 16C1 or 72A4. And to me, > it looks equally silly to apply it to 50D1 and tell me I can't conclude > partner has the king of hearts given that he is about to play the king of > hearts. > I have not been following this thread closely, so my apologies if the following is stupid. The WBFLC Lille interpretation says that if you have no alternative to a lead suggested by a penalty card, the value of the card is AI when deciding which card of the suit to lead. You can lead low from KQJx, for instance. You can't use the information that partner has those 4 HCP in any other way during the defense. Has there been something later than Lille that changes this? WTP? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 16 00:30:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <6973112.1058277544644.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: DALB wrote: > The actions of North-South on this board are deeply disturbing. First, > North should not have told anyone that redouble was for rescue if > redouble was not discussed. If North has reason to believe that an undiscussed double is likely to be SOS he should disclose that information. That's pretty basic stuff David. Now I don't know what reason North had for his suspicion but since the South hand *looks* like an SOS XX rather than a blood one it seems he may have been justified. > an > SOS redouble could easily be removed into four small diamonds in a > 3-3-4-3 shape (because two clubs, regardless of what West-Meads and > other clueless individuals think, is natural). Why did North not bid a > natural two clubs anyway? Because he knew that South would not pass If North thought 2C would be natural then he would expect South to pass 2C. North's failure to bid what, to you, seems an obvious 2C is a strong indication this partnership would not treat it as natural. > that, and he hoped that South would have some diamond length. North was > basically cheating from start to finish, while South was cheating from > about of the third of the way through to finish. This ruling was not > good. I'm sorry to see you accusing players of cheating in public. I have always been led to believe that the EBU regards such accusations as reprehensible. Perhaps you should keep your nasty little toe-rag opinions to yourself in future. Tim From David Stevenson Wed Jul 16 00:17:52 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:17:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <031e01c34ad8$18d1cd60$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> <008c01c34aa5$0f62d360$a8b64351@noos.fr> <031e01c34ad8$18d1cd60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >DWS: >> I can get the players in my club to understand a STOP card before a >> jump - that's easy. >> >> I do not believe that I can get them to understand your rule. > >I agree. > >But I already said so. At low level it is not relevant. Leave all those >social players in peace. But serious players will understand my rule very >well because it boils down to 'you say stop when it is a sensitive >situation'. Now this is too vague for being a rule. But you get the message. > >Anyway, the rule I propose is way simpler than the alert rule. Maybe not on >paper but in real life. Still the powers that be decided to bother the >social players with the alert rule. This rule according to quite a lot >competent TD's creates more problems (at low level) than it solves. I happen >to agree. There is no simple line between the two. There are club players in very social clubs, in more forward clubs, people who play in local events, small national events, and so on. If the rules are different you tend to polarise the game a lot. -- 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 Wed Jul 16 00:23:45 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:23:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long Beach Message-ID: I seem to be away for a week or two, in London, Peebles and Long Beach. I hope to meet new friends in Peebles and Long Beach - I am there for the last five days only. If anyone needs to communicate with me in the next couple of weeks and needs an answer try copying it to my normal eddress and to < b l u e j a k 6 6 6 [at] h o t m a i l [dot] c o m > Please make the obvious adjustment! -- 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 Wed Jul 16 00:20:17 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:20:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307151624.JAA10445@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200307151624.JAA10445@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <3mucYgDxwIF$Ewpu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Adam Beneschan writes > >Karel wrote: > >> DWS writes: >> > >> > Perhaps you could explain why it is right to be harsh to a pair that >> > have done nothing wrong except made mistakes in bridge, but not to be >> > harsh to a pair that are clearly in breach of L40, having without any >> > doubt fielded a psyche? >> >> Whether they have fielded a psyche or not is far from clear. If, as I do, >> one considers x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx as a perfectly respectable 1N overcall of >> 1C then South's bidding is reasonable. If one is playing SOS redoubles >> then 2D showing a good suit while 2C is pick a suit is something I would >> hope a pick-up partner would work out. It would be grotesque to adjust on >> the basis of a fielded psyche. >> >> +++ I agree with Tim here. I can see no evidence to indicate that this >> partnership had any undisclosed Psyche information. L40 is not relevant. I >> also agree with Tim's example of a possible offbeat 1NT and can produce >> thousands more. I dont think the psyche as such is a cause for score >> adjustment. The pause is what matters here. I think we can agree that an >> in tempo 1NT would lead to 2D* making being the result. > >I don't direct, so I don't have any experience ruling on psych >fielding cases. So anything I say should be taken with that in mind. > >Having said that, the notion that it's "obvious" that South has >fielded a psych bothers me a little. The main reason is that Karel >said in his original post: "They've played on occasion but are not a >partnership". To me, the fact that one player psyched and the other >player took some unusual action is not, by itself, enough to determine >that a psych has been fielded. There has to be a little something >more, one of the following: > >(1) The partnership is an established one, so that one could suspect > that they know each other's habits. > >(2) The psycher has a reputation that his partner would likely have > known about. > >(3) The partners come from a bridge culture where psyching is frequent > enough that it can be expected. > >Is there anyone here that thinks it's OK to rule "fielded psych" when >none of the above three elements is present? If so, why? > >In the actual case, it appears that #1 is not the case. We don't know >anything about whether North was a known "operator". > >Regarding #3: I live in America, where psyching is not at all common, >for whatever reason. Maybe the ACBL has been successful in waging a >campaign against it, maybe the players themselves disapprove, maybe >people here just don't think it's worth it. The reason doesn't >matter. But psyching here is uncommon enough that if a strange >auction like this happened in a first-time partnership, I would >presume there was some other reason for the strangeness besides a >fielded psych. My impression from reading posts on r.g.b and BLML is >that psyching in Britain is significantly more common than it is here >(even if you don't count J(MD)P's adventures). So if this occurred in >Britain, a "fielded psych" ruling might make more sense. I can also >understand why it might seem obvious to DWS that a psych was fielded. >However, I'm assuming that the original hand took place in Ireland, >and I don't know anything about the psych culture there. It is your idea that something else happened. What? Your partner shows a balanced hand, you are 6-4 in the majors, and you play successfully in your doubleton. What else are we to suppose? Finger signals? -- 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 Wed Jul 16 01:33:50 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:33:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <003101c34b31$ed8c9540$931e27d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > If North has reason to believe that an undiscussed double is likely to be > SOS he should disclose that information. That's pretty basic stuff David. I don't think I've come across the SOS double, but we will let it pass. If redouble really was undiscussed, and we are assured that this is the case, North had no business volunteering any explanation of it whatever. That is "pretty basic stuff". Nothing about North's hand or the auction suggested that his partner did not have a natural redouble; if he had deduced this from some source or other apart from partnership discussion, this ought to have been disclosed. Why did he volunteer such an explanation? Well, it may be that the SOS redouble is common practice among a group of players that included both North and South; if that were the case, North ought to have said so. On the other hand, it may be (and in my view is far more likely to be) that North wanted to remove 1NT redoubled without having to reveal that he had a bad hand. If so, he was attempting to mislead an opponent by means other than a call or play; this is a breach of Law 73D2 (replies to questions, especially replies that contain extraneous "information", are treated as "remarks" for the purposes of this and other laws). North, we are informed, was a grand master, so there is a presumption that he was knowingly breaking this law. Knowingly to break a law is to cheat; that is what the word means. > If North thought 2C would be natural then he would expect South to pass > 2C. North's failure to bid what, to you, seems an obvious 2C is a strong > indication this partnership would not treat it as natural. No, it isn't. It is a strong indication that North thought (or hoped) that South would have diamonds; if that were so, there would be no need to risk 2C. > I'm sorry to see you accusing players of cheating in public. I have > always been led to believe that the EBU regards such accusations as > reprehensible. Perhaps you should keep your nasty little toe-rag opinions > to yourself in future. South, by redoubling and then passing two diamonds, displayed what one can only describe as a preternatural awareness that his partner did not have a strong balanced hand, despite there being nothing in the AI available to South that could possibly point to such a conclusion. It is likely, on the facts presented, that this awareness derived entirely from the tempo of North's 1NT. If that is so, then South was deliberately selecting an action over another that could be suggested by unauthorised information, instead of selecting a logical alternative that could not be so suggested; this is a breach of Law 16A. South, we are informed, was a player of some ability and some experience, so there is a presumption that he was knowingly breaking this law. Knowingly to break a law is to cheat; that is what the word means. Here is a set of facts on which we have been asked to form an opinion. The opinions I have given are consistent with the facts and with one another; the same cannot be said of many other opinions that have been expressed in this thread. If you consider it desirable that consistent opinions should not be expressed in a public forum, you are at liberty to do so; other views are possible. David Burn London, England From adam@irvine.com Wed Jul 16 01:38:28 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:38:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:20:17 BST." <3mucYgDxwIF$Ewpu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <200307160038.RAA22285@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > It is your idea that something else happened. > > What? > > Your partner shows a balanced hand, you are 6-4 in the majors, and you > play successfully in your doubleton. "You play successfully" may be the wrong terminology; perhaps "you are the beneficiary of idiotic defense in your doubleton" might be more accurate. > What else are we to suppose? Finger signals? Lucky guess? Divine inspiration? Stupid mistake that happened to work out? My opponents are always doing one of those against me. "A cow flew by", perhaps? All I'm saying is that, at least over here in America, even if I saw somebody bid as strangely as South did, I would not presume that South did so because he read North's pause+bid as a psych, because players over here just wouldn't expect an unfamiliar partner to psych. At least that's what my experience would tell me. I don't know *why* South bid that way, but I'd presume there was some reason (even one related to bovine aviation) that would be more likely than psych-fielding. It does depend on the characters involved, though. -- Adam From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jul 16 06:17:32 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:17:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <003101c34b31$ed8c9540$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: TWM wrote: > If North has reason to believe that an undiscussed double is likely to be SOS he should disclose that information. That's pretty basic stuff David. That is "pretty basic stuff". Nothing about North's hand or the auction suggested that his partner did not have a natural redouble; +++ David .. what century are you in. If South was happy with 1NT doubled he passes and takes the top. Redoubling "Natural" I want to play in 1NT is ludicrous. I'm not even sure Culbertson would have advocated this approach. Why did he volunteer such an explanation? Well, it may be that the SOS redouble is common practice among a group of players that included both North and South; if that were the case, North ought to have said so. +++ this is the case. Sitting down opposite any normal partner worldwide, a redouble is SOS. I think W asked N the question just to verify this likely treatment and to make sure N/S weren't playing Helvic or some other agreed upon escape mechanism. North simply said "we have no definite agreement but that normally this is SOS". I cant honestly believe a player of your calibre is suggesting redouble in this sequence is to play !! On the other hand, it may be (and in my view is far more likely to be) that North wanted to remove 1NT redoubled without having to reveal that he had a bad hand. +++ David - North was never, ever, regardless of what the other 3 pairs at the table did going to play in 1NT unless it went pass, pass, pass. Over the inevitable double from either East or west, His removal to 2C/2D may alert the opps that he had an offbeat 1NT but the opps will still be unsure as to how strong he is. This is surely the whole point of the illusion and confusion he is trying to create. South's normal SOS redouble has no bearing on this. If so, he was attempting to mislead an opponent by means other than a call or play; this is a breach of Law 73D2 (replies to questions, especially replies that contain extraneous "information", are treated as "remarks" for the purposes of this and other laws). North, we are informed, was a grand master, so there is a presumption that he was knowingly breaking this law. Knowingly to break a law is to cheat; that is what the word means. +++ I have never heard such paranoia. At no stage did the E/W opps or I having been called to the table dream up such fantasy as the above. The alert was never an issue and knowing N/S they'd be dumbfounded at your accusations. > If North thought 2C would be natural then he would expect South to pass 2C. North's failure to bid what, to you, seems an obvious 2C is a strong indication this partnership would not treat it as natural. No, it isn't. It is a strong indication that North thought (or hoped) that South would have diamonds; if that were so, there would be no need to risk 2C. +++ South has already answered this question. 2C he would have taken as north having no suit of his own (ie) a relay. North didn't hope south had diamonds (though the odds are he does ala Lawerence overcalls) - he just was not going to make some nebulous 2C bid when they were already in unchartered waters. Surely this is just common sense. > I'm sorry to see you accusing players of cheating in public. I have > always been led to believe that the EBU regards such accusations as > reprehensible. Perhaps you should keep your nasty little toe-rag opinions > to yourself in future. +++ It has been clearly demonstrated on this forum that N/S's bidding was reasonable allowing for an off beat 1NT with diamond length. David - You've simply chosen to ignore this and instead have stamped your version of events on the evidence, even when they are paranoid and extreme. How you can postively conclude with such conviction that N/S were cheating on the minimal facts given and then publicly state that 2 people you have never met are unequivically cheats based on your flawed and paranoid suspicions is quite astounding. I learned a lesson in my youth which I thankfully have never forgotten. I accused some boys I was sharing a room with (on a 3 week Irish language experience in the Gaelteacht) of stealing my bars of chocolate. I couldn't find the bars but was able to match their disapperence to the room being occupied by one of my roommates. I brought my suspicions to the attention of the house owner. She got my roommates together, and told them of my suspicions. She then , with my roommates present, searched the room for my chocolate. She found it in my bag tight between some clothing. You can imagine the scene. What a prat, the mortification & humiliation. To date i've never accused anyone of anything without hard concrete evidence. David it seems, still believes he's infallible and above such common curtesy. From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 16 07:25:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:25:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3750563.1058284685911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <006501c34b63$2e676780$cc2ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 In the meantime, we derive what entertainment we may from the absurd posturings of those who assert that whatever the WBFLC does must be right, even the completely wrong bits... > +=+ As the person responsible for promulgating the decisions of the WBFLC my position is not that their decision "must be right" but that it is the committee's decision made in accordance with the statutory powers of the committee. All member NBOs agree as a condition of membership to recognize the By-laws and Constitution of the WBF. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 16 08:21:17 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:21:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626113020.02e05c68@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <009f01c342dc$dd8ab800$b92a24d5@Default> <004e01c34421$f6e66650$a14ce150@endicott> <04e101c34861$6b27bda0$a8b64351@noos.fr> <008c01c34aa5$0f62d360$a8b64351@noos.fr> <031e01c34ad8$18d1cd60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <002601c34b6a$f0e40dc0$a8b64351@noos.fr> DWS. > There is no simple line between the two. There are club players in > very social clubs, in more forward clubs, people who play in local > events, small national events, and so on. If the rules are different > you tend to polarise the game a lot. I agree on that one too. But bridge is played with different rules in any NCBO, at any independent SO run tournament, and to a lesser extend in any club already. Thanks to the concept that a SO can basically adjust or redefine any rule on which we can not agree internationally. Which are most of them. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >DWS: > >> I can get the players in my club to understand a STOP card before a > >> jump - that's easy. > >> > >> I do not believe that I can get them to understand your rule. > > > >I agree. > > > >But I already said so. At low level it is not relevant. Leave all those > >social players in peace. But serious players will understand my rule very > >well because it boils down to 'you say stop when it is a sensitive > >situation'. Now this is too vague for being a rule. But you get the message. > > > >Anyway, the rule I propose is way simpler than the alert rule. Maybe not on > >paper but in real life. Still the powers that be decided to bother the > >social players with the alert rule. This rule according to quite a lot > >competent TD's creates more problems (at low level) than it solves. I happen > >to agree. > > There is no simple line between the two. There are club players in > very social clubs, in more forward clubs, people who play in local > events, small national events, and so on. If the rules are different > you tend to polarise the game a lot. > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 16 08:21:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:21:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34b10$16abe5b0$cd2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002701c34b6a$f28f4cc0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Wayne, > Unfortunately the SO have no right to make such a regulation. > The SO has no mandate to issue a regulation that states that opening on > a 9-count is illegal. Maybe they don't have the right but if they do so I am afraid you are fixed because what are you going to do about it ? Rules of 17,18,19 exist and are enforced. Illegal or not. Another famous tournament where you shouldn't play is the Cavandish. Their regulations must be criminal rather than illegal by your standards. Still everybody likes to play and enjoys to play that one. > The SO can stop an agreement to open 9-counts by the underhand tactic of > refusing that pair the right to use conventions after that bid. I said already that this kind of legal tricks destroys the game. I am always in favor of simple rules and regs. And I care less about a reg being technical illegal (as long as the reg makes sense) than regs based on silly legal tricks (which always create problems). Anyway, I have never understood this preoccupation with this 9HCP thing. I really cannot see an argument for allowing 10-12 and not 9-11. I can understand a SO saying no NT opening without opening values (because I can understand very well protecting beginners from mini-NT's and the like, I even support such a policy but at lower level only). But if not why pick 9 HCP as the border (it is begging for problems). 8 is more practical because 9+-11+ is the natural range for a mini (less than a opening) rather than 10-12 (which includes some opening bids). Never noticed that good players rarely open real openings with a 10-12 ? And although I have done so myself, you cannot compare judging to open certain hands with 10-12 to opening 15-17. 15-17 is a constructive opening, 10-12 is not. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'blml'" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 1:19 a.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > > OK Jaap, > > > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > Herman > > > > > > I do and don't agree with you at all. > > > > > > I DO. > > > If we want to ban 9HCP openers the regulation should say ' > > balanced 9HCP > > > openers are illegal'. You can refine such a reg with half > > and quarter points > > > to allow really good 9HCP hands but forget about that. That is just > > > redefining a boundary. > > > If people do open 9HCP, whatever the reason, the board gets > > thrown out. > > > Simple to understand, simple to rule, and if the reg makes > > sense it might > > > even be accepted by most. Anyway that is what they do in a > > French festival > > > when you break the rule of 17 (or was it 19 after all, I > > forget those > > > things). And they really don't bother why you did it. > > > > > > > > > This is completely correct - both in content and in the > > reasons behind > > it. It is the only way a regulation such as this makes sense. > > Unfortunately the SO have no right to make such a regulation. > > The SO can stop an agreement to open 9-counts by the underhand tactic of > refusing that pair the right to use conventions after that bid. > > The SO has no mandate to issue a regulation that states that opening on > a 9-count is illegal. > > Every player has absolute right to decide whether to open on any > particular 9-count provided that that is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > I chose to open this hand when our agreement is 10-12 is a complete > defense. > > Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 16 08:39:29 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:39:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3750563.1058284685911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <006501c34b63$2e676780$cc2ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <004d01c34b6d$c9f80920$a8b64351@noos.fr> Dear Grattan, I have followed this thread with amusement and amazement. What about a practical solution that makes sense also to normal players (so it can be enforced) in line with the revoke rule. You are kidding when you want to force players not to see the card open on the table one way or another. Way way too abstract for 99% of us. 1. A penalty card is AI for everybody. 2. If the penalty doesn't give sufficient redress (or it was done intentionally) ....... IMO all mechanical rules should be done like that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Opa City, on the shores of Confusion Bay." > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > In the meantime, we derive what entertainment we may > from the absurd posturings of those who assert that > whatever the WBFLC does must be right, even the > completely wrong bits... > > > +=+ As the person responsible for promulgating the > decisions of the WBFLC my position is not that their > decision "must be right" but that it is the committee's > decision made in accordance with the statutory powers > of the committee. All member NBOs agree as a > condition of membership to recognize the By-laws > and Constitution of the WBF. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 16 08:42:18 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:42:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> <+z0O9WDC0tD$EwJG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c347d7$78660b00$754127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004e01c34b6d$ca199ae0$a8b64351@noos.fr> There is a much better solution for this one. The problem is that the guy who has to take a blind shot knows his partner has passed out of turn. To apply also UI-LA logic against him makes the situation completely impossible. But if you reverse the penalty (the other one is barred for one round) you don't have the UI problem. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) > David Burn writes > >DWS writes: > > > >> I believe one of the main things that people who make and apply the > >> Laws should do is to make it clear to the players what they should do. > >> L73C is written for that: other Laws are not. So I always use L73C to > >> tell players what they should do. > > > >Unfortunately, Law 73 does not tell players what they should do. It > >expresses a pious hope, rather than anything that may suggest a course > >of action. A player, told "you must not take advantage of some > >information", will (correctly) construe this as licence to bid what he > >would have bid anyway in the absence of the information. He will say to > >himself (correctly) "I am not taking advantage of information; I am > >making my normal bid". If told instead "you may not choose from among > >alternatives anything suggested over anything else by the information", > >he will at least stand a chance of construing this correctly, and not > >committing an infraction. > > > >Law 73, like the rest of what used to be the Proprieties, should be > >buried deep within the earth, with no monument to mark its resting > >place. It should certainly not be used as a basis on which to tell > >anybody anything, for as such it is utterly worthless. > > The wording may not be helpful, and I do not read it out to a plyer > when I am explaining to him. But the pious hope, as oyu put it, is what > we want players to do. > > A well worded comment based on L73C will be more helpful that a > comment bristling with logical alternatives and the like. > > -- > 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Jul 16 08:49:56 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:49:56 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <002701c34b6a$f28f4cc0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c34b6e$da1b8bf0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 7:22 p.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne, > > > Unfortunately the SO have no right to make such a regulation. > > The SO has no mandate to issue a regulation that states > that opening on > > a 9-count is illegal. > > Maybe they don't have the right but if they do so I am afraid > you are fixed > because what are you going to do about it ? Rules of 17,18,19 > exist and are > enforced. Illegal or not. I think you miss my point. They can not regulate that you can not open a particular hand they can only regulate your partnership agreements. Wayne From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 16 09:44:12 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:44:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34b6e$da1b8bf0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F15105C.5000206@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I think you miss my point. > > They can not regulate that you can not open a particular hand they can > only regulate your partnership agreements. > No Wayne, we have heard your point, loud and clear, and over and over again. And I doubt if you have missed our point. So let's stop this discussion. > Wayne > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jul 16 10:26:28 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:26:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CBE5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> I've been lurking here for a while, but I really have to say something = here: That is "pretty basic stuff". Nothing about North's hand or the auction suggested that his partner did not have a natural redouble; +++ David .. what century are you in. If South was happy with 1NT = doubled he passes and takes the top. Redoubling "Natural" I want to play in 1NT = is ludicrous. I'm not even sure Culbertson would have advocated this = approach. I and many others play redouble as natural here and do not consider this = to be ludicrous. What's more, if I were playing with a pick-up partner = and they redoubled I would assume it was natural. This isn't a bidding = theory discussion list so I won't write a page on way it is correct to = do so, but bear in mind that, at pairs, +200 beats +180 and +600 beats = +580 Why did he volunteer such an explanation? Well, it may be that the SOS redouble is common practice among a group of players that included both North and South; if that were the case, North ought to have said so. Looking back at the original post, that is pretty much what he said, so = I think you are being a bit hard. +++ this is the case. Sitting down opposite any normal partner = worldwide, a redouble is SOS. I think W asked N the question just to verify this = likely treatment and to make sure N/S weren't playing Helvic or some other = agreed upon escape mechanism. North simply said "we have no definite agreement = but that normally this is SOS". I cant honestly believe a player of your calibre is suggesting redouble in this sequence is to play !! This is just not true. You are assuming that what you believe to be = standard practice where you play is common worldwide. Why not remember = that David is one of the UK's top players and assume he knows what he is = talking about? Now onto the actual hand. I gave the South hand to a few players I know = without showing the whole hand. None of them thought there was any LA = to 2S even if redouble for rescue were available. Mind you, none of = them think that a 1NT overcall shows anything other than a balanced hand = and would always overcall in diamonds on the various 1264s suggested = elsewhere. However, having had redouble imposed on them, there was a = vote in favour of passing 2D particularly if 1C were better minor or = otherwise prepared. The logic is that 2C is a potential place to play, = and if the 1NT bidder has 3 or 4 clubs he should bid them so when he = bids diamonds instead he may be serious. I truly don't understand N/S's bidding. I don't understand why North = didn't bid 2C over the redouble (I'm not sure it isn't a better spot = anyway). Not knowing any of the people involved I find North's = explanation of the redouble self-serving at best and I find South's = choice of redouble suggested by the hesitation so I would tend to adjust = N/S's score to 2Sx off some number. E/W's defence wasn't that = atrocious: the CA lead was a disaster but hardly irrational; the only = thing that went wrong was one card when he forget to put up the SA. It = can be difficult to concentrate when you know something very strange has = happened. On this forum I will allow better directors than I to agree = what their score should be. The problem with posting rulings like this is we weren't at the table = and don't know the players. There are people whose habits I know whom I = would take to the cleaners as N/S, there are certainly others who could = convince me they were entirely innocent of malicous intent and I'd be = content, though not happy, for an AC to rule it back to 180 both ways. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 10:56:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:56:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <006301c34b80$8c56c620$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Karel wrote: > +++ David .. what century are you in. If South was happy with 1NT doubled > he passes and takes the top. Not exactly. You see, making nine tricks in 1NT doubled scores 380 non-vulnerable or 580 vulnerable. This, compared to 400 or 600, will not be a top. Do they play 1NT (double) 3NT as natural in Ireland? > Redoubling "Natural" I want to play in 1NT is > ludicrous. I'm not even sure Culbertson would have advocated this approach. This is yet another example of the fact that people on BLML are hopelessly out of touch with the vast majority of bridge players, almost none of whom have even heard of an SOS redouble. How often do I have to say this? if a call is undiscussed, and it is possible for it to be natural, then it is natural. > +++ this is the case. Sitting down opposite any normal partner worldwide, a > redouble is SOS. Karel, you had better not take up rubber bridge. Or if you do, you had better be prepared to go for 1000 quite a lot of the time. There is a tiny minority of bridge players who use some rescue mechanism over a double of 1NT; this in no way justifies (and in fact contradicts) your absurdly exaggerated assertions above. > I think W asked N the question just to verify this likely > treatment and to make sure N/S weren't playing Helvic or some other agreed > upon escape mechanism. Why West wanted to know this at the point he asked his question is not clear to me. But West's actions are of no concern. > North simply said "we have no definite agreement but > that normally this is SOS". I cant honestly believe a player of your > calibre is suggesting redouble in this sequence is to play !! With Callaghan, it is for takeout. With every other of my partners, it is to play. If you have difficulty believing this, I suggest that you are perhaps a trifle out of touch with reality. Players of "my calibre" know that, in the absence of specific partnership agreement, a call is natural. If I were to sit down in any bridge club in the world, and this sequence were to occur, it would not enter my head that redouble was for rescue unless it had been discussed in advance. > +++ David - North was never, ever, regardless of what the other 3 pairs at > the table did going to play in 1NT unless it went pass, pass, pass. Yes, I know. This was because he was pretending to have a 1NT overcall; he didn't really have one, so of course he wasn't going to play in it if someone doubled. But that has nothing to do with the case. > Over > the inevitable double from either East or west, His removal to 2C/2D may > alert the opps that he had an offbeat 1NT but the opps will still be unsure > as to how strong he is. Quite so. However, he appears to have been given (by West's pointless question} an opportuniy to tell the opponents that he is removing 1NT because he has to, not because he wants to. This, as I have said, will enable him to maintain his deception instead of having to reveal it. > This is surely the whole point of the illusion and > confusion he is trying to create. South's normal SOS redouble has no > bearing on this. I have no doubt that you are entirely sincere in your belief that an SOS redouble is "normal". It is not. It is a convention played by, in my estimation, a good deal less than 0.001% of bridge players. However: it is possible (given that South actually had an SOS redouble) that North's ill-advised comment was an accurate reflection of his state of mind (and the state of affairs in this particular club at this particular time). If that is so, then North's actions, while dubious, may not have been motivated by a desire to deceive through illegal means. No doubt you were satisfied that this was the case, and it is an interpretation consistent with the facts. > +++ I have never heard such paranoia. At no stage did the E/W opps or I > having been called to the table dream up such fantasy as the above. The > alert was never an issue and knowing N/S they'd be dumbfounded at your > accusations. Yes, but you see, I do not know North-South. Karel, you have presented us with a set of facts. Your interpretation of those facts and mine are both consistent. But you have more knowledge than you have imparted to us. My interpretation may not be consistent with the personalities of North and South, but that was not information given to me. Again, you are allowing yourself to be influenced by personal considerations - you think that an SOS redouble is "normal", but it is not; you know these players, but I do not. There is no question of "paranoia": the actions of this North-South pair look to me like actions a pair would take if it were perpetrating some heavy-duty cheating. You now tell me that they would never do this; very well then, I believe you. > +++ South has already answered this question. 2C he would have taken as > north having no suit of his own (ie) a relay. Yes, I expect he probably would. In places where redouble does not mean "I think this contract will make", 2C clearly does not mean "I have clubs", even though clubs is the only suit in which the bidder has certainly shown strength. You and North and South may all be agreed on this ridiculous notion, but please do not refer to it as "common sense" when it is the very antithesis thereof. > North didn't hope south had > diamonds (though the odds are he does ala Lawerence overcalls) - he just was > not going to make some nebulous 2C bid when they were already in unchartered > waters. Surely this is just common sense. I repeat (and I notice that you have not answered the question): what would North do with a hand such as: xx Ax Axx AQJ109x on the given sequence? Did you ask him? Did you ask South? If not, why not? Karel, it is "just common sense" that 2C shows clubs. Or at least, that 2C shows clubs ab initio - with a desire for South to bid his suit because North does not have one, North may decide to start with 2C and then redouble for rescue. There are dangers in this - the opponents might simply pass out 2C, or South may not realise what redouble means - but it is a possible treatment. > +++ It has been clearly demonstrated on this forum that N/S's bidding was > reasonable allowing for an off beat 1NT with diamond length. No, it has not. Examples have been advanced by people whose bidding is, shall we say, often far removed from mainstream to the effect that North might have long diamonds. Well, so he might. But he has shown a balanced hand - or rather, he has shown a balanced hand by his bidding; obviously, he has denied one by his tempo, but South is not permitted to know that, nor make any "allowances" for it. You regard such suggestions as "clear demonstrations" - they are not, but because they coincide with your personal convictions, you are more inclined to accept them than other, more consistent, interpretations of the facts. This is a dangerous attitude for any tournament director to adopt. I have sent this South hand and the auction to about a dozen expert players of my acquaintance, some of whom have on occasion been known to follow imaginative courses during the auction. I did not, of course, inform them that 1NT was out of tempo. To a man (and a woman), they have all replied along these lines: redouble is not what they would have chosen, but it might work if North has hearts (though even then, there is a danger of playing a 3-4 fit instead of a 6-3 fit if North is 3-3-2-5); to pass two diamonds is absurd (and seven of them have suggested that it could only have been occasioned by some extraneous information from North). Now, this is a "clear demonstration" that South's actions were not, shall we say, entirely consistent with his ethical obligations. Against this, we have Tim West-Meads, who would pass two diamonds. Well... > David - You've > simply chosen to ignore this and instead have stamped your version of events > on the evidence, even when they are paranoid and extreme. What else am I supposed to do? You asked for opinions. You have mine. You now have also the collective opinion of a number of bridge players for whose judgement you might have some respect. > How you can postively conclude with such conviction that N/S were cheating > on the minimal facts given and then publicly state that 2 people you have > never met are unequivically cheats based on your flawed and paranoid > suspicions is quite astounding. Karel, calm down. You presented a case with minimal facts. On the basis of those facts, a consistent interpretation is that North-South were knowingly breaking various laws. You have additional facts, not vouchsafed at the time, that convince you personally that this is not so. But if you are going to ask a question, I will answer the question you have asked. You now tell me that North was not in fact breaking any laws, and I believe you, on the basis of the additional information you have provided that was not present when the original question was asked. This was because you believe, erroneously, that "everybody" plays SOS redoubles, so North's explanation seemed entirely satisfactory to you. But, as I hope to have convinced you (though I suspect I have failed), this is simply not the case, and you must try to keep a more open mind about such matters. My opinion of South's actions is unaltered. > David > it seems, still believes he's infallible and above such common curtesy. On the contrary. I know that I make mistakes. That is why I ask other people for their opinions. The difference between us appears to be that, when they have given those opinions, I respect them. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 11:12:15 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CBE5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <007301c34b82$bb35c200$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Frances wrote: >I and many others play redouble as natural here and do not consider this to be ludicrous. What's more, if I were playing with a pick-up partner and they redoubled I would assume it was natural. This isn't a bidding theory discussion list so I won't write a page on why it is correct to do so, but bear in mind that, at pairs, +200 beats +180 and +600 beats +580 Maybe it doesn't in Ireland. But I am pleased to have had my calculations verified by an authority on arithmetic. Why did he volunteer such an explanation? Well, it may be that the SOS redouble is common practice among a group of players that included both North and South; if that were the case, North ought to have said so. >Looking back at the original post, that is pretty much what he said, so I think you are being a bit hard. Perhaps. It may be that North's motives for telling everyone that he was going to remove 1NT, but might still have a good hand, were as pure as the driven snow. That is a consistent interpretation of those facts that were presented. Other interpretations are possible. >This is just not true. You are assuming that what you believe to be standard practice where you play is common worldwide. Why not remember that David is one of the UK's top players and assume he knows what he is talking about? Because that would not be consistent with the notion that David is a paranoiac out to convict the world of cheating. >The logic is that 2C is a potential place to play Not in this partnership, it apparently wasn't. However, the point you make is an interesting one. Myself, I would think that 2C showed a pretty much independent club suit, and did not invite partner to remove it however poor his own holding, so that I would bid 2D in the given auction on Axx Axx Jxxx AKx (well, I would actually bid 2C and redouble with that, but if I forgot to do this, I would bid 2D). >I truly don't understand N/S's bidding. I don't understand why North didn't bid 2C over the redouble (I'm not sure it isn't a better spot anyway). It would have been a relay, it seems. You see, we live in the wrong century, you and I, When we redouble 1NT, it's because we think we can make 1NT redoubled, and when we bid clubs, it's because we have a lot of clubs. Culbertson wouldn't have done this, and neither would anyone else in this day and age. Maybe Jurassic Park is still open... David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Jul 16 11:42:02 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:42:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F15105C.5000206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c34b86$e530d730$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 8:44 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > I think you miss my point. > > > > They can not regulate that you can not open a particular > hand they can > > only regulate your partnership agreements. > > > > > No Wayne, we have heard your point, loud and clear, and over and over > again. > And I doubt if you have missed our point. > So let's stop this discussion. Why because you have no argument against what the lawbook allows. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 16 11:54:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:54:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000001c34b6e$da1b8bf0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <001801c34b88$adc04400$a8b64351@noos.fr> Wayne, > I think you miss my point. > > They can not regulate that you can not open a particular hand they can > only regulate your partnership agreements. Of all people I do get your point. Try to listen sometimes rather than repeating yourself endlessly. Nobody stops them from making that kind of regulations, it has been done, it will be done, and illegal or not, there is nothing you are going to do about it in real life. We do not have some kind of appeals court where you can challenge NCBO decisions. Anyway I doubt if is really illegal. Take multi meaning openings. The general rule is a least one suit must be known for all weak variants (with the infamous Multi exception). Suppose I play 2C strong or weak with diamonds (popular in some parts of the world). Suppose I have an agreement that 3th green against red it can be ultra weak, xxx xxx xxxx xxx will do. Now I open it on xxx xxx xxx xxxx. What do you rule. Illegal system violation or acceptable because it is sound judgmenet those hands have the same value ? What if I claim it to be a psych ? What if I claim it to be a first time thing ? What if I claim to have missorted my hand ? I am in favor of illegal system violation for the very simple reason that the regulation (it is an international one) makes no sense anymore otherwise. It becomes legally even more complicated if you open a multi on xxx xxx xxxx xxx or even xxxx xxx xxx xxx. The later hand has 4S, but it is questionable if that still justifies opening a multi which is already an exception to a general rule. Given a couple of rulings I can remember (some by myself) it is an undefined free for all. Those rules are incomplete and contradictionary. Multi is ok if the weak options are weak two majors (by agreement). But does that mean that you can open it on any hand. So I do think that you can or should be able to regulate more than just agreements. I am not a lawyer but with a little bit of luck you can always find some support for any view in the current laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:49 AM Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 7:22 p.m. > > To: Wayne Burrows; 'blml' > > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > Unfortunately the SO have no right to make such a regulation. > > > The SO has no mandate to issue a regulation that states > > that opening on > > > a 9-count is illegal. > > > > Maybe they don't have the right but if they do so I am afraid > > you are fixed > > because what are you going to do about it ? Rules of 17,18,19 > > exist and are > > enforced. Illegal or not. > > I think you miss my point. > > They can not regulate that you can not open a particular hand they can > only regulate your partnership agreements. > > Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 12:07:02 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:07:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3750563.1058284685911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <006501c34b63$2e676780$cc2ce150@endicott> <004d01c34b6d$c9f80920$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <009c01c34b8a$62ea5400$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Japp wrote: > What about a practical solution that makes sense also to normal players (so > it can be enforced) in line with the revoke rule. You are kidding when you > want to force players not to see the card open on the table one way or > another. Way way too abstract for 99% of us. That's not what the WBFLC minute means. It means that you are allowed to "see" the card in the sense that, if the card is (say) the ten of spades, you know that to a particular trick, partner will play the ten of spades *before he plays it*, and you may organise your defence based on this knowledge. This gives you an advantage that is denied you in the normal course of events, where you are not allowed to know what card partner will play to a particular trick before he plays it (usually because you do not know that he has it). You are not allowed to draw any inference from your knowledge that partner has the ten of spades, nor from the fact that (apparently) he wanted to play it when it was not his turn. It is clear that such information is unauthorised, as it should quite properly be. But whence derives the notion that, because of an infraction no less, you as a defender are in a position to know *more* than you would otherwise know about the outcome of a trick before all cards have been played? This makes no sense, and an "interpretation" that enacts it is simply wrong. The words of Law 50 are: A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner). This means, as far as I can see, that you are allowed to know that partner played the ten of spades to the trick because he had to, not because he wanted to. You do not, for example, have to construe the ten of spades as the start of a peter, or as a suit preference signal, if either would be the "normal" meaning of the ten of spades in this position. In other words, you assume (in effect) that although you cannot see the ten of spades in partner's hand, someone has pointed a gun at his head and said "Play this card, or else!", whereupon he has withdrawn the ten of spades from his hand and played it. You are allowed to know that he did this under duress and was not trying to signal with the ten of spades. But you are not allowed to know in advance that he has the ten of spades - this is "other information arising from the facing of the penalty card". Otherwise, it may be that your side could without penalty benefit from its own infraction, by knowing in advance what card partner will play to a particular trick. Now, the degree of doublethink required of players to implement this law is, as Japp correctly points out, intolerable. I do not mind his proposed solution in the least. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jul 16 12:48:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:48:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000b01c34b86$e530d730$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F153B9E.5030206@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>So let's stop this discussion. >> > > Why because you have no argument against what the lawbook allows. > No Wayne, because you refuse to admit that it is well within my rights as TD to rule that you have in fact a partnership understanding. Just the same way as it is in my rights - nay my duties by the footnote - to rule that you have a partnership understanding that includes transfers when you make a call that looks like a transfer. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 16 13:35:58 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:35:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307151624.JAA10445@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <0D19E012-B78A-11D7-B70B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 05:24 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Having said that, the notion that it's "obvious" that South has > fielded a psych bothers me a little. The main reason is that Karel > said in his original post: "They've played on occasion but are not a > partnership". To me, the fact that one player psyched and the other > player took some unusual action is not, by itself, enough to determine > that a psych has been fielded. There has to be a little something > more, one of the following: > > (1) The partnership is an established one, so that one could suspect > that they know each other's habits. > > (2) The psycher has a reputation that his partner would likely have > known about. > > (3) The partners come from a bridge culture where psyching is frequent > enough that it can be expected. > > Is there anyone here that thinks it's OK to rule "fielded psych" when > none of the above three elements is present? If so, why? > Note in particular the last sentence of 6.2.1 below: Orange Book - Fielding 6.2.1 The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into account. 6.2.2 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 16 14:54:01 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:54:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <0D19E012-B78A-11D7-B70B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000f01c34ba1$b73927e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Gordon, I am unfamiliar with these EBU-only laws. But if that is the law then this case is to me a clear case of fielding a psych. South bid abnormally (subject of course to the current value of that word, but never bidding spades can safely be considered as abnormal) before the psych was exposed. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 05:24 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Having said that, the notion that it's "obvious" that South has > > fielded a psych bothers me a little. The main reason is that Karel > > said in his original post: "They've played on occasion but are not a > > partnership". To me, the fact that one player psyched and the other > > player took some unusual action is not, by itself, enough to determine > > that a psych has been fielded. There has to be a little something > > more, one of the following: > > > > (1) The partnership is an established one, so that one could suspect > > that they know each other's habits. > > > > (2) The psycher has a reputation that his partner would likely have > > known about. > > > > (3) The partners come from a bridge culture where psyching is frequent > > enough that it can be expected. > > > > Is there anyone here that thinks it's OK to rule "fielded psych" when > > none of the above three elements is present? If so, why? > > > Note in particular the last sentence of 6.2.1 below: > > Orange Book - Fielding > > 6.2.1 > The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide > evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If > so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD > will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for > example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been > exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your > actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into > account. > > 6.2.2 > A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to > find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be > adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the > offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Wed Jul 16 15:08:47 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:08:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: Returning from holiday to find 287 posts in this thread, I have managed to read them all in one session. 288 now. Sorry. I believe we have no explicit agreement that the number of postings in a thread shall be inversely proportional to its value, yet surely experience has taught us that it is. Do we have an implicit agreement? --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 16 16:13:37 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:13:37 -0300 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <6973112.1058277544644.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <00bb01c34bac$d530f740$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> I fully agree, NS not only deserved a bad score but they should also visit the ethics comitee. If you don't bid 2s you are fielding the psyche, the fact that south tried to explain his actions is just too much to be tolerated by a TD without sending the pair to a comitee. > The actions of North-South on this board are deeply disturbing. First, North should not have told anyone that redouble was for rescue if redouble was not discussed. His motive is almost certain to have been that by doing so, he would conceal from his opponents the fact that he did not have a 1NT overcall (if he had said that redouble was to play, or undiscussed, and then removed it, everyone would have known that he had a psyche, but the opponents would have been entitled to this information while South would not). Second, South's actions are almost certainly those of someone who knows that his partner has a psyche; an SOS redouble could easily be removed into four small diamonds in a 3-3-4-3 shape (because two clubs, regardless of what West-Meads and other clueless individuals think, is natural). Why did North not bid a natural two clubs anyway? Because he knew that South would not pass that, and he hoped that South would have some diamond length. North was basically cheating from start to finish, while South was cheating from about of the third of the way through to finish. This ruling was not good. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 16 16:15:01 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:15:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sit-in-tables In-Reply-To: <$fiOWzIFMzE$EwTA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4518D04C-B7A0-11D7-B70B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 11:47 PM, David Stevenson wrote: > I presume that by a "sit-in table" [a term I have never heard] you > refer to a sit-out table, to a pair that does not play a particular > board, perhaps because you have an odd number of pairs. It might refer to a Rover movement, in which a pair sits in at various NS tables. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 15 09:45:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:45:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pro Question References: <000601c34913$f2b06a80$dc2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <010401c34aad$6b72f740$a8b64351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0101_01C34ABE.2DC60660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageWayne, It was said by others as well. When bidding 4H over 2S you need to = establish whether 2S is strong or weak because it affects the range (and = for some the meaning) of 4H. So this question (badly phrased but = essentially is 2S weak or strong) followed by a 4H overcall is to me = almost a natural companion of the 4H overcall.=20 Of course the guy should have put the question differently. But as Alain = said, sometimes you just phrase your question as a yes-no thing to avoid = a very long answer (doesn't really apply to this case). Anyway I would = not think too much of it. Unless of course the guy had a weird hand for = his bidding and is known sometimes to ask and sometimes not to ask. But = that is not often the issue. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Wayne Burrows (cascade)=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:54 AM Subject: [blml] Pro Question 2S* 4H** P P*** P * Alerted ** Before bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" = and was told "yes" *** This player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil Vulnerable. Is a question before (almost) imminently passing the board out = reasonable? I can only think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is = an inappropriate way of communicating with partner. Is a simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the = 4H bidder? - A natural weak two would not need to be alerted. =20 - The bid showed a weak two-suiter. While I have titled this as a 'Pro Question' in fact the 4H bidder was = not a client but an experienced player who has won national = championships. TIA Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0101_01C34ABE.2DC60660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Wayne,
 
It was said by others as well. When = bidding 4H over=20 2S you need to establish whether 2S is strong or weak because it = affects=20 the range (and for some the meaning) of 4H. So this question (badly = phrased=20 but essentially is 2S weak or strong) followed by a 4H overcall is to me = almost=20 a natural companion of the 4H overcall.
 
Of course the guy should have put the = question=20 differently. But as Alain said, sometimes you just phrase your question = as a=20 yes-no thing to avoid a very long answer (doesn't really apply to = this=20 case). Anyway I would not think too much of it. Unless of course the guy = had a=20 weird hand for his bidding and is known sometimes to ask and sometimes = not to=20 ask. But that is not often the issue.
 
Jaap
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Wayne=20 Burrows (cascade)
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 = 9:54 AM
Subject: [blml] Pro = Question

2S* 4H** P=20 P***
P
 
*=20 Alerted
 
** Before=20 bidding 4H this player asked precisely "Is that a weak bid?" and was = told=20 "yes"
 
*** This=20 player holds xxxx 10xxxx Kx xx with Nil = Vulnerable.
 
Is a=20 question before (almost) imminently passing the board out=20 reasonable?
 
I can only=20 think that such a question is for partner's benefit and is an = inappropriate=20 way of communicating with partner.
 
Is a=20 simple 'yes' a sufficient answer to the original question by the 4H=20 bidder?
- A=20 natural weak two would not need to be alerted.  =
- The bid=20 showed a weak two-suiter.
 
While I=20 have titled this as a 'Pro Question' in fact the 4H bidder was not a = client=20 but an experienced player who has won national=20 championships.
 
TIA
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_0101_01C34ABE.2DC60660-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 16 16:18:22 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:18:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <4jbPJhD$$tD$Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 05:04 PM, David Stevenson wrote: > By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues > are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, > chatting > to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking > together between matches. I've just been looking at Marc Smith' s write-up of the Spring Foursomes in the new August issue of Bridge Magazine, in which he writes: "For security reasons, the hands at this event are still dealt at the table". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 16 16:33:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:33:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c34baf$97522950$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 16. juli 2003 17:18 > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. > > > On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 05:04 PM, David Stevenson wrote: > > > By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues > > are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, > > chatting > > to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking > > together between matches. > > I've just been looking at Marc Smith' s write-up of the Spring > Foursomes in the new August issue of Bridge Magazine, in which he > writes: "For security reasons, the hands at this event are still dealt > at the table". For SECURITY reasons? I should like to know what security threats should be avoided by that. (I am aware of quite a few reasons for dealing cards at the table but security is definitely not among them. On the contrary security is one of the minor reasons for using boards dealt in advance) Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 16:43:50 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:43:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <200307160038.RAA22285@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <014f01c34bb1$0dda22c0$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Adam wrote: > I don't know *why* > South bid that way, but I'd presume there was some reason (even one > related to bovine aviation) that would be more likely than > psych-fielding. It does depend on the characters involved, though. and Thomas Paine wrote: "Is it more probable that Nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?" David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 16:49:23 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:49:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. References: <000301c34baf$97522950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <015901c34bb1$d4251340$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > For SECURITY reasons? > > I should like to know what security threats should be avoided by that. In the Spring Foursomes, a number of matches at the same stage of the competition are being played at "the same time". At least, they start at the same time. But some matches are played faster than others, and in some matches the breaks are taken at different times from those in other matches. If, say, all three quarter-finals were playing the same boards, it is possible that a player returning from a meal break after having played two sets would overhear a discussion of boards in the third set from a match in which no break had occurred. David Burn London, England From adam@irvine.com Wed Jul 16 16:54:01 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:54:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:35:58 BST." <0D19E012-B78A-11D7-B70B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <200307161553.IAA07478@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 05:24 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Having said that, the notion that it's "obvious" that South has > > fielded a psych bothers me a little. . . . > > Note in particular the last sentence of 6.2.1 below: > > Orange Book - Fielding > > 6.2.1 > The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide > evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If > so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD > will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for > example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been > exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your > actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into > account. . . . OK, I understand that the law has to be applied. It's not quite the same thing as saying "South has obviously fielded a psych", though; if N/S were ruled against in the EBU, it would be accurate to say "South was ruled to have fielded a psych", without reference to what he actually may or may not have been doing, but that's a bit different from what some of the people on this list are saying. Does this rule apply in Ireland, by the way? Seriously, I don't know. I've been assuming all along that Ireland has its own Hibernian Bridge League or something separate from the EBU, and that they would never ever consent to be governed by anything Orange; but it's occurred to me that I could be wrong here. Could someone enlighten me? -- thanks, Adam From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jul 16 17:01:59 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040465E0@hotel.npl.co.uk> Sven/Gordon Some years in the Spring Foursomes there was an option to play evening matches/sessions with or without a break for dinner (although I thought it been scrapped this year). Thus it would be possible for the same stanza in the same stage of the event to be played two hours apart by different teams. To use the same boards for all matches would be insecure, you would have to completely segregate the players who had a dinner break from those who didn't. This might what Marc Smith is referring too. It is also the case that individual matches can run faster or slower (again, see Bridge Magazine) it is quite conceivable that one match could finish a stanza before another match started it, leading to the same security problems. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 16 July 2003 16:33 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 16. juli 2003 17:18 > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. > > > On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 05:04 PM, David Stevenson wrote: > > > By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues > > are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, > > chatting > > to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking > > together between matches. > > I've just been looking at Marc Smith' s write-up of the Spring > Foursomes in the new August issue of Bridge Magazine, in which he > writes: "For security reasons, the hands at this event are still dealt > at the table". For SECURITY reasons? I should like to know what security threats should be avoided by that. (I am aware of quite a few reasons for dealing cards at the table but security is definitely not among them. On the contrary security is one of the minor reasons for using boards dealt in advance) Sven _______________________________________________ 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 16 17:09:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <200307161609.MAA20137@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > If I were to sit down in any bridge club in the world, and this > sequence were to occur, it would not enter my head that redouble was for > rescue unless it had been discussed in advance. I would have said the same at one time, but now I am not so sure. I wonder if David B. has seen a similar situation when playing with any younger players. If my partner were under, say, age 35, the thought that redouble is SOS would definitely "enter my head." But even so, I don't think I would bid on that basis unless partner is under 25, and I certainly wouldn't be telling the opponents I expect it to be SOS. (This is, by the way, a good example for the "disclosure" thread. If partner and I have had no discussion, but I infer something from his age, should I disclose that to the opponents? After all, they can judge his age as well as I can.) Karel: what age category are NS in, and if you don't mind, how about you? I'm a cynical old man, myself, though I think not as old as our David's are. (And in ACBL years, I'm a mere youth!) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 16 17:27:40 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <200307161627.MAA21203@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Unless I have completely misunderstood the minutes from Lille 1998 WBFLC > then agreed that Law 72B1 was to be understood so that an offender shall > never gain from his own irregularity. Huh? Where does that come from? I thought the limitation only applies if the offender "could have known" he was "likely" to gain. Suppose North is barred, and South gambles 3NT, which makes for a good score because EW lack the normal information on which to base their defense. Do we adjust automatically, or do we judge whether the offender "could have known" when he committed his irregularity? From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 16 17:43:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:43:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <015901c34bb1$d4251340$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000401c34bb9$57908d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > Sent: 16. juli 2003 17:49 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. >=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > > For SECURITY reasons? > > > > I should like to know what security threats should be avoided by = that. >=20 > In the Spring Foursomes, a number of matches at the same stage of the > competition are being played at "the same time". At least, they start = at > the same time. But some matches are played faster than others, and in > some matches the breaks are taken at different times from those in = other > matches. If, say, all three quarter-finals were playing the same = boards, > it is possible that a player returning from a meal break after having > played two sets would overhear a discussion of boards in the third set > from a match in which no break had occurred. My immediate reaction was: "And so what?" But then my questions should really be: "What kind of schedules are you talking about?" and "how many boards are to be played in each round?" We have in Norway some tournaments for teams of four organized as round robin with each team playing each other team in matches of up to 32 = boards. The matches are then split in two rounds of 16 boards each, all rounds = are played simultaneously with the same boards and the schedule requires the = 16 boards to be completed in 2 hours and 15 minutes including the time = needed for comparing results between the two tables in each match and to = complete the score sheet. Security has never been a problem any more than it is a problem with = load discussion at some table during the play. I might add that all breaks (for meals and recreation) are scheduled = between the rounds; players are never at liberty to take a break when it suits = them within a round (other than dummy possibly leaving the table for just the = few minutes he can expect to be redundant). I still do not see the problem with the Spring Foursomes, but maybe my = eyes will be opened on learning how that arrangement is organized? Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 16 17:45:08 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:45:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307161553.IAA07478@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 04:54 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > OK, I understand that the law has to be applied. It's not quite the > same thing as saying "South has obviously fielded a psych", though; if > N/S were ruled against in the EBU, it would be accurate to say "South > was ruled to have fielded a psych", without reference to what he > actually may or may not have been doing, but that's a bit different > from what some of the people on this list are saying. > > Does this rule apply in Ireland, by the way? Seriously, I don't know. > I've been assuming all along that Ireland has its own Hibernian Bridge > League or something separate from the EBU, and that they would never > ever consent to be governed by anything Orange; but it's occurred to > me that I could be wrong here. Could someone enlighten me? > > -- thanks, Adam There's the CBAI - http://indigo.ie/~irebridg/ I hadn't realised from the original post that this took place in Ireland, but I was just making the point that there is at least one jurisdiction in which intent is not required for a psyche to be deemed to have been fielded. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 16 17:50:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:50:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <200307161627.MAA21203@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ......... > > Unless I have completely misunderstood the minutes from Lille 1998 = WBFLC > > then agreed that Law 72B1 was to be understood so that an offender = shall > > never gain from his own irregularity. >=20 > Huh? Where does that come from? I thought the limitation only = applies > if the offender "could have known" he was "likely" to gain. Suppose > North is barred, and South gambles 3NT, which makes for a good score > because EW lack the normal information on which to base their defense. > Do we adjust automatically, or do we judge whether the offender "could > have known" when he committed his irregularity? Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: 2. Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores There was discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted = scores following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related = to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the = offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent = or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending = side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action = but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double = shot') Unquote One important experience I have learned from following the blml is that = the laws cannot be taken at their face value, it is necessary always also to look up WBFLC minutes that may apply. Sven From henk@ripe.net Wed Jul 16 18:04:15 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:04:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <000401c34bb9$57908d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > I still do not see the problem with the Spring Foursomes, but maybe my > eyes will be opened on learning how that arrangement is organized? I think you missed the sentence: > > [...] and in some matches the breaks are taken at different times from > > those in other matches. from which it appears that the SO allows the teams to determine the starting time and/or the number of breaks in the match. In that case, one cannot use duplicated boards. 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 18:20:39 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:20:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. References: <000401c34bb9$57908d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <01aa01c34bbe$94230ba0$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >But then my questions should really be: "What kind of schedules are you talking about?" and "how many boards are to be played in each round?" Well, take the quarter-finals. There are three of these, not four - one team is unbeaten at this stage, and has a bye to the semi-final. The quarter-finals start at around 3.30 pm on Monday afternoon. They are of 32 boards, played in four sets of eight, with seating rights in each set determined by a coin toss at the start of the match (each team has rights in two sets). The players may elect to: play straight through, then go to dinner; or play two sets, then take a dinner break; or play three sets before the break, or whatever suits them. Moreover, the matches are conducted at the players' own pace; if our match finishes its eight boards in 45 minutes, we can get on with the next set without waiting another hour for Robson to finish in another match. This informality is largely welcomed by the players. But it obviously means that the three matches cannot play the same boards. It could easily happen that Robson, who has played eight boards, will emerge into the area where players gather to meet team-mates and score, and hear someone say to his own team-mates (who have played sixteen boards) "Did you bid the grand slam on board fourteen?" Now, this does not of course mean that boards should be dealt at the table. Each match should have its own set of pre-dealt boards, together with hand records. When I suggested this to Max Bavin, he seemed to think it was a good idea, and wondered why no one had thought of it before. There is no real difficulty, in a tournament where the matches are straight knock-out all the way through, in having different boards in each match. The situation is different in a Swiss tournament, in which it is patently unfair that one table should have a lot of swingy boards while another table has a lot of flat ones. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 16 19:02:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:02:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <01aa01c34bbe$94230ba0$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000601c34bc4$6b2313c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn ......... > >But then my questions should really be: "What kind of schedules are = you > talking about?" and "how many boards are to be played in each round?" >=20 > Well, take the quarter-finals. There are three of these, not four - = one > team is unbeaten at this stage, and has a bye to the semi-final. >=20 > The quarter-finals start at around 3.30 pm on Monday afternoon. They = are > of 32 boards, played in four sets of eight, with seating rights in = each > set determined by a coin toss at the start of the match (each team has > rights in two sets). The players may elect to: play straight through, > then go to dinner; or play two sets, then take a dinner break; or play > three sets before the break, or whatever suits them. Moreover, the > matches are conducted at the players' own pace; if our match finishes > its eight boards in 45 minutes, we can get on with the next set = without > waiting another hour for Robson to finish in another match. >=20 > This informality is largely welcomed by the players. But it obviously > means that the three matches cannot play the same boards. It could > easily happen that Robson, who has played eight boards, will emerge = into > the area where players gather to meet team-mates and score, and hear > someone say to his own team-mates (who have played sixteen boards) = "Did > you bid the grand slam on board fourteen?" >=20 > Now, this does not of course mean that boards should be dealt at the > table. Each match should have its own set of pre-dealt boards, = together > with hand records. When I suggested this to Max Bavin, he seemed to > think it was a good idea, and wondered why no one had thought of it > before. >=20 > There is no real difficulty, in a tournament where the matches are > straight knock-out all the way through, in having different boards in > each match. The situation is different in a Swiss tournament, in which > it is patently unfair that one table should have a lot of swingy = boards > while another table has a lot of flat ones. >=20 Yes, your answer "opens my eyes", I realize that this event is not a = series type event (like Swiss or round robin) where it is essential that the matches are balanced in the way that they are likely to produce the same amount of IMP swings. (I should have noticed already from the mentioning = of quarter-finals etc.) The schedule then consists of completely independent (K.O.)matches with = the only requirements being that they start after some time, are finished = before some time and the rest is more or less left for the teams to decide. Computer-dealt boards should still be of no security problem, but you = must of course (as noted) have separate sets of boards for each match. Regards Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jul 16 21:18:26 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:18:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307161609.MAA20137@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Karel: what age category are NS in, and if you don't mind, how about you? I'm a cynical old man, myself, though I think not as old as our David's are. (And in ACBL years, I'm a mere youth!) +++ Well once again my eyes are opened. The notion of rdbl to play below game is alien to me and I'd be pretty certain the majority of Irish players. I play a fair bit on OKbridge and again I'd be surprised if this is the common interpretation of redouble. I take your point that 1NT**+2 does not beat game but in my bridge career to date this has happened once to me where as redouble as SOS has occured frequently. I don't play rubber bridge and will bow to DB's knowledge in this area. To answer Steve's question the N/S pair were indeed "young". North 35ish and South 27ish. I myself 35. To David's xx Ax Axx AQJT9x ... over redouble I'd pass. No idea what the actual South would have done. With a worse hand say Qx KJx Ax AQTxxx I'd bid 2C's but would expect that to be pulled to 2D/2H/2S's unless South had 4C's. For a 1NT overcall to bid 2C's over a redouble I'd expect a flat 4333 or 4432 or 5332 (bad 5 card suit) with 2/3 clubs. Over a 1C opening I don't think the 1NT overcaller can suggest playing in 2C's (as 2C's is a relay). As for 1NT (dbl) 3NT. I'd expect a solid 7/6 card minor and out (ie) gambling in nature or simply to play ignoring the double for whatever reason. I don't know what tactics are used in rubber bridge but it would take a very fine sense of judgement for a player to "psyche" double a 1NT expecting to gain by stopping the pair from bidding 3. In my "young" experience when your partner gets doubled in 1NT for penalties you rarely have an abundance of riches to contemplate 3NT. You're either about to get creamed or possibly get out with your skin. I would think all the bids at your disposal should be used to attempt the latter. Irish bridge btw follows EBU bridge law. As to the orange book, I don't know, Ferghal would be better qualified to answer that. K. From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jul 16 21:23:06 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I hadn't realised from the original post that this took place in Ireland, but I was just making the point that there is at least one jurisdiction in which intent is not required for a psyche to be deemed to have been fielded. +++ Just to make this absolutely clear. You are not allowed to "field" a psyche ?? In other words if taking the actual example there was no pause, but for whatever reason you suspected partner may have psyched 1NT you are not allowed to pass 2D's ?? Say this sequence re-occurs in a months time does S now alert N's 2D's and say this may be a psyche and can now pass 2D's if he wishes ?? If so could he simply not have alerted the 1st time and saved the day ?? I'm just trying to get a feel for the balance of allowing a player to psyche and yet penalising his partner for realising he has psyched (in a genuine, legal fashion - or is there such a thing ??) within the laws. K. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 16 22:12:07 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:12:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000b01c34b86$e530d730$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <016f01c34be8$ed0305c0$95e1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > > Herman DE WAEL: > > No Wayne, we have heard your point, loud and > > clear, and over and over again. And I doubt if > > you have missed our point. So let's stop this > > discussion. > > Wayne: > Why because you have no argument against > what the lawbook allows. > > > +=+ Wayne, You repeat tediously your error - for error it is if you are talking about Planet Earth where runs the writ of the WBF. We accept that on Planet X where perhaps you play, you may be right. Now will you please go away and stop boring us? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 16 23:22:25 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:22:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <017601c34be8$f3b18860$95e1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] a Club ruling > > I'm just trying to get a feel for the balance of > allowing a player to psyche and yet penalising > his partner for realising he has psyched (in a > genuine, legal fashion - or is there such a thing ??) > within the laws. > +=+ A player may deduce that his partner has psyched from the evidence of the legal meanings of the calls and his own holding of cards, together with information as to Dealer and vulnerability.. He may not do so out of a partnership understanding. One way in which a partnership understanding may be deemed to have arisen is from prior experience of the partner's actions on other occasions. If a player's abnormal action bears evidence that he has catered for his partner's psyche he should be able to provide for the Director a valid explanation of the evidence from which, without the assistance of illegal knowledge, he drew his conclusion that partner had psyched. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Jul 16 23:35:23 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:35:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <016f01c34be8$ed0305c0$95e1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000e01c34bea$908a7790$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2003 9:12 a.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > " A monologue is not a decision." > (Clement Attlee, addressing > Winston Churchill). > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:42 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > > > > Herman DE WAEL: > > > No Wayne, we have heard your point, loud and > > > clear, and over and over again. And I doubt if > > > you have missed our point. So let's stop this > > > discussion. > > > > Wayne: > > Why because you have no argument against > > what the lawbook allows. > > > > > > +=+ Wayne, > You repeat tediously your error - for error > it is if you are talking about Planet Earth where > runs the writ of the WBF. We accept that on > Planet X where perhaps you play, you may be > right. Now will you please go away and stop > boring us? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Where do I find this writ that allows the SO to mandate that an opening on 9 points is illegal. I am talking about specifically the mandate to limit the practice of opening on any particular 9-count as opposed to a partnership agreement to open such a hand. TIA Wayne > > > > > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 00:11:13 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:11:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <002001c34bef$8da3e020$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Karel wrote: > +++ Just to make this absolutely clear. You are not allowed to "field" a > psyche ?? In other words if taking the actual example there was no pause, > but for whatever reason you suspected partner may have psyched 1NT you are > not allowed to pass 2D's ?? > Say this sequence re-occurs in a months time does S now alert N's 2D's and > say this may be a psyche and can now pass 2D's if he wishes ?? If so could > he simply not have alerted the 1st time and saved the day ?? > I'm just trying to get a feel for the balance of allowing a player to psyche > and yet penalising his partner for realising he has psyched (in a genuine, > legal fashion - or is there such a thing ??) within the laws. Oh, well. At least you seem to have calmed down. So have I - apologies for previous heated words. The Orange Book, which has been quoted on this list by Gordon, expresses the English view of whether or not a single instance, without partnership history, may constitute evidence that a concealed partnership understanding exists. When you write "for whatever reason" above, you are asking the question that needs to be asked. If "whatever reason" means that the reason you suspect partner to have psyched is completely evident from your own hand and the authorised information available to you from the calls and plays of the three others at the table, then "whatever reason" is good enough - you may legitimately conclude that partner has psyched. This does not mean that a decision will automatically go in your favour; it may be that a director or committee will still rule that a single instance of a successful abnormal action was not based entirely on AI. It may have been based on UI, it may have been based on a concealed understanding. Some of these decisions will be wrong, but so will some decisions based on taking advantage of UI. A player in such a case can only console himself with the thought that he has acted in accordance with his ethical responsibilities, but has been judged to have done otherwise - just as a cricketer given out caught may console himself with the knowledge that he did not hit the ball, whatever the umpire may have thought. In the actual case, it is my view that (given the time North took to overcall 1NT), South's actions were based on unauthorised information. I have not considered the question of whether his actions might constitute fielding a psyche; if I had done so, I expect that I would have reached the conclusions that Gordon Rainsford reached, and that others have supported. But again, this was not the question that was asked; we were given a set of North-South actions that were peculiar, to say the least, and invited to comment. When you are my age, Karel, you will have seen it all before, and you will tend - as directors and committees should in any case tend - to interpret doubtful actions in the worst possible light, and to invite the perpetrators to justify those actions. To you, who know the players, the justifications that were given may have seemed - and may have been - adequate. We, who do not know the players, can give an opinion based only on the presented facts; those are (as I have said) entirely consistent with North-South being villains of the deepest dye. Since I posted the message that you described as the work of a paranoiac, and Tim West-Meads in his usual thoughtful fashion described as the work of a nasty little toe-rag, others have come forward to support the views that I expressed (DWS, Japp, and to some extent Gordon had supported them already). This may mean something, or it may not, but perhaps it may convince you that I am neither an extremist nor a madman. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 00:37:19 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: Crikey. Is Lille in Flanders? And there was I thinking it was in France. Just goes to show that, as Karel has been at pains to point our recently, I am a long way from infallible. >2. Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores >There was discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. >The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot') This is, of course, completely at variance with the notion that when you have got KQJx of spades, you can lead low if partner has the ace as a penalty card. Since this absurd idea has also been expressed explicitly in a WBFLC minute, one may extend Sven's conclusion as follows: >One important experience I have learned from following the blml is that the laws cannot be taken at their face value, it is necessary always also to look up WBFLC minutes that may apply. And even then, they may still be utterly ridiculous. These people are not incapable of thought. Grattan Endicott, Ton Kooijman and Chip Martel, among others, are some of the best thinkers you could meet in a day's march. But sometimes, you wonder... David Burn London, England From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jul 17 04:36:01 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: from "Karel" at Jul 16, 2003 09:18:26 PM Message-ID: <200307170336.h6H3a1pX000409@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> I've largely stayed out of this, but there are a few things that I'd like to respond to... > From: "Karel" > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:18:26 +0100 > > Karel: what age category are NS in, and if you don't mind, how about > you? I'm a cynical old man, myself, though I think not as old as our > David's are. (And in ACBL years, I'm a mere youth!) > > +++ Well once again my eyes are opened. The notion of rdbl to play below > game is alien to me and I'd be pretty certain the majority of Irish players. > I play a fair bit on OKbridge and again I'd be surprised if this is the > common interpretation of redouble. I take your point that 1NT**+2 does not > beat game but in my bridge career to date this has happened once to me where > as redouble as SOS has occured frequently. I don't play rubber bridge and > will bow to DB's knowledge in this area. > I'm rather young by ACBL standards at 38. However, I learned this game some 20+ years ago and my group taught ourselves to play from an old Goren book. To me, the standard XX meaning is to play. As you can tell from the types of hands that players claim to be doubling on, it is quite reasonable that you might have 10+ points when there is a double. Since there are cases where people are doubling on a one suited hand with a side card, they could have as few as 13 HCP apparently leaving quite enough space for you to have a hand that might ordinarily invite to game or bid game. An SOS is not standard, although it is common. Just like forcing NT's not standard, but are common. Even at club level play (i.e. outside of rubber bridge play), redoubles to punish doublers are common. Since I have directed one average at least one session a week for approximately the last 15 years (at some points up to 3-4 sessions per week), I've seen a lot of club level play. XX tends to be more common in the level of player that travels to tournaments and competes in more competitive venues (such as knockouts, round-robin/home teams type games, GNT's and NAP's) but I would agree with David that less than half of the players in the ACBL play SOS XX without discussion. > To answer Steve's question the N/S pair were indeed "young". North 35ish > and South 27ish. I myself 35. > > To David's xx Ax Axx AQJT9x ... over redouble I'd pass. No idea what the > actual South would have done. With a worse hand say Qx KJx Ax AQTxxx I'd > bid 2C's but would expect that to be pulled to 2D/2H/2S's unless South had > 4C's. For a 1NT overcall to bid 2C's over a redouble I'd expect a flat 4333 > or 4432 or 5332 (bad 5 card suit) with 2/3 clubs. Over a 1C opening I > don't think the 1NT overcaller can suggest playing in 2C's (as 2C's is a > relay). > Again, a non-standard agreement. Even if you are playing SOS XX, then why doesn't 2C suggest that you overcalled 1NT on a hand with a 2C overcall in the 15-17 HCP range? Why can't 2C be natural? Once you've overcalled 1NT, you typically imply that if you have a biddable suit, that it is clubs. Without discussion, I think assuming anything beyond XX asks for suits up the line until you find a 43 fit or better to be rather top/bottom gambling unless it is common in the area that you frequent enough that you can assume partner would assume something else. I've been given no indication in the discussion so far that this was the prevalent case. > In my "young" experience when your partner gets doubled in 1NT for penalties > you rarely have an abundance of riches to contemplate 3NT. You're either > about to get creamed or possibly get out with your skin. I would think all > the bids at your disposal should be used to attempt the latter. > Hmmm...typical 1NT openers are 16 on average. Typical penalty oriented doubles are 16 on average leaving 8 (on average) remaining. When you hold 6-8 HCP, you can be pretty much assured that the doubler is out on a limb and you can XX. Advancer cannot have any significant values and you expect 1NT to make unless the doubler has a source of tricks (which is possible, but rarer than values) and it also suggests to partner that (s)he double any suit they run to when holding 4 trumps. It puts the doubler between a rock and a hard place. My take on the 6421 hand is that the XX even as an SOS is to see if partner can bid 2H. Over 2C or 2D, then 2S rates to be the odds on winning bid. That doesn't mean that it is the only bid, but that it should be the best place to play with the most combinations from partner's 1NT overcall. There are many hands where partner will bid 2D even on as little as 2344 or 3244. Although 5D and 6D hands are possible, off the top of my head, I would guess these to be very insignificant by odds and hands where partner holds 2-4 spades are significantly more common. Once there is a hitch, I think that by UI rulings, there really is no way you can allow a pass of 2D. The hitch suggests that the 1NT overcall may be off-shape and suggests that partner may have a less common hand pattern including a long minor. I don't really think that Pass is a very good option to begin with and certainly don't think that it should be allowed in the UI situation. Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being off- shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't think it is allowable once UI is on the table. -Ted. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 04:52:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:52:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <200307170336.h6H3a1pX000409@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <000d01c34c16$d6e48d80$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Ted wrote: > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being off- > shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. Welcome to the Nasty Little Toe Rags Mailing List, Ted. We are thinking of changing our title to the Tim West-Meads is a Pompous Oaf Without the First Idea of What He is Talking About Mailing List, but we are waiting until there are twelve of us to one of him, rather than ten. Do you know anyone else who might agree with us? David Burn London, England From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jul 17 05:11:49 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: from "David Burn" at Jul 17, 2003 04:52:27 AM Message-ID: <200307170411.h6H4Bn3i001275@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "David Burn" > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:52:27 +0100 > > Ted wrote: > > > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being off- > > shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. > > Welcome to the Nasty Little Toe Rags Mailing List, Ted. We are thinking > of changing our title to the Tim West-Meads is a Pompous Oaf Without the > First Idea of What He is Talking About Mailing List, but we are waiting > until there are twelve of us to one of him, rather than ten. Do you know > anyone else who might agree with us? > > David Burn > London, England > Sorry, David. Despite agreeing with you, I'm trying to stay out of the middle of the flame-fest and if TWM and anyone else wants to call me names because I support a different opinion, let them. I got flamed out from discussions a few months ago when several people starting to get insulting because I differed in opinions and I realized that neither they nor the discussion was worth my time. I just chimed in since I felt that I could add to the discussion with something germaine that hadn't been said yet...back to lurking... -Ted. From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Thu Jul 17 07:07:41 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:07:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> Someone wrote, that nine matches could not be played. As I understand it, teams could choose from getting a score of 15-15 or = replay the match. If not agreed the match was replayed. 6 matches were = replayed. There were also other mishaps.In one of our matches the boards 26 and 27 = were exchanged and as we did not play the same physical boards, two = boards (out of 10)were scrapped (and it must have happened in at least = one more match). Of course, we lost two good boards! We played the same physical boards in the first matches, so it was = possible to arrange. Whatever the circumstances, we have to play the same physical boards, = or.... Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 07:32:47 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:32:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000e01c34bea$908a7790$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F16430F.2060706@skynet.be> wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > > > > Where do I find this writ that allows the SO to mandate that an opening > on 9 points is illegal. > > I am talking about specifically the mandate to limit the practice of > opening on any particular 9-count as opposed to a partnership agreement > to open such a hand. > Wayne, I have told you again and again that no such regulation exists, and that it would not be legal. I am not ruling against you because you open, but because I judge your opening to be systemic. You may disagree with that ruling in any particular case (especially since no actual case has been presented) but you cannot disagree with my basic right, as TD, to judge your opening on 9 points, in a particular case, to be systemic. Now indeed go and bore some other planet. > TIA > > Wayne > > >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 07:34:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:34:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >>Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: >> > > Crikey. Is Lille in Flanders? And there was I thinking it was in France. > Just goes to show that, as Karel has been at pains to point our > recently, I am a long way from infallible. > David, Sven is right. Maybe unwittingly so, but Lille is in fact in the region which was once the county of Flanders. It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. It is also in the region called French Flanders, and in the departement des Flandres. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 07:47:21 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:47:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <017601c34be8$f3b18860$95e1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3F164679.9020406@skynet.be> grandeval wrote: >> > +=+ A player may deduce that his partner has > psyched from the evidence of the legal meanings > of the calls and his own holding of cards, together > with information as to Dealer and vulnerability.. He > may not do so out of a partnership understanding. > One way in which a partnership understanding may > be deemed to have arisen is from prior experience > of the partner's actions on other occasions. If a > player's abnormal action bears evidence that he has > catered for his partner's psyche he should be able to > provide for the Director a valid explanation of the > evidence from which, without the assistance of > illegal knowledge, he drew his conclusion that > partner had psyched. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > All right Grattan, and now back to the real world. I have just perpetrated my fourth Spanish Heart in four years time. It is with a partner who knows I am capable of doing this. Since it is a low occurence, there is nothing to be said about his actions in the first two rounds, but by the third round, he knows (from opponents' action and his own not zero holding) that something is amiss, and he recognises it must have been I who psyched. I now refer to your sentence above and I see that the knowledge that I psyched before is called by you "illegal knowledge". What must my partner do in order for this "illegal knowledge" not to be illegal any more? He cannot now, at this instant, start saying to opponents: "oh, you know my partner has opened 1He in 3rd seat on less than 3 points three times in the past three years!" So maybe such is knowledge that the opponents should have received in the beginning (as by a mention on the CC "psyches possible"). Please tell me how I must get out of this dilemma without: - being ruled illegal fielding of a psyche; - being ruled HUM; - being prohibited to do this psyche ever again; I am willing to accept a ruling based on MI if the TD judges that my CC is not mentioning the particulars of my psyching tendencies in enough detail. I am not willing to give up a perfectly legal tactic simply because I want to be honest enough to admit that I do this particular psyche once a year or so. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 17 07:30:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:30:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000e01c34bea$908a7790$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <002201c34c2f$c6abfd40$1756e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > > > Where do I find this writ that allows the SO to > mandate that an opening on 9 points is illegal. > > I am talking about specifically the mandate to > limit the practice of opening on any particular > 9-count as opposed to a partnership agreement > to open such a hand. > +=+ We have been here before. I have not come across any regulation saying that opening on nine points is illegal. I know of regulations that say, for example, that the use of conventions with 1NT openers that may be made on 9 HCP is illegal. There may be regulations that forbid use of conventions if an opener *is* made on 9 HCP. Such regulations govern the use of conventions and are made under Law 40D. The WBF has confirmed that SOs are free to control the use of conventions as they think fit under Law 40D. In passing we may note that Law 40D refers to "the use of conventions", it does not say "the agreed use of conventions". You do not need to tell me again that you disagree. I know that. We both know also that wailing about it on blml is shouting against the rain. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 17 07:49:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:49:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002301c34c2f$c77b5b30$1756e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > And even then, they may still be utterly ridiculous. > These people are not incapable of thought. Grattan > Endicott, Ton Kooijman and Chip Martel, among > others, are some of the best thinkers you could > meet in a day's march. But sometimes, you wonder... > +=+Oh, come, David! "If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, Thou shalt not harken........" ..... well, not for ten years, anyway. +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 07:59:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F13D049.2040809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > OK Tim, so you implicitely agree that your fluid openings are part of > your system. I'd use the word methods rather than system. > Great. Now all we need to do is agree on what the > regulation actually deals with: "agreement" or "understanding" (your > use of the words). > IMO, the regulation includes the words "by agreement" in order to make > clear that psychs and miscounts are not targeted. And IMO the wording is as it is to indicate that a degree of judgement around agreements is expected. The EBU has no official position on which of us is right and their unofficial positions seem divided. I believe we can both rule "correctly" according to our interpretations albeit ruling differently. I would consider an appeal by either of us against such a ruling to have merit (indeed I would recommend the TD referring such a ruling to an AC). > But a regulation which includes player judgment is also dead letter. > "this particular 8-count, in my judgment, is worth 10 points". > What are you going to say to that? There is already such a requirement in the laws (L40d). The principle of not restricting style and judgement seems a good one to me and since it has been in the laws for years one can assume that TDs/ACs know how to use it. AJ9x,Ax,xxxx,xxx has two quick tricks, a probable desire for a Spade lead, a minor pre-emptive effect and sets up a good chance of competing the part score. In the judgement of many people this would make it worth a 3rd hand opening. xxxx,Ax,Qxxx,Kxx is a bunch of rubbish that few people would consider worth opening 1S 3rd in hand and would provide strong indication of a systemic agreement. These judgement rulings are bread and butter stuff to TDs/ACs. As always it will be necessary for the OS to put their case and attempt to convince - WTP? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 07:59:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <3mucYgDxwIF$Ewpu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS wrote: > > Your partner shows a balanced hand, At what point did this happen? The 1N overcall promises points, stoppers in the enemy suit and a desire to play in 1N. It does not necessarily show a balanced hand (although if the pair has agreed that it does then I too would rule based on a fielded psyche). > you are 6-4 in the majors, and you > play successfully in your doubleton. You get to a contract that should go -800 instead of the -500 available in 3Cx and kamikaze defence allows you to make, would be a rather better description of events. Tim From svenpran@online.no Thu Jul 17 08:24:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:24:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c34c34$6cc4e800$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > David, Sven is right. > Maybe unwittingly so, but Lille is in fact in the region which was > once the county of Flanders. It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. > It is also in the region called French Flanders, and in the > departement des Flandres. I claim no credit for "being right" here. I didn't even know before that there is a district named "Flanders". After discovering the importance of the minutes I have made my own = privately modified version of the (English) laws on my PC: I downloaded all the available minutes together with the laws in html format and then I = inserted bookmarks with all the minutes and hyperlinks with all the affected law paragraphs. For hyperlink texts I simply copied the headings from the minutes together with the number of the actual minute. The whole job took me just a few hours, and there I am: Whenever I look = up a law I automatically have a reminder and pointer(s) to whatever minutes = might be relevant. Handy Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 08:46:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:46:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <3F165464.5040502@skynet.be> OK Tim, valable arguments: Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>OK Tim, so you implicitely agree that your fluid openings are part of >>your system. >> > > I'd use the word methods rather than system. > What's in a word? I've deliberately used a word that is not in the lawbook but which we both know. Methods is the same - and maybe you're right, in the sense that methods could be larger than system, if such a difference were needed. So I agree with your modification. > >>Great. Now all we need to do is agree on what the >>regulation actually deals with: "agreement" or "understanding" (your >>use of the words). >>IMO, the regulation includes the words "by agreement" in order to make >>clear that psychs and miscounts are not targeted. >> > > And IMO the wording is as it is to indicate that a degree of judgement > around agreements is expected. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But then again, how are you going to define the difference between "system", which you agree can be regulated, and "methods", which you say cannot? If you are going to draw the line at the CC, all you are saying is that players can happily fill out their CC incorrectly, and they will not be judged using illegal systems. What is the difference between a player who tells his partner (and/or writes in his system notes) "we open on 9HCP including two tens" and the one who simply opens on 9HCP and two tens and says "I've applied judgment". I agree that both interpretations might be valid, but I fear that your interpretation leads to scoundrels getting away with things honest bridge players won't. > The EBU has no official position on which > of us is right and their unofficial positions seem divided. I believe we > can both rule "correctly" according to our interpretations albeit ruling > differently. I would consider an appeal by either of us against such a > ruling to have merit (indeed I would recommend the TD referring such a > ruling to an AC). > > >>But a regulation which includes player judgment is also dead letter. >>"this particular 8-count, in my judgment, is worth 10 points". >>What are you going to say to that? >> > > There is already such a requirement in the laws (L40d). The principle of > not restricting style and judgement seems a good one to me and since it > has been in the laws for years one can assume that TDs/ACs know how to use > it. AJ9x,Ax,xxxx,xxx has two quick tricks, a probable desire for a Spade > lead, a minor pre-emptive effect and sets up a good chance of competing > the part score. In the judgement of many people this would make it worth > a 3rd hand opening. xxxx,Ax,Qxxx,Kxx is a bunch of rubbish that few > people would consider worth opening 1S 3rd in hand and would provide > strong indication of a systemic agreement. These judgement rulings are > bread and butter stuff to TDs/ACs. As always it will be necessary for the > OS to put their case and attempt to convince - WTP? > But why should they? Why should the AC be called upon to judge whether a particular hand is openable. When a perfectly simple test (10HCP) can do the job as well? The way you were explaining it up there, you would allow the first opening but not the second. So now you not only need to determine whether the second opener did so by "method", but also whether this is a 9-count that satisfies the condition or not? You are complicating matters. What about the honest player who sees a 9-count, wants to open it, but does not. What will you tell him when he learns that his neighbour did open it, and you did not turn it back because the AC decided that that particular 9-count was in fact worth 10? > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 17 08:58:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:58:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> Herman, Lille ? You have to be more precise. There is no (administrative) region called French Flanders. It is called Nord-Pas de Calais, they wanted at some stage (formal administrative regions in France are a recent thing) to call it Flanders but this caused political problems. As far as I know Flanders (in the sense of the semi independent Belgian region) really didn't like that idea. There is no Departement des Flandres. Lille is the capital of the Departement du Nord. But yes, the informal name of the area is French Flanders. It used to be part of historical Flanders, which included even nowadays Arras 60 km south of Lille. And the local regional bridge authority is called Committee des Flandres. That kind of bodies are not important enough to ignite international protests. Herman: It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. Big deal, hundreds of towns/villages south of the current border have Flemish names. But once more you have to be more precise, it is called Rijsel in Dutch/Flemish. It is a well-known trap because in Dutch you expect two s's (there is a Dutch town called Rijssen, besides it is consistent with Dutch grammar). Don't worry, I have seen the Dutch government, the Dutch Railways and the Dutch Airlines making this mistake in official text's (but then Lille is called Lille in Holland). But you are the first Fleming I have seen doing so. In Antwerp (your home town) Lille is really called Rijsel by the average guy in the street, and in the station the train to Lille is announced as the train to Rijsel (which is not the same as saying that Lille has even a Dutch/Flemish name). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > David Burn wrote: > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > >>Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: > >> > > > > Crikey. Is Lille in Flanders? And there was I thinking it was in France. > > Just goes to show that, as Karel has been at pains to point our > > recently, I am a long way from infallible. > > > > > David, Sven is right. > Maybe unwittingly so, but Lille is in fact in the region which was > once the county of Flanders. It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. > It is also in the region called French Flanders, and in the > departement des Flandres. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 17 09:01:46 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:01:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <007601c34c3a$16984d40$18224451@Default> Hans: Someone wrote, that nine matches could not be played. As I understand it, teams could choose from getting a score of 15-15 or replay the match. If not agreed the match was replayed. 6 matches were replayed. I don't know the details (when it is 37 degrees or so you are running for beer if you don't have a very good reason to stay) but the above matches = my memory. I am not surprised that some matches were given 15-15 because the replay was scheduled at the end of a stage af a swiss (it was something l= ike match 5 of a 7 round swiss was fouled up, I might have the exact numbers wrong). So if both teams were out, why play (playing meant a late match after playing all day starting at 10 am). But it also means things got completely screwed up. Imagine the 5th round match A-B. A still has a cha= nce to qualify given a big win or so. B is out (or safely in), hot, and tired= . So B doesn't want to play. Do they have to ? And what about C who is hang= ing on to n-th place (n qualifying) which might lose it spot to A. They proba= bly don't like that kind of circumstances. If B is really forced to play agai= nst their will what do you expect. How are you going to solve that ? In real life it will have been more complicated with more A's, B's and C's. Hans >There were also other mishaps.In one of our matches the boards 26 and 27 were exchanged and as we did not play the >same physical boards, two boar= ds (out of 10)were scrapped (and it must have happened in at least one more match). Of >course, we lost two good boards! Happened to me as well. I got lucky, I lost two bad boards. Maybe against you ? Hans: Whatever the circumstances, we have to play the same physical boards, or.= ... I agree, every sane person agrees, but now explain that to the EBL and th= e EBL ops director. By now I can predict his excuse quite well. Basically w= e (you and me) don't know the relevant facts (so how do we dare to have an opinion about it) and he and his staff did a great job given the circumstances (the later might well be true). Leaves the question why tho= se circumstances were so terrible and who was responsible for that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hall=E9n" To: Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Someone wrote, that nine matches could not be played. As I understand it, teams could choose from getting a score of 15-15 or replay the match. If not agreed the match was replayed. 6 matches were replayed. There were also other mishaps.In one of our matches the boards 26 and 27 were exchanged and as we did not play the same physical boards, two board= s (out of 10)were scrapped (and it must have happened in at least one more match). Of course, we lost two good boards! We played the same physical boards in the first matches, so it was possib= le to arrange. Whatever the circumstances, we have to play the same physical boards, or.= ... Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Jul 17 09:50:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:50:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c34c40$81cf72e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Personally I have no problem with that, but there is a question of copyright. So if I receive approval from the competent body I shall of course make my little work available to anybody interested.=20 I believe the body to approve must be EBL, but I am a little confused by = the detailed specifications in the preface to the laws; apparently the = copyright is split between several bodies depending upon where in the world it = shall apply. Internet is rather global these days. Regards Sven=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Rainsford [mailto:gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk] > Sent: 17. juli 2003 10:07 > To: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 >=20 > I wonder if you might consider making this hard work available to > others? >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Gordon >=20 >=20 > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:24 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >> Herman De Wael > > ......... > >> David, Sven is right. > >> Maybe unwittingly so, but Lille is in fact in the region which was > >> once the county of Flanders. It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. > >> It is also in the region called French Flanders, and in the > >> departement des Flandres. > > > > I claim no credit for "being right" here. I didn't even know before > > that > > there is a district named "Flanders". > > > > After discovering the importance of the minutes I have made my own > > privately > > modified version of the (English) laws on my PC: I downloaded all = the > > available minutes together with the laws in html format and then I > > inserted > > bookmarks with all the minutes and hyperlinks with all the affected = law > > paragraphs. For hyperlink texts I simply copied the headings from = the > > minutes together with the number of the actual minute. > > > > The whole job took me just a few hours, and there I am: Whenever I > > look up a > > law I automatically have a reminder and pointer(s) to whatever = minutes > > might > > be relevant. > > > > Handy > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Jul 17 10:41:53 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:41:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CBF2@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> DWS wrote: >=20 > Your partner shows a balanced hand,=20 TWM wrote: >At what point did this happen? The 1N overcall promises points, = stoppers=20 >in the enemy suit and a desire to play in 1N. It does not necessarily=20 >show a balanced hand (although if the pair has agreed that it does then = I=20 >too would rule based on a fielded psyche). Oh come on Tim, you are way off base here. In the EBU at least, a = natural 1NT overcall is non-forcing, a defined range of 10+ points and = balanced or semi-balanced (no singleton or 7-card suit). If you want to = play it as anything else it has to be alerted, and a BRIEF look through = the Orange Book seems to imply you can't just play it as 'points, = stoppers and a desire to play in 1N'. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 11:49:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:49:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> <007601c34c3a$16984d40$18224451@Default> Message-ID: <3F167F57.5000907@skynet.be> Hasse, Jaap, I agree that this was a mess - but what could we do? I was on the AC that assisted the CTD in coming up with the final decision: Let me first tell you a few of the facts: It happened in round 2 of a swiss which had to have 5 rounds. After round two there was a lunch break, during which this had to be decided upon. There were roughly 9 matches out of 60 that were affected (precise numbers). We had a few possibilities: - score the affected matches 18-18 (seems fair, but there were half-affected matches) - score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected board and top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all existing regulations) - cancel the entire second round (no need to say this did not get many votes) - replay all the affected matches during the 3rd round, sending all other teams to the beach, and order them to all play late (maybe the best solution, but hardly reasonable) - replay affected matches at the end (of course with some teams already knowing what they need); complete partly affected matches by playing as many boards as necessary. We chose the last solution. Of course then there were a number of teams that refused to play. Initially we wanted to give them 18-0, but what if both teams refused? So we allowed them, if both agreed, to opt for 15-15 provided they did so immediately. Which a number of them did. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Hans: > Someone wrote, that nine matches could not be played. > As I understand it, teams could choose from getting a score of 15-15 or > replay the match. If not agreed the match was replayed. 6 matches were > replayed. > > I don't know the details (when it is 37 degrees or so you are running for > beer if you don't have a very good reason to stay) but the above matches my > memory. I am not surprised that some matches were given 15-15 because the > replay was scheduled at the end of a stage af a swiss (it was something like > match 5 of a 7 round swiss was fouled up, I might have the exact numbers > wrong). So if both teams were out, why play (playing meant a late match > after playing all day starting at 10 am). But it also means things got > completely screwed up. Imagine the 5th round match A-B. A still has a chance > to qualify given a big win or so. B is out (or safely in), hot, and tired. > So B doesn't want to play. Do they have to ? And what about C who is hanging > on to n-th place (n qualifying) which might lose it spot to A. They probably > don't like that kind of circumstances. If B is really forced to play against > their will what do you expect. How are you going to solve that ? In real > life it will have been more complicated with more A's, B's and C's. > Yes of course, but what can you do? I'm sure the TD's were on the look-out for strange scores. BTW, this wwas the chance for the French Ladies to get a mention for sportivity. This happened while the ladies were still on their round-robin, and the extra matches had to be played after the end of that RR. By then, the french ladies knew they had won their group and even a score of 0 could not bring them down the order. But a score of 18-0 would not be enough for their opponents to qualify for the next stage, while some higher scores would be enough. The French ladies did in fact play their match (and lost by more than 18). > Hans > >>There were also other mishaps.In one of our matches the boards 26 and 27 >> > were exchanged and as we did not play the >same physical boards, two boards > (out of 10)were scrapped (and it must have happened in at least one more > match). Of >course, we lost two good boards! > > Happened to me as well. I got lucky, I lost two bad boards. Maybe against > you ? > > Hans: > Whatever the circumstances, we have to play the same physical boards, or.... > > I agree, every sane person agrees, but now explain that to the EBL and the > EBL ops director. By now I can predict his excuse quite well. Basically we > (you and me) don't know the relevant facts (so how do we dare to have an > opinion about it) and he and his staff did a great job given the > circumstances (the later might well be true). Leaves the question why those > circumstances were so terrible and who was responsible for that. > Look, during the mixed teams everyone received all boards, there was no sharing at all. During the open teams that was no longer possible, but then sharing with a close-by table is just as good as having caddies run thousands of miles just to bring the right boards there. Considering the enormous reliability of the duplication (up till then) I don't blame the organisers for this mishap. I have another story about this but I'll post it in a different thread. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 11:55:53 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:55:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton Duplication mishap and Calculation Message-ID: <3F1680B9.4080708@skynet.be> We've told you about the duplication mishap - a number of sets of boards during a swiss were wrongly duplicated and since board sharing was with close tables, not those of the same match, several matches were affected with half or all their boards being no longer comparable. Sabine Auken was one of the players affected and she was not happy she needed to play an additional round (in the end she did settle for 15-15). She came up to us and made the following suggestion: If the misduplicated boards were all with the same cards (they were) then why not use Butler scoring to calculate a team result? We answered that this was a good suggestion, but that it was not covered in the Laws. "Then change the laws" she says. "Tell that to someone on the Laws Committee" we reply. "I don't know anyone on the laws committee" At which point we all laughed. She was talking to two members (Ton K and Antonio Riccardi) and is married to a third. "I didn't know Jens was on that Committee!" Anyway, the suggestion is valid and I used it last week. But that's for yet another mail. My lunch is getting cold. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 12:07:29 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:07:29 +0100 Subject: Spam Alert: RE: [blml] a Club ruling References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CBF2@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001901c34c53$9d1b1460$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Frances wrote: >Oh come on Tim, you are way off base here. In the EBU at least, a natural 1NT overcall is non-forcing, a defined range of 10+ points and balanced or semi-balanced (no singleton or 7-card suit). If you want to play it as anything else it has to be alerted, and a BRIEF look through the Orange Book seems to imply you can't just play it as 'points, stoppers and a desire to play in 1N'. I'm afraid you are missing the point. Tim can play what he likes - it doesn't matter what the rules are. They don't apply to him. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 12:16:21 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> Message-ID: <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> Oops, I stand corrected - partly: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > Lille ? > > You have to be more precise. > > There is no (administrative) region called French Flanders. It is called Indeed. I knew that - I was talking non-administrative. > Nord-Pas de Calais, they wanted at some stage (formal administrative regions > in France are a recent thing) to call it Flanders but this caused political > problems. As far as I know Flanders (in the sense of the semi independent > Belgian region) really didn't like that idea. > > There is no Departement des Flandres. Lille is the capital of the > Departement du Nord. > Indeed - I was wrong there. > But yes, the informal name of the area is French Flanders. It used to be > part of historical Flanders, which included even nowadays Arras 60 km south > of Lille. And the local regional bridge authority is called Committee des > Flandres. That kind of bodies are not important enough to ignite > international protests. > Indeed - that was what I was thinking of. > Herman: > It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. > > Big deal, hundreds of towns/villages south of the current border have > Flemish names. But once more you have to be more precise, it is called > Rijsel in Dutch/Flemish. It is a well-known trap because in Dutch you expect > two s's (there is a Dutch town called Rijssen, besides it is consistent with > Dutch grammar). Don't worry, I have seen the Dutch government, the Dutch > Railways and the Dutch Airlines making this mistake in official text's (but > then Lille is called Lille in Holland). But you are the first Fleming I have > seen doing so. In Antwerp (your home town) Lille is really called Rijsel by > the average guy in the street, and in the station the train to Lille is > announced as the train to Rijsel (which is not the same as saying that Lille > has even a Dutch/Flemish name). > There I must again correct you, Jaap. I'm trying to find more sources, but already one of them spells it Rijssel. I'm looking further - you do too? Not that it's that important and certainly not as important as L16C2. > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > >>David Burn wrote: >> >> >>>Sven wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: >>>> >>>> >>>Crikey. Is Lille in Flanders? And there was I thinking it was in France. >>>Just goes to show that, as Karel has been at pains to point our >>>recently, I am a long way from infallible. >>> >>> >> >>David, Sven is right. >>Maybe unwittingly so, but Lille is in fact in the region which was >>once the county of Flanders. It even has a Flemish name: Rijssel. >>It is also in the region called French Flanders, and in the >>departement des Flandres. >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From henk@ripe.net Thu Jul 17 12:26:59 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:26:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > There I must again correct you, Jaap. I'm trying to find more sources, > but already one of them spells it Rijssel. I'm looking further - you > do too? The French tourist information calls it Rijsel. 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 bramble@ukonline.co.uk Thu Jul 17 12:44:26 2003 From: bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Chas Fellows) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:44:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > From: David Stevenson > True, it depends on what is said. If declarer says "Spade" without > interruption and apparently has finished speaking, then he has > designated a card partially, and there is a Law to cover it. But if he > is part way through a designation and dummy interrupts then he has not > made a designation, and it can be corrected. I'm sorry I don't buy this - a partial designation is still a designation. If declarer calls for a card from dummy by saying "spade..." before being interrupted by dummy, then he has started to make a designation, whether he intended to complete it by naming a rank (L46A) or add nothing in which case he has called for a small spade (L46B2). If this lead is from the wrong hand then ISTM that in either case, he has already committed an infraction and it is too late for dummy to "attempt to prevent" that under L42B2. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 12:44:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:44:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CBF2@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <001901c34c53$9d1b1460$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004501c34c58$c5e5a360$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Interesting. I have just noticed that my ISP thinks that messages headed "a Club ruling" are spam. Maybe it's right. Apologies for messing up the headers for those with threading software. David Burn London, England From luis@fuegolabs.com Thu Jul 17 13:01:43 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:01:43 -0300 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <017601c34be8$f3b18860$95e1193e@4nrw70j> <3F164679.9020406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <022701c34c5b$304be140$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> > I now refer to your sentence above and I see that the knowledge that I > psyched before is called by you "illegal knowledge". > What must my partner do in order for this "illegal knowledge" not to > be illegal any more? > He cannot now, at this instant, start saying to opponents: "oh, you > know my partner has opened 1He in 3rd seat on less than 3 points three > times in the past three years!" > So maybe such is knowledge that the opponents should have received in > the beginning (as by a mention on the CC "psyches possible"). > Please tell me how I must get out of this dilemma without: > - being ruled illegal fielding of a psyche; > - being ruled HUM; > - being prohibited to do this psyche ever again; > I am willing to accept a ruling based on MI if the TD judges that my > CC is not mentioning the particulars of my psyching tendencies in > enough detail. > > I am not willing to give up a perfectly legal tactic simply because > > I want to be honest enough to admit that I do this particular psyche > once a year or so. Your pd shouldn't have any obligations besides being honest if asked, a good player playing opposite you should ask what are your records about psyches when opening in third hand. And they are entitled to know you opened on less than 3HCP in third position twice in the last 2 years then they can do whatever they want with that information as well as your pd. This is in my opinion different to the case presented where all the south bids directly inferred from start that his pd was psyching the 1nt bid with some sort of one suited hand so that should be an agreement and then it can be ilegal. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that your pd is entitled to act based on partnership experience when you don't have an agreement taking his own risks OTOH he can't use conventional methods to deal with something that it is likely a psyche from the very first bid. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 17 13:26:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:26:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <000201c34a9c$553cafe0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030717142508.02449010@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:32 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >David said he was too tired. Sometimes I get tired too. At blml sometimes we >get endless legal smart talk and we forget all about playing bridge. > > > AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North > > could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT >bid, > > which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough > > to make 1NT alertable. > > If NS can produce some evidence that this redouble asks North to bid his >5+ > > suit, and 2C if he hasn't any (this could be the reason why he didn't bid > > 2C here), I don't see what was illegal in this sequence. > >Alain, all this is complete nonsense. Of course south CAN have a hand where >2D plays better than 2S. We all know that sometimes the 1NT has xx xx >AKQJxxx Ax. But normally partner does NOT have 6 diamonds. And normally >partner DOES have at least 2 spades. AG : and normally partner answers 2C. When he says 2D, there should be some reason. What's wrong with this reasoning ? In said sequence, I would *expect* partner to have 6 diamonds and weakness in one (or both) major (s). From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 17 13:33:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:33:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c349f2$c6a63340$a8b64351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030717142719.0245ab80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:16 14/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner writes > >At 12:29 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > >>Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one > >>way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is > >>ridiculous. > > > >AG : please note that a ridiculous bid is not an infraction in the strict > >sense of the term. > > > > > >>Of course partner can have a hand where another partscore is > >>better than 2S but that would be at extremely long odds. > >> > >>Now this is when 1NT is natural. If it turns out they always double on > >>balanced hands and 1NT is 'always' suit based it becomes a completely > >>different story. Then it is normal to try to play the NT bidders suit > >>(because you are 'sure' it exists). But in that case there is a disclosure > >>problem. > >> > >>So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an > >>argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT > >>natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going > >>on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. > > > >AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North > >could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT bid, > >which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough > >to make 1NT alertable. > > Where? Are you sure it is not alertable under Irish alerting regs? > > If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play >in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. > > Sure, it may be legal to play it that way, and probably is under most >jurisdictions. But what about disclosure? AG : don't know about Ireland; In Belgium, if the bid shows opening values, a well-defined range (no more than 4 HCP wide), a stopper and balanced or semi-balanced hand (ie, no small singleton, no 7-carder), you don't have to alert it. > It may be fun to bid 1NT on any 6421 hand you feel like, let pd tell >the opponents it is a normal balanced hand AG : seems you didn't read the hand well, David? Said hand contains a singleton *honor*, and as such may be treated as semi-balanced. If I was accustomed to bid 1NT on such a hand (which I don't, because I play 1NT as a 2-suiter), partner shouldn't have to alert it. But of course he should have to disclose it on asking. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 17 14:10:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A club Ruling References: Message-ID: <009c01c34c64$ed6585c0$179868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Karel] Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South North S:Q3 H- D:97543 C:KQT653 South S:J97642 H:KT75 D:T8 C:4 S W N E P 1C 1NT* Dbl Rdbl% P 2D Dbl P! P * 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds. % SOS ! No agreement -- most likely SOS. South is a good player. North is an expert. They've played on occasion but are not a partnership. [Nigel] Were I a TD, I would rule for +800 for EW but impose an additional PP on NS because as experienced players I would expect them to know better. A significant pause before a bid at the one or two level is UI. It usually indicates an unusual problem or an imaginative action. South should be careful not to choose any logical alternative so suggested. IMO, XX & Pass are suspect. Well the pass is "outside three sigma" (as John McLaren would put it). It seems to be an *illogical* alternative that could only be suggested by UI. South's explanation is hard to believe! IMO, an expert should *offer to infer* but not *speculate unasked* on the meaning of undiscussed auctions. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003 From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Jul 17 16:46:11 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:46:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] A club Ruling Message-ID: <3f16c4c3.123a.0@esatclear.ie> >[Karel] >Board 7 Vul all. Dealer South >North S:Q3 H- D:97543 C:KQT653 >South S:J97642 H:KT75 D:T8 C:4 >S W N E >P 1C 1NT* Dbl >Rdbl% P 2D Dbl >P! P >* 15-17. Agreed pause 4/5 seconds. >% SOS >! No agreement -- most likely SOS. +++ at the time I ruled 2D's making as the N/S pair convinced me (I knew both of them as ethical players) that their sequence was upfront. I never considered the information from N's SOS explanation a la David burn (which while eye opening certainly wasn't an issue here). I must also confess that E/W's appalling defence didn't endear me to them. I had no problem visualising a 6 card diamond suit in the north hand and accepting S's pass. The "older" experienced battle hardened members amongst us didn't listen to any "nonsense" and boom the axe came down. Fair enough. The slightly more broad minded of us accepted that off beat 1NT's etc were possible and that a long diamond suit was probable - but pointed out that the pause made it virtually impossible for S to ethically pass 2D*. Quite reasonable. The "younger" bunch felt that the pause could have been anything and that the bidding and not the pause suggested long diamonds. Ergo pass was fair enough. They gave the benefit of the doubt to the OS. Again fair enough, if somewhat optimistic. I being the only person actually there and knowing the personalities involved, fell into the younger bunch. So be it. >From a completely objective view, knowing absolutely nothing about the people involved, I'd fall into the middle group. Maybe in 30 years time I'll brook no nonsense as well, but for now I still have some faith in player's integrity. It will take me many many years before I jump to the "cheating" category - sry David, but I'll be dead before I ever utter those words. After the competition was over I had doubts as to my ruling. I felt that while E/W fully deserved -180 (and still do), I felt that my objectivity had been compromised by the knowledge of the players and that N/S, especially S, may subconsciously have been effected by the auctions tone, tempo and other factors. It's pretty hard to say what the final bid would have been, so what should you rule ?? Now a few questions - If I decide to ammend N/S's score to 2S*-3 or 3C*-2 then am I forced to do the same for E/W ?? This I don't think would be fair in this case. - If there was no pause and no SOS explanation (a simple no agreement) does the score stand ?? - If S had alerted N's 1NT as "usually 14-18 but may be off shape weaker or even a psyche" does the score stand ?? If so whats to stop players alerting all overcalls/bids as what they usually mean or a psyche and avoiding "a fielded psyche" ruling ?? K. Nb - I did do a secondary scoring with 2S*-3 E/W and N/S btw - it didn't effect the top 3 placings and told both pairs involved, so they were happy enough. I told them I'd see what the powers to be would have ruled and will pass on your words of wisdom (bar the cheating bit). -- http://www.iol.ie From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 17 16:50:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:50:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <002301c34c2f$c77b5b30$1756e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000701c34c7b$1e1b4d60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: "David Burn" > > > > And even then, they may still be utterly ridiculous. > > These people are not incapable of thought. Grattan > > Endicott, Ton Kooijman and Chip Martel, among > > others, are some of the best thinkers you could > > meet in a day's march. But sometimes, you wonder... > > > +=+Oh, come, David! "If there arise among you a > prophet or a dreamer of dreams, Thou shalt not > harken........" > ..... well, not for ten years, anyway. +=+ > It could be that the LC interpretation is not so bad as it seems at first sight. Leading low from KQJx to partner's penalty card ace could hardly be an exception to a general rule that a defender need not be required to commit suicide by ignoring the size of the card. E.g., on lead with QJ9, 10xx to the right in dummy, it is bad enough that partner will have to play the ace when I lead the suit. Requiring that I lead the queen, pretending not to see the ace, is too draconian a penalty to pay. Unless the LC is expected to list every card combination, exempting some from UI but not others, there has to be a general rule that is not excessively severe. After all, a penalty card in itself figures to be damaging enough to the OS without tacking on more damage. If on rare occasions it benefits the OS, that is an acceptable price to pay for a simple rule. You can know the size of the card when leading the suit, but you can't know anything more about it, even its HCP value. After all, the TD can adjust if the OS obviously benefits from the infraction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Long Beach NABC until 26 July From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 17:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <002001c34bef$8da3e020$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David wrote: > Tim West-Meads in his usual thoughtful fashion described as the work of > a nasty little toe-rag, others have come forward to support the views When a person makes an accusation of cheating in a public forum based on insufficient facts I think "nasty little toe-rag" is pretty appropriate. I stick by that opinion. As far as I can tell David and I were in agreement when it came to not treating it as fielded psyche, and also in agreement that 2S was a non-suggested alternative to the pass of 2D. David was of the opinion that "The XX is undiscussed but is probably SOS because that is how players from this group usually play it" would be reasonable disclosure while "The XX is undiscussed but probably SOS" was clear evidence of cheating. A judgement I consider truly bizarre. Frances gave the hand to a number of players who do not habitually play SOS redoubles and it would appear that the XX was not considered a reasonable call (perhaps due to a degree of unfamiliarity with the method). However she did seem to indicate that had redouble been chosen it would be a close decision whether 2S over 2D would be an LA. Players get close LA decisions wrong every day of the week without being accused of cheating - and that is as it should be. Things are tough enough at the bridge table without such accusations. Oh, and if others have come forward to support the cheating accusations I say "shame on them". There is no way such accusations are justified by the evidence presented. And if that makes me a pompous and ignorant oaf so be it. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 17:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307170411.h6H4Bn3i001275@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Ted wrote: > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being > off- shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. I fully agree Ted. That is why it is important to find out what 2C would have been in this pair's methods. For instance if playing that the SOS redouble shows any weak hand with two+ places to play and 2C is "one of your suits pard" then a good 5/6 card diamond suit on the actual sequence is no longer low-percentage but almost assured. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 17:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CBF2@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: > DWS wrote: > > > > Your partner shows a balanced hand, > > TWM wrote: > > >At what point did this happen? The 1N overcall promises points, > stoppers >in the enemy suit and a desire to play in 1N. It does not > necessarily >show a balanced hand (although if the pair has agreed that > it does then I >too would rule based on a fielded psyche). > > Oh come on Tim, you are way off base here. In the EBU at least, a > natural 1NT overcall is non-forcing, a defined range of 10+ points and > balanced or semi-balanced (no singleton or 7-card suit). I suggest you check the laws Frances. Definitions: Convention 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Are you really suggesting that promising stoppers in a bid suit makes a NT overcall conventional? Now I grant you that the EBU attempts to define "natural" in a weird way. We are thus left in EBU-land with a bid that is neither natural nor conventional. It isn't even artificial. One thing for sure is that it is outside the scope of the EBU to regulate and (providing it shows more than 9 HPC) they haven't even tried. > If you want to play it as anything else it has to be alerted, and a > BRIEF look through the Orange Book seems to imply you can't just play it > as 'points, stoppers and a desire to play in 1N'. That is the natural meaning! You can't get more natural than "This is where I suggest we play". Note that the requirement to alert if off-shape NTs are common applies only to opening NTs - not to overcalls (you will need to check the website http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/regulations/orange_book_changes.htm 13.3.1 to see that bit). When one gets a hand like AQx,K,AQxx,QTxxx and RHO opens 1S I really hate the alternatives to 1N. 2C on such a pitiful suit is horrid and pass is just too pusillanimous. Double gets the inevitable 3H/4H response from partner on a six count with 5 hearts and leaves you nowhere. 1N "looks" natural, feels natural - damn it - it *is* natural. BTW even by the weird EBU definition a 1N overcall of 1C could be made on xx,xx,AKQJxx,AJx. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 17:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: Spam Alert: RE: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <001901c34c53$9d1b1460$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > Frances wrote: > > >Oh come on Tim, you are way off base here. In the EBU at least, a > natural 1NT overcall is non-forcing, a defined range of 10+ points and > balanced or semi-balanced (no singleton or 7-card suit). If you want to > play it as anything else it has to be alerted, and a BRIEF look through > the Orange Book seems to imply you can't just play it as 'points, > stoppers and a desire to play in 1N'. > > I'm afraid you are missing the point. Tim can play what he likes - it > doesn't matter what the rules are. They don't apply to him. Oh the rules apply to me. Just as they apply to the EBU and everyone else. Not only that but David will not find a single instance of me breaking EBU regs (even by his definitions). Perhaps while considering this David would be kind enough to point out any regulation of agreements to play non-conventional NTs in the Orange book. (And not just the damn silly alerting regulations which confuse most opps more than they help them.) Tim From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Jul 17 17:22:23 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:22:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling References: Message-ID: > DWS wrote: > > > > Your partner shows a balanced hand, TWM wrote: The 1N overcall promises points, stoppers > in the enemy suit and a desire to play in 1N. It does not necessarily > show a balanced hand (although if the pair has agreed that it does then I > too would rule based on a fielded psyche). K: Without opining on the thread per se, I think TWM is mistaken about what 1NT overcall promises. Absent any agreements to the contrary, a direct 1NT overcall promises balanced hand, 15-18 HCP and one or more stoppers in opponent's suit. If partnership has an agreement that this 1NT can have a singleton and/or can be unbalanced , then it is alertable. This is at least how it is played here in ACBL unless I am mistaken. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jul 17 17:35:00 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9BD20454-B874-11D7-B520-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > That is the natural meaning! You can't get more natural than "This is > where I suggest we play". If we accept this, then both a Gambling 3NT opener and a 3NT overcall are natural. Would you not alert those? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jul 17 18:04:36 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-Meads" at Jul 17, 2003 05:01:00 PM Message-ID: <200307171704.h6HH4aNW025305@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:01 +0100 (BST) > > Ted wrote: > > > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being > > off- shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. > > I fully agree Ted. That is why it is important to find out what 2C would > have been in this pair's methods. For instance if playing that the SOS > redouble shows any weak hand with two+ places to play and 2C is "one of > your suits pard" then a good 5/6 card diamond suit on the actual sequence > is no longer low-percentage but almost assured. > TY: You and I differ here. I think that when the OS have not discussed XX ('undiscussed but probably SOS' is close to the given explanation when asked), then I think it unlikely they have discussed the responses to the bid. If there is no discussion about the system, but they agree that the bid is SOS, then one can assume that the response would be the lowest suit that the responder to the SOS is willing to play in. The implication is that clubs is not a suit (s)he is willing to play, but that diamonds is a suit that (s)he is willing to play. This no more implies that the length is a good-5 or 6 card suit than a 4 to bad-5 card suit. What would you answer to XX on the following hands? KQx / Jxxx / AQxx / KJx AQx / Txx / KJxx / AQx Qx / AT9x / Qxxx / AKQ Ax / KJx / 9xxxx / AQx AJx / QTxx / Kxxx / AQ I could go on. Distributionally, a 4 or bad-5 card suit is still more than twice as likely as a good-5 or 6 card suit will be. And even if partner has a five card suit, the odds that partner will have more than one spade is still significantly higher. I personally think that the hitch suggests an off-shape hand and that diamonds may be longer or better than spades. Without the hitch, I'd allow the pass, but would evaluate it as a bad choice, but with the hitch, I don't think you can allow a pass of 2D. -Ted. From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 17 17:54:30 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:54:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030717142508.02449010@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006401c34c88$493fff60$e0254451@Default> Alain, Please read David Burn. 1. Over the xx 2C is natural (until further notice). 2. Tell me why the heck someone with a 5332 should not bid his five card suit. Alain: > When he says 2D, there should be some reason. Yes there is some reason, the reason for him bidding his five bagger is you making a SOS redouble. Or are you playing redouble as asking for good six card suits ? That is not your standard SOS redouble you know. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > At 16:32 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >David said he was too tired. Sometimes I get tired too. At blml sometimes we > >get endless legal smart talk and we forget all about playing bridge. > > > > > AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North > > > could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT > >bid, > > > which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough > > > to make 1NT alertable. > > > If NS can produce some evidence that this redouble asks North to bid his > >5+ > > > suit, and 2C if he hasn't any (this could be the reason why he didn't bid > > > 2C here), I don't see what was illegal in this sequence. > > > >Alain, all this is complete nonsense. Of course south CAN have a hand where > >2D plays better than 2S. We all know that sometimes the 1NT has xx xx > >AKQJxxx Ax. But normally partner does NOT have 6 diamonds. And normally > >partner DOES have at least 2 spades. > > AG : and normally partner answers 2C. When he says 2D, there should be some > reason. What's wrong with this reasoning ? In said sequence, I would > *expect* partner to have 6 diamonds and weakness in one (or both) major (s). > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 17 18:24:27 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:24:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> Herman: > There I must again correct you, Jaap. I'm trying to find more sources, > but already one of them spells it Rijssel. I'm looking further - you > do too? Please Herman, Before correcting me please check some facts first. When I put things as I did I am sure of myself (strange you don't understand that kind of things). It is Rijsel with one s (yes contra intuitive) And if you don't believe me go to your local railway station. Or take a car up the highway and look at the signs. Or look it up in some kind of formal reference. Besides I made a small 'mistake'. What you call French Flanders is called just Flandres in France. But the French use normally Nord to refer to the area (which is bigger than just the Departement du Nord). Also in Holland we say North France rather than French Flanders. So maybe it is just a Flemish quirck. Although in English I don't know due to the famous poem: ... Flanders' Fields ... the poppies blow ... the crosses row by row ... Now the bloodiest battles including Britsh troops in the Great War were fought in Picardy (the 1st and 2nd battle of the Somme) not in Flandres. But since any single Brit knows that poem by heart it must have some effect on the default meaning of Flanders in their language. Jaap From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 17 09:40:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:40:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <017601c34be8$f3b18860$95e1193e@4nrw70j> <3F164679.9020406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c34c8a$78d2e1f0$534ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > grandeval wrote: > > >> > > +=+ A player may deduce that his partner has > > psyched from the evidence of the legal meanings > > of the calls and his own holding of cards, together > > with information as to Dealer and vulnerability.. He > > may not do so out of a partnership understanding. > > One way in which a partnership understanding may > > be deemed to have arisen is from prior experience > > of the partner's actions on other occasions. If a > > player's abnormal action bears evidence that he has > > catered for his partner's psyche he should be able to > > provide for the Director a valid explanation of the > > evidence from which, without the assistance of > > illegal knowledge, he drew his conclusion that > > partner had psyched. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > All right Grattan, and now back to the real world. < +=+ Now, I wonder which planet that would be? :-))+=+ < > I have just perpetrated my fourth Spanish Heart in > four years time. > It is with a partner who knows I am capable of doing > this. > Since it is a low occurence, there is nothing to be > said about his actions in the first two rounds, but > by the third round, he knows (from opponents' > action and his own not zero holding) that something > is amiss, and he recognises it must have been I who > psyched. > +=+ Is it clear to him, without reference to prior knowledge of your tendency, that it must be you and not an opponent who has psyched? +=+ < > I now refer to your sentence above and I see that > the knowledge that I psyched before is called by > you "illegal knowledge". > +=+ It is UI +=+ > > What must my partner do in order for this "illegal > knowledge" not to be illegal any more? < +=+ If the knowledge exists you cannot undo it. +=+ < > He cannot now, at this instant, start saying to > opponents: "oh, you know my partner has opened > 1He in 3rd seat on less than 3 points three times in > the past three years!" So maybe such is knowledge > that the opponents should have received in the > beginning (as by a mention on the CC "psyches > possible"). < +=+ If when you open 1H your partner is able to think "Ah! This could be the dreaded peste espanol" then prior disclosure is demanded by the law, and this should comply with the tournament regulations. Since the bidding situation and a specific bid are involved, these details should be given and the method is subject to the system regulations. In relation to WBF regulations, see Appendix 4 re developed partnership understandings. +=+ < > Please tell me how I must get out of this dilemma < +=+ The dilemma, if such it is, is not yours but your partner's. As a 'thinker' (sic) I try to express myself with accuracy. My previous message did not suggest that the knowledge did not exist. It said that the partner must not be assisted by it in diagnosing that the player (here you) has psyched; he cannot take avoiding action on the basis of such a diagnosis unless it is plain from the legal information available to him that (a) there has been a psyche, and (b) the psycher can only reasonably be you. This is the case even if the practice is fully disclosed; the disclosure may help with (b). ~ Grattan ~ From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jul 17 19:01:22 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling In-Reply-To: from "DRD" at Jul 17, 2003 09:22:23 AM Message-ID: <200307171801.h6HI1NHj028269@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "DRD" > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:22:23 -0700 > > > DWS wrote: > > > > > > Your partner shows a balanced hand, > > TWM wrote: > The 1N overcall promises points, stoppers > > in the enemy suit and a desire to play in 1N. It does not necessarily > > show a balanced hand (although if the pair has agreed that it does then I > > too would rule based on a fielded psyche). > > K: > Without opining on the thread per se, I think TWM is mistaken about what > 1NT overcall promises. Absent any agreements to the contrary, a direct 1NT > overcall promises balanced hand, 15-18 HCP and one or more stoppers in > opponent's suit. If partnership has an agreement that this 1NT can have a > singleton and/or can be unbalanced , then it is alertable. This is at least > how it is played here in ACBL unless I am mistaken. > Best regards, > Kaima aka D R Davis > TY: I was curious about the ACBL's stance on this. Note, that this response is only for within the ACBL jurisdiction and does not necessarily hold for any EBU or other SO. Nor am I lobbying for this to be pertinent to any other SO. I checked around the ACBL web-site and found the current ACBL alert procedures (I also checked out the convention charts and the laws, but did not find anything pertinent there). The text from the ACBL Alert procedures: ACBL: "Conventional notrump openings and overcalls require an Alert. Systemically unbalanced or conventional 1NT openings or overcalls by an unpassed hand, when permitted, and openings at the two level or higher with an unusual range or conventional meaning require an Alert." TY: I think that a 6421 shape would qualify as systemically unbalanced and would require an alert. Although I understand that the bid doesn't promise this, but when this is an option, I don't think the majority of bridge players out there will expect this. If you are going to play that this is a possible shape (I wouldn't, but if partner wants to play this I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as I knew beforehand), then I think you should alert the bid and explain that partner may be off-shape for his/her overcall. Again, quoting from the ACBL alert procedure (this time, the introduction): 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 understand 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. This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to explain the auction (including available inferences)." TY: So, I think that the majority of bridge players out there would find an off-shape NT "unexpected" and that the alert should be used in light of historical usage and not local geographical usage where this might be more common in a particular area or more recently. I know it is a pain to alert all NT overcalls for the few unusual hands, but I think that this would be the best course if you are going to continue to overcall on unexpected type hands. -Ted. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jul 17 19:35:16 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] A club Ruling In-Reply-To: <3f16c4c3.123a.0@esatclear.ie> from "Karel" at Jul 17, 2003 04:46:11 PM Message-ID: <200307171835.h6HIZGsv030690@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> I have one correction to your summary below: > From: "Karel" > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:46:11 +0100 > > The slightly more broad minded of us accepted that off beat 1NT's etc were possible > and that a long diamond suit was probable - but pointed out that the pause made > it virtually impossible for S to ethically pass 2D*. Quite reasonable. > As one that I hope you included in the "slightly more broad minded" group, I accepted the fact that off beat or unbalanced hands were possible, but I hardly think that the sequence shown implies that it is probable (and I think there were others in this category as well). There was nothing in the given auction or information that suggested that long diamonds were any more likely than other off-balance hands. Even if 2C suggests tolerance for all suits, it seems to me that any hand with a doubleton in either major would not be able to bid 2C. This would be akin to balancing double situations where you may have to balance with a 4-card suit rather than double if you don't have 3 card tolerance for an unbid suit. However, the final statement that the pause made it virtually impossible for S to ethically pass 2D is true. -Ted. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 20:21:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <9BD20454-B874-11D7-B520-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > That is the natural meaning! You can't get more natural than "This is > > where I suggest we play". > > If we accept this, then both a Gambling 3NT opener and a 3NT overcall > are natural. Would you not alert those? A gambling 3N certainly carries "a meaning other than..". Conventional and alertable is it not? 3N "to play" I wouldn't alert. 3N showing a solid minor (with or without stopper) is conventional and I would alert. I would also alert a 1N overcall if always/usually based on good unbid minor. I wouldn't alert if it is generally points/stopper showing but may occasionally be based on a good unbid minor. I think the difference with the gambling 3N type bids is that the meaning is not "This is where I suggest we play" but "Partner do you have the specific stoppers necessary to make this a good place to play". Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, stopper, 15-17 pts, non-forcing, occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 20:21:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > DWS wrote: > > > > > > Your partner shows a balanced hand, > > TWM wrote: > The 1N overcall promises points, stoppers > > in the enemy suit and a desire to play in 1N. It does not necessarily > > show a balanced hand (although if the pair has agreed that it does > > then I too would rule based on a fielded psyche). > > K: > Without opining on the thread per se, I think TWM is mistaken about > what 1NT overcall promises. Absent any agreements to the contrary, a > direct 1NT overcall promises balanced hand, 15-18 HCP and one or more > stoppers in opponent's suit. If partnership has an agreement that this > 1NT can have a singleton and/or can be unbalanced , then it is > alertable. This is at least how it is played here in ACBL unless I am > mistaken. The actual ACBL regulation is: A notrump opening or overcall if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons) is considered natural. I'd have read this as saying that if singletons are very rare then don't alert, if relatively common alert. E.g. wouldn't alert if singleton could only be A/K, would alert if singleton could be any card (not sure what purpose the word "generally" is serving otherwise). The WBF regulation is "Do not alert.. 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. Thus not alertable if occasionally unbalanced. The EBU regulation on 1N openers is more complex and makes them alertable if they can have a singleton by agreement. There is no similar requirement for 1N overcalls (this may an omission or may be because slightly off-shape 1N overcalls are somewhat more common than openers). In all cases it is obviously possible to agree/not agree or not discuss the degree of balancedness considered suitable. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 17 20:21:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307171704.h6HH4aNW025305@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Ted wrote: > > > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being > > > off- shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > > > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > > > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. > > > > I fully agree Ted. That is why it is important to find out what 2C > > would have been in this pair's methods. For instance if playing that > > the SOS redouble shows any weak hand with two+ places to play and 2C > > is "one of your suits pard" then a good 5/6 card diamond suit on the > > actual sequence is no longer low-percentage but almost assured. > > > TY: You and I differ here. I think that when the OS have not > discussed XX ('undiscussed but probably SOS' is close to the > given explanation when asked), then I think it unlikely they > have discussed the responses to the bid. If there is no > discussion about the system, but they agree that the bid is > SOS, then one can assume that the response would be the lowest > suit that the responder to the SOS is willing to play in. One can't assume anything. One investigates first. If there is a "local standard" for SOS XX then that is what they are probably assumed to be playing. If there are two or more "local standards" one can assume (for adjustment purposes) that they are playing the one giving the least favourable result. > The implication is that clubs is not a suit (s)he is willing > to play, but that diamonds is a suit that (s)he is willing to > play. This no more implies that the length is a good-5 or 6 > card suit than a 4 to bad-5 card suit. > > What would you answer to XX on the following hands? > KQx / Jxxx / AQxx / KJx > AQx / Txx / KJxx / AQx > Qx / AT9x / Qxxx / AKQ > Ax / KJx / 9xxxx / AQx > AJx / QTxx / Kxxx / AQ I would bid 2C on all of them (on hand 4 I probably wouldn't make a 1N overcall anyway). I'd redouble if 2Cx came back round to me. I would expect my partner to understand (even without discussion). Tim From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Jul 17 22:37:18 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:37:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <3750563.1058284685911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <006501c34b63$2e676780$cc2ce150@endicott> <004d01c34b6d$c9f80920$a8b64351@noos.fr> <009c01c34b8a$62ea5400$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <005301c34cab$993ac4f0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Hello everybody ! David Burn wrote : > But whence derives the notion that, because of an infraction no less, > you as a defender are in a position to know *more* than you would > otherwise know about the outcome of a trick before all cards have been > played? This makes no sense, and an "interpretation" that enacts it is > simply wrong. The words of Law 50 are: > > A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, > whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the > requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information > for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the > penalty card is unauthorised for partner). > > This means, as far as I can see, that you are allowed to know that > partner played the ten of spades to the trick because he had to, not > because he wanted to. You do not, for example, have to construe the ten > of spades as the start of a peter, or as a suit preference signal, if > either would be the "normal" meaning of the ten of spades in this > position. In other words, you assume (in effect) that although you > cannot see the ten of spades in partner's hand, someone has pointed a > gun at his head and said "Play this card, or else!", whereupon he has > withdrawn the ten of spades from his hand and played it. You are allowed > to know that he did this under duress and was not trying to signal with > the ten of spades. But you are not allowed to know in advance that he > has the ten of spades - this is "other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card". Otherwise, it may be that your side could > without penalty benefit from its own infraction, by knowing in advance > what card partner will play to a particular trick. As I suggested in a previous post, won't it be possible to back on what happens when applying L50D2 ? Let us say that E has the HA penalized. When W is on lead, he must not play a card before the declarer chooses between the 3 usual options. So W knows to what suit belongs the penalty card : the penalty card is a heart. But nothing indicates which heart it is when declarer tells his choice. When W is not on lead, won't it be possible for W to act with the same information, but only with that information? he would be allowed to know the suit to which belongs the penalty card, but he would not be allowed to know exactly which card it is in said suit ? That would fit L50C as well, and in the case where W has Kx, and would be obliged to play the king when declarer leads towards dummy's HQ... sorry for W ! W would have played the king, had the ace not been penalized, and E has to play the HA as soon as possible, to "cure" the irregularity and restore the normal course of the game as quickly as possible. Making the suit an AI, but the face of the card an UI for the whole L50 would make the Law easier to apply for players, even if it would be painful in some cases. I know that is contrary to [WBFLC Minute, 24 Aug 98], but players need Laws which are based on as few as possible basic guidelines, applying at least to a whole Law, if not to the whole book... Best regards Roger Eymard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 17 22:50:12 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Round robin scoring Message-ID: <200307172150.RAA16314@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > She came up to us and made the following suggestion: > If the misduplicated boards were all with the same cards (they were) > then why not use Butler scoring to calculate a team result? Coincidentally, I've been wondering whether it might be fairer to score round robin competitions as IMP pairs, then add the scores for the two pairs of each team. (This is allowed by L78D, so we should discuss desirability, not legality.) Of course one would use cross-IMPs, not Butler, for a serious competition, but the idea is the same. Suppose in one match, both pairs bid a good slam for a push. In other matches, everyone stops in game, also pushing the board. Shouldn't the slam bidders get a reward? Another advantage, it seems to me, is that we can dispense with victory points. Total IMPs is a fair measure. Using total IMPs makes dumping less attractive: at least one has to judge very well the number of IMPs to be dumped. There is probably something wrong with this idea. Comments? From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jul 18 01:09:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 02:09:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <002001c34bef$8da3e020$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001701c34cc0$dc6145a0$bf264451@Default> David: > others have come forward to support the views > that I expressed (DWS, Japp, and to some extent Gordon had supported > them already). This may mean something, or it may not, but perhaps it > may convince you that I am neither an extremist nor a madman. I was called the Inquisition in the proces. That at least is a bigger compliment than just being called an ordinary Madman. But now serious. I support you on the 'bridge' content. Big surprise there, you are a good and very experienced player with a rather mainstream style. 1. The meaning of redouble is not obvious one way or another. Given the actual hand [as a nice guy] I would think he was crazy rather than that redouble had any serious meaning [as a bad guy] I would think he was catering for a psych. Anyway, redouble natural is quite common and it tends to be (it is) the default meaning, also for non seniors, I have still many years to go to reach that stage. Not because you often get to play 1NT** but just to tell partner you have some points so he can do something intelligent over their run-out. And also because you can use the well known trick of bidding 2C (on say a zero count 4441) rather than redouble and then redouble yourself. It is not fool-proof against real smart opponents, still it almost always works. 2. 2C after a sos redouble is obviously natural en not take out. Don't be completely bonkers (the bunch of you that claims 2C is pick a suit), the guy overcalled 1NT rather than a take out double, so he needs 2C to show clubs rather than to show the other suits. Said in another way, the only suit he couldn't bid at the onelevel was clubs so that is the suit he is most likely to hold (if he has one). In the end 2C might well be your best spot (it was on the actual hand). 3. So him bidding 2D over xx doesn't mean much more than him probably having five of them. I agree with David that on a really balanced hand I might well try 2C and then redouble myself. But some would simply bid any decent fourcard suit down the line so 2D might easily be only four. Which is a fair treatment because in the end a normal sos suggest two fourcard suits somewhere, for partner to run to his long suit you don't need to redouble (he can do that himself). I don't support the view that NS are necessary 'cheating' (I don't think DALB does) although I would give them at least a 3rd degree grilling. But I do understand that David suspect they are cheating (I do also in a way). He might well be right (depending on the exact meaning of cheating). Myself I called the NS performance 'nonsense'. Bridge players tend to be crazy rather than cheaters in my experience. What I try to say is that if someone does something that would be cheating if I (or David or ...) did it, doesn't necessary mean that he is cheating in the more ugly sense of the word. Anyway the fact they ended up in 2D is enough 'proof' for me they were crazy rather than (hard-core) cheating. Even after reading DALB's arguments about that in various posts. He is right if I or he would do so, but these poor idiots probably have no idea what they are doing (I guess they want to have some fun in their perverted way, both never bidding their six card suits). Still they bother other people (their opponents) with this nonsense. And that is not a very good thing if bridge has to remain popular with the masses. For this last reason alone I like that 'fielding a psych' rule. And I have nothing against psychs. I do it myself sometimes. I once won a major tournament with a psych at a crucial stage. Before I put down my dummy in 3S an opponent (a multi times Dutch champion holding European titels) looked at me and said 'you didn't psych did you'. I did. In a way that is, as with most succesful psychs it was not a real psych but rather a tactical ploy, I bid 1S-pas-1NT holding five spades in a weak hand balanced hand. But then I also remember going -1700 or so after 'not fielding' a psych by partner. It was the only time ever that paticular partner had psyched. Two problems here. First he had no talent for it, it was a rather stupid psych. Second, I knew he never psyched, makes a real difference you know. Because that was the only reason I went wrong, the sequence gave me plenty of info but in the end I was playing with him against opps known to be frivolous. So the frequency of psyching is relevant information, to you and so to your opponents. Jaap From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jul 18 04:05:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:05:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> Message-ID: <001c01c34cd9$da994d80$1929e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > Although in English I don't know due to the famous >poem: > ... Flanders' Fields ... the poppies blow ... the crosses > row by row ... Now the bloodiest battles including > Britsh troops in the Great War were fought in Picardy > (the 1st and 2nd battle of the Somme) not in Flandres. > But since any single Brit knows that poem by heart it > must have some effect on the default meaning of > Flanders in their language. > +=+ It is not necessarily true that any Brit born after 1939 will have any idea what Flanders is; many may not even have heard of it. For those born a little earlier than that it is, like Armentieres (where the mademoiselles come from), a place somewhere over the other side of the English Channel where our soldiers were bogged down in World War 1. Roses flower in Picardy, poppies blow in Flanders. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jul 18 04:24:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:24:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling References: <200307171801.h6HI1NHj028269@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <005b01c34cdf$c92355e0$1929e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling > > ACBL: "Conventional notrump openings and > overcalls require an Alert. > > Systemically unbalanced or conventional > 1NT openings or overcalls by an unpassed > hand, when permitted, and openings at the > two level or higher with an unusual range or > conventional meaning require an Alert." > > TY: I think that a 6421 shape would qualify as > systemically unbalanced and would require an > alert. Although I understand that the bid doesn't > promise this, but when this is an option, I don't > think the majority of bridge players out there > will expect this. If you are going to play that > this is a possible shape (I wouldn't, but if > partner wants to play this I wouldn't have a > problem with it as long as I knew beforehand), > then I think you should alert the bid and explain > that partner may be off-shape for his/her > overcall. > +=+ Do ACBL regulations settle for an alert without requiring disclosure on the CC? As a broad general point it is a matter of interest to me what regulations (wherever) say about prior disclosure of methods that may require defence, and the extent to which they call for disclosure at a prior time when the opponents are able to discuss defence. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jul 18 04:45:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:45:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <005c01c34cdf$c9f069e0$1929e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Balanced? a Club ruling . > > The actual ACBL regulation is: > A notrump opening or overcall if not unbalanced > (generally, no singleton or void and only one or > two doubletons) is considered natural. > > I'd have read this as saying that if singletons are > very rare then don't alert, if relatively common > alert. E.g. wouldn't alert if singleton could only > be A/K, would alert if singleton could be any card > (not sure what purpose the word "generally" is > serving otherwise). > > The WBF regulation is "Do not alert.. > 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced > or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump > contract. Thus not alertable if occasionally > unbalanced. > > The EBU regulation on 1N openers is more > complex and makes them alertable if they can > have a singleton by agreement. There is no > similar requirement for 1N overcalls (this may > be an omission or may be because slightly > off-shape 1N overcalls are somewhat more > common than openers). > +=+ The EBL regulation leaves it for decision whether the partnership meaning of the bid "may not be understood by opponents". +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jul 18 07:07:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:07:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> <007601c34c3a$16984d40$18224451@Default> <3F167F57.5000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c34cf2$f0a2bee0$69aa86c2@Default> > Hasse, Jaap, > > I agree that this was a mess - but what could we do? > > I was on the AC that assisted the CTD in coming up with the final > decision: O, O, O, another great example of utter EBL incompetence. First of course it should not have happened. A combination of not having matches play the same physical boards and faulty duplication procedures and or lack of duplication room exit tests. All of them have nothing to do with a professional way of organizing an event. Dear Herman, remember you being upset by me calling it an amateuristic mess which it is. It is really as nice as I can put it without losing my credibility. Herman: > Let me first tell you a few of the facts: > It happened in round 2 of a swiss which had to have 5 rounds. After > round two there was a lunch break, during which this had to be decided > upon. You leave out an important fact. What is in the COC. I don't expect you, the CTD, the AC, nobody to take any decision of the 'what to do' type. Duplication problems, at least small time, are a common problem so I expect the COC to be clear on that one. I expect the CTD to simply follow the COC. In the end it was not that major a disaster, it was 'only' 9 matches out of 60, so you are not going to convince me that there was any reason not to follow whatever is in the COC. But it seems that the COC are no good as well. No surprise there. The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an incompetent amateuristic mess. > We had a few possibilities: > > - score the affected matches 18-18 (seems fair, but there were > half-affected matches) > - score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected board and > top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all > existing regulations) > - [MORE] Make the above two one possibility. The first one is just a special case of the second one. Leaves the second one which you call totally outside the existing regulations. Hmmm. Exactly the above 'possibility' was used when in another round two boards of my match were misduplicated. Both boards were canceled and scored as +3-+3 giving a 31 or 32 VP (I forgot) result. So according to you the TD did something 'totally outside of all existing regulations'. Please explain to me how this is possible. But don't forget the more general question, what are the relevant regulations for gods sake. There need to be some. Anyway, nothing is really wrong with the above approach (scoring +3 +3 with some cap although +2 +2 is more realistic as even the EBL should know by now). I prefer the TD handing out a couple of 18-18 in the second round of a swiss rather than playing some of the second round matches after the swiss is all over. That solution is so contrary to the concept of a swiss that I wonder how any sane person can come up with that solution (ok the fact that it was a qualifier for the first x places makes it a little bit less ridiculous than if finishing 1st or 2nd had a real meaning). But then it is our dear amateuristic incompetent EBL. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Hasse, Jaap, > > I agree that this was a mess - but what could we do? > > I was on the AC that assisted the CTD in coming up with the final > decision: > > Let me first tell you a few of the facts: > It happened in round 2 of a swiss which had to have 5 rounds. After > round two there was a lunch break, during which this had to be decided > upon. > There were roughly 9 matches out of 60 that were affected (precise > numbers). > > We had a few possibilities: > > - score the affected matches 18-18 (seems fair, but there were > half-affected matches) > - score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected board and > top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all > existing regulations) > - cancel the entire second round (no need to say this did not get many > votes) > - replay all the affected matches during the 3rd round, sending all > other teams to the beach, and order them to all play late (maybe the > best solution, but hardly reasonable) > - replay affected matches at the end (of course with some teams > already knowing what they need); complete partly affected matches by > playing as many boards as necessary. > > We chose the last solution. > > Of course then there were a number of teams that refused to play. > Initially we wanted to give them 18-0, but what if both teams refused? > So we allowed them, if both agreed, to opt for 15-15 provided they did > so immediately. Which a number of them did. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Hans: > > Someone wrote, that nine matches could not be played. > > As I understand it, teams could choose from getting a score of 15-15 or > > replay the match. If not agreed the match was replayed. 6 matches were > > replayed. > > > > I don't know the details (when it is 37 degrees or so you are running for > > beer if you don't have a very good reason to stay) but the above matches my > > memory. I am not surprised that some matches were given 15-15 because the > > replay was scheduled at the end of a stage af a swiss (it was something like > > match 5 of a 7 round swiss was fouled up, I might have the exact numbers > > wrong). So if both teams were out, why play (playing meant a late match > > after playing all day starting at 10 am). But it also means things got > > completely screwed up. Imagine the 5th round match A-B. A still has a chance > > to qualify given a big win or so. B is out (or safely in), hot, and tired. > > So B doesn't want to play. Do they have to ? And what about C who is hanging > > on to n-th place (n qualifying) which might lose it spot to A. They probably > > don't like that kind of circumstances. If B is really forced to play against > > their will what do you expect. How are you going to solve that ? In real > > life it will have been more complicated with more A's, B's and C's. > > > > > Yes of course, but what can you do? I'm sure the TD's were on the > look-out for strange scores. > > BTW, this wwas the chance for the French Ladies to get a mention for sportivity. > > > This happened while the ladies were still on their round-robin, and > the extra matches had to be played after the end of that RR. By then, > the french ladies knew they had won their group and even a score of 0 > could not bring them down the order. But a score of 18-0 would not be > enough for their opponents to qualify for the next stage, while some > higher scores would be enough. The French ladies did in fact play > their match (and lost by more than 18). > > > Hans > > > >>There were also other mishaps.In one of our matches the boards 26 and 27 > >> > > were exchanged and as we did not play the >same physical boards, two boards > > (out of 10)were scrapped (and it must have happened in at least one more > > match). Of >course, we lost two good boards! > > > > Happened to me as well. I got lucky, I lost two bad boards. Maybe against > > you ? > > > > Hans: > > Whatever the circumstances, we have to play the same physical boards, or.... > > > > I agree, every sane person agrees, but now explain that to the EBL and the > > EBL ops director. By now I can predict his excuse quite well. Basically we > > (you and me) don't know the relevant facts (so how do we dare to have an > > opinion about it) and he and his staff did a great job given the > > circumstances (the later might well be true). Leaves the question why those > > circumstances were so terrible and who was responsible for that. > > > > > Look, during the mixed teams everyone received all boards, there was > no sharing at all. During the open teams that was no longer possible, > but then sharing with a close-by table is just as good as having > caddies run thousands of miles just to bring the right boards there. > Considering the enormous reliability of the duplication (up till then) > I don't blame the organisers for this mishap. > > I have another story about this but I'll post it in a different thread. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jul 18 07:28:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:28:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> <001c01c34cd9$da994d80$1929e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002b01c34cf5$c7853440$69aa86c2@Default> Grattan, But as far as I know until today a poppy (and not a rose) is still the ultimate symbol for the zillions that died and still an obligatory prop for Armistice Day isn't it (when presenting the news on BBC or so) ? The reason being that poem. Anyway, it is your culture not mine. Holland was smart enough to stay out of that mess. We just hosted the Kaiser afterwards in exile. And don't worry about your 'young' generation. Those cementeries are still being visited on a daily basis, most visitors being born after 1939 (for obvious demographic reasons). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "If ye break faith with us who die > We shall not sleep, though poppies grow > In Flanders fields." > (John McRae, died 1918) > ================================ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; > "blml" > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > > > > > Although in English I don't know due to the famous > >poem: > > ... Flanders' Fields ... the poppies blow ... the crosses > > row by row ... Now the bloodiest battles including > > Britsh troops in the Great War were fought in Picardy > > (the 1st and 2nd battle of the Somme) not in Flandres. > > But since any single Brit knows that poem by heart it > > must have some effect on the default meaning of > > Flanders in their language. > > > +=+ It is not necessarily true that any Brit born after > 1939 will have any idea what Flanders is; many may > not even have heard of it. For those born a little > earlier than that it is, like Armentieres (where > the mademoiselles come from), a place somewhere > over the other side of the English Channel where > our soldiers were bogged down in World War 1. > Roses flower in Picardy, poppies blow in Flanders. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 18 07:41:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:41:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> <007601c34c3a$16984d40$18224451@Default> <3F167F57.5000907@skynet.be> <000f01c34cf2$f0a2bee0$69aa86c2@Default> Message-ID: <3F1796B3.4040308@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: >>I was on the AC that assisted the CTD in coming up with the final >>decision: >> > > O, O, O, another great example of utter EBL incompetence. > Are you trying to be funny in calling the EBL incompetent for putting HDW on the AC? If so, the above comment is acceptable. Otherwise... > First of course it should not have happened. A combination of not having We know that. And yet it did. It's not important here that it did, but what we did about it. > matches play the same physical boards and faulty duplication procedures and Same physical boards: answered. Faulty duplication procedures: answered. Please try and write something new in your messages. > or lack of duplication room exit tests. All of them have nothing to do with > a professional way of organizing an event. Dear Herman, remember you being > upset by me calling it an amateuristic mess which it is. It is really as > nice as I can put it without losing my credibility. > When a tournament is organised where 123.476 boards are played without more than one such glitch, I would not call that amateuristic. If you can't allow for a few mistakes, try and find an organisation that has not made a single one. I doubt if you can find one. Surely none of the zones or NCBO's. > > Herman: > >>Let me first tell you a few of the facts: >>It happened in round 2 of a swiss which had to have 5 rounds. After >>round two there was a lunch break, during which this had to be decided >>upon. >> > > You leave out an important fact. What is in the COC. I don't expect you, the > CTD, the AC, nobody to take any decision of the 'what to do' type. Do you really believe everything is in the COC? Wake up, Jaap. > Duplication problems, at least small time, are a common problem so I expect > the COC to be clear on that one. I expect the CTD to simply follow the COC. > In the end it was not that major a disaster, it was 'only' 9 matches out of > 60, so you are not going to convince me that there was any reason not to > follow whatever is in the COC. But it seems that the COC are no good as > well. No surprise there. The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an > incompetent amateuristic mess. > Jaap, do I really have to call Henk in again? > >>We had a few possibilities: >> >>- score the affected matches 18-18 (seems fair, but there were >>half-affected matches) >>- score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected board and >>top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all >>existing regulations) >>- [MORE] >> > > Make the above two one possibility. The first one is just a special case of > the second one. Leaves the second one which you call totally outside the > existing regulations. Hmmm. Exactly the above 'possibility' was used when in > another round two boards of my match were misduplicated. Both boards were > canceled and scored as +3-+3 giving a 31 or 32 VP (I forgot) result. So > according to you the TD did something 'totally outside of all existing > regulations'. Please explain to me how this is possible. But don't forget > the more general question, what are the relevant regulations for gods sake. > There need to be some. > +3 is the general regulation. Which you received. Good! But if you apply +3 on 5 boards, the total result in VP exceeds 36VP. That could have been topped off, but this is not in the regulations. > Anyway, nothing is really wrong with the above approach (scoring +3 +3 with > some cap although +2 +2 is more realistic as even the EBL should know by > now). I prefer the TD handing out a couple of 18-18 in the second round of a > swiss rather than playing some of the second round matches after the swiss > is all over. That solution is so contrary to the concept of a swiss that I > wonder how any sane person can come up with that solution (ok the fact that > it was a qualifier for the first x places makes it a little bit less > ridiculous than if finishing 1st or 2nd had a real meaning). But then it is > our dear amateuristic incompetent EBL. > Jaap, please read all that crap again. I prefer solution 1 - I wonder how any sane person can come up with solution 2 - OK it is a little bit less ridiculous - Amateuristic. Please Jaap, come into the organisation. The next time something goes wrong, you can form part of the amateuristic incompetent EBL. I am taking these comments personally, Jaap. I try my best, in my little corner, to help make the championship as good as possible. I have not made any major mistakes this year, but I have in the past and will in the future. I am glad that there is a team there who help in solving problems created by small mistakes rather than sit on their backs and let small mistakes grow into impossible mountains. I don't sit on my back when I can help solve other people's problems. And I don't sit at the sideline and shout "amateuristic mess" when problems occur. > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > >>Hasse, Jaap, >> >>I agree that this was a mess - but what could we do? >> >>I was on the AC that assisted the CTD in coming up with the final >>decision: >> >>Let me first tell you a few of the facts: >>It happened in round 2 of a swiss which had to have 5 rounds. After >>round two there was a lunch break, during which this had to be decided >>upon. >>There were roughly 9 matches out of 60 that were affected (precise >>numbers). >> >>We had a few possibilities: >> >>- score the affected matches 18-18 (seems fair, but there were >>half-affected matches) >>- score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected board and >>top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all >>existing regulations) >>- cancel the entire second round (no need to say this did not get many >>votes) >>- replay all the affected matches during the 3rd round, sending all >>other teams to the beach, and order them to all play late (maybe the >>best solution, but hardly reasonable) >>- replay affected matches at the end (of course with some teams >>already knowing what they need); complete partly affected matches by >>playing as many boards as necessary. >> >>We chose the last solution. >> >>Of course then there were a number of teams that refused to play. >>Initially we wanted to give them 18-0, but what if both teams refused? >>So we allowed them, if both agreed, to opt for 15-15 provided they did >>so immediately. Which a number of them did. >> >>Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>Hans: >>>Someone wrote, that nine matches could not be played. >>>As I understand it, teams could choose from getting a score of 15-15 or >>>replay the match. If not agreed the match was replayed. 6 matches were >>>replayed. >>> >>>I don't know the details (when it is 37 degrees or so you are running >>> > for > >>>beer if you don't have a very good reason to stay) but the above matches >>> > my > >>>memory. I am not surprised that some matches were given 15-15 because >>> > the > >>>replay was scheduled at the end of a stage af a swiss (it was something >>> > like > >>>match 5 of a 7 round swiss was fouled up, I might have the exact numbers >>>wrong). So if both teams were out, why play (playing meant a late match >>>after playing all day starting at 10 am). But it also means things got >>>completely screwed up. Imagine the 5th round match A-B. A still has a >>> > chance > >>>to qualify given a big win or so. B is out (or safely in), hot, and >>> > tired. > >>>So B doesn't want to play. Do they have to ? And what about C who is >>> > hanging > >>>on to n-th place (n qualifying) which might lose it spot to A. They >>> > probably > >>>don't like that kind of circumstances. If B is really forced to play >>> > against > >>>their will what do you expect. How are you going to solve that ? In real >>>life it will have been more complicated with more A's, B's and C's. >>> >>> >> >>Yes of course, but what can you do? I'm sure the TD's were on the >>look-out for strange scores. >> >>BTW, this wwas the chance for the French Ladies to get a mention for >> > sportivity. > >> >>This happened while the ladies were still on their round-robin, and >>the extra matches had to be played after the end of that RR. By then, >>the french ladies knew they had won their group and even a score of 0 >>could not bring them down the order. But a score of 18-0 would not be >>enough for their opponents to qualify for the next stage, while some >>higher scores would be enough. The French ladies did in fact play >>their match (and lost by more than 18). >> >> >>>Hans >>> >>> >>>>There were also other mishaps.In one of our matches the boards 26 and 27 >>>> >>>> >>>were exchanged and as we did not play the >same physical boards, two >>> > boards > >>>(out of 10)were scrapped (and it must have happened in at least one more >>>match). Of >course, we lost two good boards! >>> >>>Happened to me as well. I got lucky, I lost two bad boards. Maybe >>> > against > >>>you ? >>> >>>Hans: >>>Whatever the circumstances, we have to play the same physical boards, >>> > or.... > >>>I agree, every sane person agrees, but now explain that to the EBL and >>> > the > >>>EBL ops director. By now I can predict his excuse quite well. Basically >>> > we > >>>(you and me) don't know the relevant facts (so how do we dare to have an >>>opinion about it) and he and his staff did a great job given the >>>circumstances (the later might well be true). Leaves the question why >>> > those > >>>circumstances were so terrible and who was responsible for that. >>> >>> >> >>Look, during the mixed teams everyone received all boards, there was >>no sharing at all. During the open teams that was no longer possible, >>but then sharing with a close-by table is just as good as having >>caddies run thousands of miles just to bring the right boards there. >>Considering the enormous reliability of the duplication (up till then) >>I don't blame the organisers for this mishap. >> >>I have another story about this but I'll post it in a different thread. >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 18 08:04:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:04:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Round robin scoring References: <200307172150.RAA16314@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3F179BEA.2020808@skynet.be> Hello Steve, don't run ahead, I was coming to this. Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>She came up to us and made the following suggestion: >>If the misduplicated boards were all with the same cards (they were) >>then why not use Butler scoring to calculate a team result? >> > > Coincidentally, I've been wondering whether it might be fairer to score > round robin competitions as IMP pairs, then add the scores for the two > pairs of each team. (This is allowed by L78D, so we should discuss > desirability, not legality.) Of course one would use cross-IMPs, not > Butler, for a serious competition, but the idea is the same. > No, there is a more preferable solution. Each table gets assigned a par score. The differences between the table scores and the pas scores get added and that total gets translated into IMPs. The reason for this complicated maneuvre is that it reduces to the normal teams score methods when the boards are not fouled (the par scores are equal then and the four terms reduce to two terms. > Suppose in one match, both pairs bid a good slam for a push. In other > matches, everyone stops in game, also pushing the board. Shouldn't the > slam bidders get a reward? Another advantage, it seems to me, is that > we can dispense with victory points. Total IMPs is a fair measure. > Using total IMPs makes dumping less attractive: at least one has to > judge very well the number of IMPs to be dumped. > > There is probably something wrong with this idea. Comments? > This is what happened at the Squeeze club last week: We are playing a team tournament with 14 teams, 3 matches a night. We play ten boards a round, so we need three copies of every board. In order to make a Butler ranking, I use travelling score slips, but I don't allow the physical boards from the one table of a match to reach the other one (or the players can have an advance knowledge of what their partners have done). So when last week one board was fouled (from the beginning), 5 tables played the wrong version, and in 5 matches was the board non-comparable. I gave both sets their Butler average: in the major version, the normal score was 3NT/N +660, but a +1370 and a few - made the average +663. In the other version, 3 tables scored 4He/E -420, but at two tables the contract went down so the average was -225. One team had a good score at one table (making 4He) but a bad one at the other (going one down in 6Cl) so their score was: (420-225) + (-100-663) = -568 or -11 IMPs. Using this method, you can solve any problem the TD's throw at you, without losing any table result. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Fri Jul 18 08:27:54 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:27:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships Message-ID: <001b01c34cfe$1c050100$094765d5@swipnet.se> The same physical boards were not played becuase of the long distances = between tables. At least in the seniors there was no open open or closed = room. The simple solution to play the same physical boards is to put the = two tables in each match closer together. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jul 17 12:46:47 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:46:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: Message-ID: <3F168CA7.7040700@skynet.be> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020907060701020505070801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Indeed - so does a French site about "Zuid-Vlaanderen". I stand corrected. Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>There I must again correct you, Jaap. I'm trying to find more sources, >>but already one of them spells it Rijssel. I'm looking further - you >>do too? >> > > The French tourist information calls it Rijsel. > > > > 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) > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html --------------020907060701020505070801 Content-Type: image/gif; name="pmappbnl.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="pmappbnl.gif" R0lGODlhPAEaAdX/AP//////zP//mf//M///AP/MzP/Mmf/MM/+ZZv9mZsz//8z/zMzM/8zM zMzMmczMM8yZZsxm/5nM/5nMzJmZ/5mZmZmZZpmZAJlmZpkzM2bM/2aZzGZmmWZmMzNmZjMz /zMzMzMzAAAzMwAA/wAAAP//Zv/M///MZv/MAP+Z//+ZzP+Zmf+ZM/+ZAP9m//9mzP9mmf9m M/9mAP8z//8zzP8zmf8zZv8zM/8zAP8A//8AzP8Amf8AZv8AM/8AAMz/mSH/C0FET0JFOklS MS4wAt7tACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAA8ARoBAAb/wEADMCwSj8YkcqlsMp/OKHQqrTIZmqx2y+16 v+CweEwum7kSTdrbCLjf8Lg83ijP72+BEGntU/9+gYCDVmtnh4iJiothEo6Phlp4k3cKamqQ XAuUeEuEn4KhoKOhkYynqKmqEhweIBOQj5xvbZOYjhwgtxIKm7Nxeg0KBcPCxMfDycjLys3M z87R0NPS1dTTCyYLqtzd3mSPJOIbsbyTAG4NJA4B6HMKj/AeJI69v5NK19b7+v38//70aTPx raBBb/XmzeOgQMGGDRM8dAhQAUSFdgFyWaQIggQHIR02AqhgoSJEDx4mkAChoAEGEB0qoKtQ oUGHjxUv3gmGRFm2/58DgQoNSnSo0aJIjypNynSpUmKmDkqdasaRShDqPMAT54qECAwiSLQB EaIiCbMkOlzFkBaAOBEeKqzkIG5iWLNt6nb8GrbWnSXImgp2Orgw4cOGiy6LSrWxYzQS5lVQ sLLlSgZyJ7J14PbsngBtO4gF0FEdCQYK5o09C8BBG9GuV45MG2Dzzj1FfCZGzHu3795CA/98 TLx4FqviOOQioUAuQ7pDOrazII61A9ZcO5712FA26XUNOmqfbaH2aOlzFkzATaq9qPfu/zAI MN+I8fuNHc2rLq4B3QkKoCebEBSJUyA7K1UwwQQ0naUAAyu10xEAIYiQFwgAUMeZgBjKMf+B BpsUERBAJI5oYon8GMUYfiyuclVDDPzXEYCyqYNBAB3RBAIIOHomWoNm1ZOjaDyu5MA8N3a0 SY0k3AjHAmusdwSKJ1ZJ5ZX+INXilgXNQw4vG3i0kgTqTCTXRTaJAwJn1I0mWpNugfDIBiCI 0FEHs6XlUZxC0Hbmk1pIwFMDVhaK5aGF/rQYl4ymkkY55bjhzj0YPQnPI+hMWqkcmr5hiAS0 MIHoqIaWWs1AzazY6KqLPOoIpb9A6eoCqClA6TZa+DJoNEXQ5+t8wP4qbLDEDmtsscgeq2yy zArbK7B1sCqtN77AOguuXdjKSSTVSjrEM0c0K+6y5I5rbrnkKhH/rKrTtnsGqNbeo2q3c2zR 7a7MPIvuufzu6++5Ufzq7sCMxDsLW+KEMcmHx80hhakQk4oiU8mwS/DFXtBrsBzaveUBA1BC qcV66QUqx6D5EiFxxCxb89QwGMcMzsaTtMkfCeXBwfB8bsj6aSdDFDvQv0T3a3TR5f6EhcxM ewEvzXfczB87T64hche36Qus0kgf7XXXxkahDBEWN02wxlC7cZ3U4jgZx7z4/NHy3CsrwNSv 2ZitdxYkpy3H2mznLAe2x6GdB27DIBtc3XQnmhSxZe8t7dN+y8G2OFSnR/ksSxDG+OeG3h2s 5GYbXjnCN7ud9qBEDNY46FQqtS7pTPdd//kcHat5e6h9wP463dHSjvHmu8fhwEsWZF45yi0B 4vvzpgYvPMHEF2/9OUMMM8jv0Etz2NLTu+tBWE1ebz4ezPfO/frD8AZ++NPuVx2P59dPxyjs s2/Y+/BLS/7U9rMfvv6hNbB97YC+6gP/+rcq+fFHdQE0X3wQSEED0sd5DBRf4CJ4vmD8Rhv5 A52ieEW2DJ7iUQhhGwQ5WDz4GKN7dEMVuBqwQBOW4RGXiJzTcoiJAFAnBCQA4kRYeL1B0Qc4 2qigEv1VwK0BQIc27MIGlPOQTKDQVZcIlAaq6IiH0CIkMSFi/cIVgA9acIn8goIyoBjFQEUG JePzAKRwGIscov8kHDoRYwSDUR+VhfCPuuFaEtp4iEeJgCESmABc4BEREKSkixtAyQZyKAEQ IHIBYkkHGBtggTbYBCYOqAlIYMJJv+iRE/lAUQBgmIx2sIwJbCQkJkgAC164IpEk8MAUaUmZ EOzyQ+HYQC/kkg6PhNJA6uDAMUnQJ2XKhZmn5ATrjgCATFWzHdqoJjGwCQATWLMd1bSm9lKJ jvmYwFYA2GY302k3dEavJ7J8lwZUUg9WaMUVDUmNHGnpCBB8CZc7CkmHOjDEAITEoBNBx0EJ +oaDRpNzRtiRRC1CGh518ybdTFMQOXCEie5oQ3gKVkt2JBN07qiaMcLTRONiK4ABIpb/smSF CC71RgjdzCJygocIPgSPXDgglCAoj1s4044K4CmTRT0qUUdS0IdmzVdusZNAhyCOyVS0Tx4B C5w6I1CsxMlW2SzAM/FEDBNUtQAACEmcYFJVE6SLCkGpYTzBgAs5MpIEwnQQahbUikvRwxEa MGqmWAOaiyj0I55RKAbcYliDfsSplDAChDAUzmpWB62OTGsmiZDLdngnnOrAEKoqKhoGDFYc CqhonFC6EqMQ6w9AmWshPcCBLuYSFztVAF0iU1sJbEAEjwpQztTxhpe0QUMZwUqB1mPcA0EW fXs4QoIaQBN06EkmJ62TNyvrzelWd7ULQIcJknkmAMxHTxZQ/613MjKaZQgSrtlgmGzBoQH+ +PMRE6DLSmAhgi+14hKYpBoxe/Ym0TS0LtBcAMIM/FzsDaEz/LFsBaCj1gFpxKJSs6xo7baA 8nZWwhTG0GepU4FtAusI1EiCJeb7Ljq6uBxbWMMvOiWHChC1Ig1+qnlBg5WayMQtiBXoagHA gTdpmLrU9SyGwiuhs7xkNEAGjStETFn2CsNZfmxGA0DYvAbAdK5rQGGM6aoFbaWNLRZgSx5z LAcjDPmaEErvMz2g2TZUc0JvZq1ozWsa/shEHXLmymrpM6ECvPZbzgBANsYpVxY34tFwq1wo O8nmObAutBiwAAdKAuQ7M0kENDEyj/8xMGFOr0TTFigJaziLp073iMocMEtNypnALCNjywsg hpe/7GhFVK/S51uC1GSCsyHIBQRorQAQ1VQB00otvVLrSAHC+x2qWsC0x4ZwEGc9lH3sutfG MR2wd8c6qO6YCBd8cDXDO95ZY2Q+1zTvEcCZTgDYjZo7Ni1a4Uzv7D1DRbwGdyrEPe7dSfZY 5SSCrrP5YBoOC95BI8Ki26CMNmQjAAtoRjcXsOViPAFZ0hN4cQoeQCPCO1n+VvR4q9lwatrZ CBectjeNYDdgmWAZ0954um3thKt5gwJA10LQTzF02hEcD5O2MT50kmRKKd16ZGRAG5Cl8JYw vAhJCFoS6sP/4SRM21cZR4bdGpCNPiKaGFAYb0EoEIEIZIHtFEBF28NnuzkgbE2SCkmacUZj N1gATz5M6D3KUrxg6CvfWL544trR8qCxZwgxz8YSak6flYsovGbneeuEAoC1tz3ucNdA6Lcw etHH3e1APz3oUx9307f+7UVvkQR8EWY85G4dbhDJgP1DSo6sqSJrcknvQ42mXHRAHZ40PpJD bZGKHP8XB5c6wnHNABNjHQk7LwLXteH1TcwnvDQfb/bZifYhDCXkqmh7BEDv9s/PPQvud7sG 1A/0+Kde/e1f//rhr//Xs4hy2KIxgFMdQ7QOM0ECnJU8csFJacGAx9eAC5ggfaKA/8iUFsvE Yw5AF78XAtKEG+hiBNkgBZnXBGU0FMBiaL8icyOka0hwDMWyYt6wfmw3f/r3dvs3g6K3f++H g6U3dzjog/L3flsye29wNZtzexGiDqEkF+VBUO5wE8TFWQHgCk8oGrXghLmHJ1hoUFiRSdeh E9DECVG3LEjAcFAwfupiLK3EK47AAMFCFK1ELOiHCqGnf+qnBToof/NXf633fp/Hf6cXfzRo h8UBMlVTOEX4KNWChDxyJhLoFrWQITg1EyJ2U/QDiZJSEqCxVEaFY63BTFJICR6UaymyDONS Bcfigre2IpAgfSfYEgEnBqHHdv1ng6pni6O3fzRoi/wnev++6IO++Bh4gC0AmAa+YDPiEAI8 8nc4UlCeISGZNkRGVViZ4h+Cl1g4chHPmFakBngWQD/TOAuCYFogKBj7kCxx6GWJgENSwYOf B3e0iItAiIcyeIPACI/2yIfEASCBMgHVEmbd8ii5dzPssBHXYWfNRR0LcBNuwJDNdWzp1ZDK RR1tkAvHRUsbkRHeCHiTcGlU8HiWd4Yq5l5JlILDAFgEI4Q7+IdCx5JCSIN1iH82qIs5SJOy V4SB4nN8Yx44QzWJ5VA86QEFyQ4Uwg4KFhZdqDxvgh4GhWCbmHs5k5Fi6AfkeATgNwVVeXbJ kBQoKXK08zSE8wX2QER9tykb45H/LkMUuFYUG3cNQjEfcxSXseiVU9E3YfkFREhy1mIEOfEE ZcV5QAFOxmVv1EAUvoJxiPl1irkJ01YAc0mXZ+CP6bFAAYkIhqiXWcNy5TVv9lZvilZNbnVO q5RNhXZNqWVN5JcM2mcCDHBOrVlzsHlOtPKYkDkGRxcJm8NreYmZcYBu1RYun+QBZGcCE2YT HiB5FSARoUUErvB8mKFMykl+82ZxBYBxixkAjZlEtSkV97AAV3OZbhAVbyBfZACewMYTzoYh kKcOX1EaneFItBFa+vWAZeGeanInKkcr9EFD5uWa58Sasak022kQ1SIrlEA4eYk1w0grIWOe mLmeaWFa/+ZlhbNRE0mYS3X2HckpFsR5FsuZFee0DOhAndbJmCYaFLQ5oF2QSDEmbqYAKjp5 dLx5MnuAGdg4ZF8oF4ulo0OWI96hEg0SaIuVLzVHDK1ZdokTSCrqGL8WnjwEKjTlCDI6o3Iw H2diWunZDnTRIBMwG13qHRMSIQCgZuV1JldpBF/XPsdAiti5lXmzpPkxjHLZikzWm51wPWVJ KXoAbx2xaSRhVB6Rbe45qGdBJJrVIBhCqI5HLGWHKo7qcGYHp45RdziiFfqhFY60I+MDC5kK SpniUV7lUR+BDiCwQuGBd28AE+7AAYu1UksFqtHBkax6P31WHc1WYOfVIQMSHv8r0RYMgKs8 pmHpZCza4IG9AnknNgSS6igY12gx1hkMESBaoSZTRiMr8SZgqIybxGMwIR5uECFxMFaZAhp8 14zciq3fGlC9Jw4RCROHo26o2Q4SmnARt6jhdHLhhIYNkTJr2QxJtKbct6yKIF/dAgt05QjV gRon1Rab0hbWhWGU5Q5D1iPW5QEcw1ZvAGESQmXuIKafJSnVsbG92QDaRwSOJyy0pi+tFKL6 aVqMh2IzlJ8kuUp/2ZUCCw4kYwims6ISkEvcsSOU8XuuoWSSwhYX8lM/9bA/dWxECwfkhY3o lVZUJpiZZCRIa12ikV5q5QaGx3IjynL0IYdT8pc35xP/3ZRAIMNwHBZX9CEcqIJrNnuzY7Cb GBdjAHK344kGlFEBRgu0GRas02GAUuNZ9gV5A5IpJAYa1zhhYrGwreZDgnsznsW4p0qrJUuy O4ayRYABdMG5YbeVZHdiJbhyKjg08xFIIBS3cisGdJu372IrOINJHUCFVvtTSoa4grsmV4uB kgGy9JOqZ2EBYQGy5ZEWqgquGZK7SEtUOKO4quq0XhtdUye20XFTM1sfaQt+a6s0IfgEqru6 jSBuBtui35txrDFWQXuaGEEbpIqAwXpNt9sjzAt4Izps33oRz8SxTfaw+Tq5BQKuAaAHJksE 5HiywXIEz3QzEyAcojsQ3zIU/20qLN8LvmFAqQv6KnGAoD0blbIxF2mmdFX1jc94ah+MIBZ1 HRiGM39KYh0LeOXqrQkiwmAYVCUMGu0KwOmArG4QLJC6n5x1OdhnTrmWvSXJqNCSosu6O59S rihMrvwBbfOTM9pWVYpbXM0bbWH4HferNm1hX1L8bDbMxRw5KMDyWpo7xfzxEYu6aOhiAhNM wWYwpb/wKWYmKZdSx/HSKXnKOdajw0ngw9rHXpeDASMoBIKBxHDcujSDoA9iZlLKKZWzx3vE eMlKRkuwn5dDS0YaAHPKjnD8DYq8MV+wCQ1zPQaQY3/MwwT8K9UbbbrmK4j8yYVklwqAt7cy BnhQAP8rYAC7TAm8zMsrkADCXJ1O5ZGSpcMQ9x321TzLwMmyzCrW4qwgMgfBLMzWnAArsMvV fM3cLMyn/FwBA8irLHUjIR4ywYK5UQRv/MzCaC3swjNvUADdPM/0zM0IIAfBTMwl97Lqksw6 rEZohabzNpvszCIGE2lvgAD1vNDWrNDWDAcGcM3fHEE9zMPiDKlTdyxvGYLVR9AFXRwW7CEe 4jRy0NBvoM3XrM28DAfbnADx3M363EGPtwT+TGtZKTfz1nWwuM4f3Q2zZzhRojH8mAX0EtHC vALW4tDe7AZG3c0c1ERCQM6BPIJU0GV9hAy44ck9PQYA4gYAEjmU+qJog8H/EG3NMT0LLU3M 8tzQ27zPYyi6nSNDADFv5KgMWbnDzrzVXcAg4qaTPBsyqlLLGYzPDw0rEs3UKR0AbU3R6FYs NJQEQaEPI+mKzvIr2JvXWz0BMHDUs8BGfo0GfcPLSs3ZlLLNSN3SCXDPAdDU+yyC/JyfhSEs 2YRwwXJBv/KYjiAM6ihb69HUSD0L5NkIPRMGm4Dah00pDP3bil3YAbR1CXTRu8Go44VyrAzI ewBTrwIyPeGYsSwtfbPYsUIGdomXTT3PE/0La03Pyr3aZi1Ar/0r55bKYIOVUPVa9YHZeCkB Uu0rIbmm0iw5dXfNsLINvBDcZXaIWzAB15wBDI4B/7tMzA4gOHcQSm5QAAbAy8Ks0Bc+B9iM AOd9Ps593/tdQRWNZQ73x0EDl5BRfe1Dsxwm3cPBQBY82h+O2Bn+4IPjcxYcCZstzMuGOXAQ FspTY00Vz2cdByuAADBw5IU30wf31l1j08NC1zSNbrcNKt/n4qwJsLIdW/ATym6Q1kiu3ngQ 0l5dyw1gzT9eHQJGUkVlVHFRVMr4WBROEewgfMo0EkaFAXy+renwEnkeanEeL9eXylB9NCWu yieOfVpn5fXBmriWcyOpmkjw5ZzAzefN0DV+D0rNNmAYSoCnjCSRSdQBG1dFXFkR4euQICuQ AU3iAAbGaqruACRFkbAiwP+NZ8mLakBSfmi9nm4v64YXtAkqN3afED4yWt4uHebWnM2jfdSb TgnpvQJSo4wcce2gYWd4pw5pZWMT0gFaa1EamUkrUKorgFkXoVboUGSjgSNDDn2XrehU/R4X HcTWLe8EIiJSJ36hIDxgPgfpndrsneFwUADPzuS5rNROPD8WKlEISOtvEALGFgKk0YliAU3R Ju4koNJBtfD3maqmNAvl5utndMZpmMwkj6VT0g6YRzRfaS3KnthxEPDLzgkY3uwBMIAhMBEd gAFIuw5FNlh+Z7FGJWKkNrnViAGApw7aTO3EJhOMp/QdazBT/dxSHR8hHjbj/HjWPXUFQEOG Vrr/39PdjiHHhO3UdyDgvmzcbwA4Fot8GBFUYZTz9NPzBVIedVJcEymBBdIBKwABIYHUCZlL QgXxt/6yU17TLkTX02fTTwDfp4sOtrK9+6M3//4Lz67a1GzN0Q7M3bzeapOqBZVWdEE1zBgA IsAO1wGVRdgmSYkOf6dfIIAA2cyAK6GEflfk9zB1JJjoBoSKV5/R0BLEX199Hf0bZH8QTUop vxztZb3UEG3cpI2nlCKVvAwDCED75Obk4fLrCCQfr10sT8BkbuobcwhpxnH555PSBvDs3Az6 kIV7L50A2A8DwRzMPQ7teymSvg8EjICQODQWkQ2AkrlcDpuNI9TJNDWK/9HqNqqQaMBhsfgr KX/H4TJZs06/14vAnF633/F5fYLf9/8N9AQHCQvvCv74EBL5VgIJBQK4nBgAAKaQMDUzJ5uE Op0KFERJFSS1UKtMFlZXGd5gNzg8ONrM0MDMNjZuzdp2bduEb4Mldg0JHSwwkOlWGP0MCpqp qw2foRkfCVOlGrA2wzOTQKUYupdGxxtaWd3b4d/dcWFtPUA2PEg8fM/MPHj1+sdvjUCBCjp0 sHYHBAmHJBzMaWChggUpegoYSIAABoKM0haGFHnHkQEDjko6SgQpALpP6GBOEmekHABRmgDI i7dTZ4N6udqI2DDBjAgOEiYENDaBQ9J8ACUoAP9xVJaZCR6wEt3loUIAEF0rdG2AAUSHi4Uw PHw4x4IIsiRGxpU7t86iRoWYCEGVpWZMcOOOwFSHiZ1OwzxXeflpiwRRL/ckYLVKQkJjEiFk NZYgosIGzRP2VeBgOUSFBQAgViDxjYRZ1WcHqXX4NUCHrqgdhLXdoCtbbx3KTvw9Nfc3smbp JkeGbaOgSE6GyCTSl/rMl6BKZc+J+HDPxV9A31LAAYRUXgo2gADNoPHjCqAnYH4MgoECBVhX S1wNsTaIS7UVIsQC2S6zALUKAHAALhJoW0a/lkjgIDeHIJRwQIj2mRA25TjEI5pBGlBngexE XIXEE0dJ8UQGumslRBT/RYmiHQZgVNHGAtx5ZbE2OBDBi8f4EcqLWSr4ykcJGBBhAtUi/JFA EECQJAAFSTAQNdmiLOTJrhhsiLWLaJvSv4TmAAA4MwM0EwQPOrgEzQ7hxEOjaFa4I5ImUAyg lRv5rPEm7laxqc9RtngngEFrdGVHW/K5BbQKFCCBgaimmqXRqCSdBTIvSNjAvpYwaHOOCjog bw4SEDxlQz0aeigEEBxQMDcQKIryElglsUCh/C4hNQBeAyjyyTiJrWPOPxCosw4mDntxlBah bcUIQJ1FUcYc/exzAR0XlWCqqDwjSLPRiiySAy/S8/YozMzgIAQIABgwTK8s+BVBsqQYsJlW /x2KqMhcaRX1VzpoQ7XMUu2V0jZU3fym2IcDyMajAJ5TgidBs81YAdEs4MBiwzDus1BAoZ10 UaDUEuoWz/YhIdIJVJaAvJdlVrIBCNJisAH+LjG4ghACWOBCEFYdxAEMIpqDzAa+mpc/1RwA AN94IZKa6GAhsuBqC0IoGmLlToLmEWZ3qhbRs0VRk1QoT1PgkkBJcSJQN90uAAA+hY2wgnhI 8eVkMgzyJ3B6rPqBgAGSXWGFab6mQ4SHdk0a69bgCjrnDipf4HIScMz56sa/XsGuPgKJSeOM AfjqbqYxsKmBe8xy2+NeK2iAPLMKCEt1JphUC0FP6PkbqGHUAKqMXf82AOqHEg5vnoA+lAW9 TCkHiVcKAP61XpLspe9+jgJGP6GlJfhWwOzT+1zNbgDIWwLVsPKjtZKvWoN/56+aYJ9ADljB InjhAZiPh3jAAgQw4AEPiLiNJMB71EjLMgwWgNFAsDcN9B70TrEdnegpWh10391EobUCsMkS BeBAm0hYpDNZgk2rsQQTdkYgSS3gfwAEIL8cEgIE7pAAByCdBZGhDIvUITdDBKL3sCG+wlyB C+ajjl+KRCgzceBAJrib1kxQJNSABkv+0YIMSWBDMY7hQrJ5AA8R6IcjWuM/a7TgnOrUhMNY h46VwIAHJGE+hjGMFVPBmhYZ9sITvrAKo5H/jQfGaMMJGI4AF5DhBdB4wNExzo12sIAFJEcH ZbCpgoaYSCVFksTxfaMTaDPlEL5iAqy1iX1Ey50LUaO6qaUFf1t4pWySl8hFVWAFLEAg5gjU gUgaEAV9QAAoNakWPJZpQEhbG/UEJDBkUsMudYIOYLBZxyHYTS1fqYQUDEk0J0DJEgsI5866 goTTiMYhANElGPKRyzBMwAEDeF4CDrBDGQ5Tkj9EJoHqNSUXSkkE9bJdcIJVAU72CkqZnKYh +qBEV6AvW1o4jZuuIwRJXOI6cduoJSyxjhqKkWUPSZ4D+HnAB5gxpffkwzRzJps5eIAZy2JN BzT0KvsFYEDIeWgz/zAoR5INlRWYKMA5tnAE85kgRUxo6ioc5rAkvHMM++ThRlCAxgtstaUE YAEGkVnGh+CKPw2IlVkbsEIA5ccrEdnZT6lxLCWSzxzaxCbIDlWKJXIwbkqIGytCGlJMUFUM JVXLGXfIB1/y0J6NPdwAIAtZBI7uoTFVy6miViQoleVJtvKKFP4F1+Vg0AmnyeZpp1A2GqlI gyxiaozSESOoegNHMyKsGPRBIEgm9gBZ3WFkgRtc4PrwLtOkkloC5Mfp7SdVSxjkqdgSINES 4lgJuJMV6ora0+LVRns1EaH8SijAKuC1KrrtPHunlt3uEAX5RCBkw1KBEgygBPGtbwXqOf+A EyRrYiGhwH85dFwG0UE1AS0SM6bW0944wFbzmq4gmKMsOQJAu3RUrXZyxIqmxnapC2gAjkh0 3gk0wCRW3eEi3JvAAXBgBCNwQAlK0OIRxHgEFYDsCRQXvWpc4gMj+AA06XI0h+aNNjnxXANK M6rkOvTBd6guxUZ5BYoO6nym6G75ThQK8t7IJzsyiDDIYBKTQKAhIbgMYnf4VQT8dgAOaHEF BODmGgugxRuAMQQ4gIEIKOEU/6XAJxhQif9+Ygj/7fGPJeFnjJ7jv5ZQtCQCDYBBNxmIEaZD aUFoSj+FjBSr/Ss8qBzbEdkIAF7WAEFOPQFb3OLDELDAR4RsgBP/MM+eacyqbw1I30MLYAMt bgCd51wBGbeYAgGgwLBHUOwW97jFQjj2sD9AYWQLYdk+bsC0A1DtZlO6gWqE8ofVUQC/9MWJ Fp3RiTpYXlJ0GRZlIA9S9tELWwjAAKEKREbwLWbm8dCH7oVsfVssgF0DewMCoAAHPlCAQ0ua A1Rc+LKfTQEAPNzHATi0xUdARRn/+eI91riPI87tCxZXIpjWNNo6AY+82oioJCr1T8yAD9AQ 5CprYooDCkCrAjgAODgtgNY6YJIT1NqAX13sY+Us7DkDG84CiMAHmP1jSTO74sTOdrKvXmyK Q53ZALC6130M9RaDXdlY9x4OazpNf96J/67gnjKJ/OJpFaVbHuKGOabI4wEvzDwznPtVrOo3 INWQqgMfGfoBU/zYEhw64DCus8B9XIGFH5oCFJc4sck+8aqD3M9ZvwTEO495q3cPhw4JKCgt fWklXPTkm47JYVqfIpMtBjQioI8CGICVH3kgBDvnHHC+lxASQMCsYhb6AYu5WPjKmAMwprF8 Ib7sq3Pg2T+2OuZZ/IHqsw/kH6A+2SWR/cp///pmB51YL4tMys7hTi5ye+zh3heeZOeurhgp 4DyjmglwqgJmGE+U/uVJMAcDpMH4ZM2AFmHNFE/GXszxaqwEWKzaEi4CM87HwM/qGID5fMwA VIDqoi3rysQDP/8P60YPdErvIZjMghBBEexgwioMtYhqJ2xkExrAb7pFZspjUzrFPiLj1UKl ACJoSkCrSgzw+Iopq/IpsuZLuJwvVnAsx1ZABSpgfQiBRgoAClcAAvZMELDAaxoIjEgg7dbo WCiJ7bCgtt5h3FAB/p4FHprABm0oMvgBNHjhHohiNCCAXgqALHAuZ14NBAiwCE1i3xLwsYDL EJkQxxInxwjhCnOMvxQnWSiJ0sDw9NbI2+oAOshLHp6oE2NCneBQlzqlXSgjMtqJBKRh+KbE cyakNXBOEMVsAL4qAVjgAIgOjRyr1k7AD5JFEBBhdGhxv4xpEh/MstLPjY5Fx8yQRnr/whOd ERUCgBjO6wxWzSA+zCQ+IiMCoADzDRaN7wRMQhG6it/8gBjrAFlSjLheitsYbFgq6Vi2gQ6E ihPV8BmrYPbOq93GYA28sR/9MRwRQAHHEYHU8ZjwgDnwiRxJjtJwKAUtCBPZb5SOyqjYkKLu Lx/TgHD+cSP7cSB5aHR0bA6qa5gKUuRW0RLdKPXsANPMje5iMEcwMpEkgCNp0vieQSA9EgGN yQ78ANfQaJK6h8E2C6eKhcE6KTnWrw7ar3+44CWdkoZiMpEmoCapMqJyEoFmcSOmobpwMpL8 6fy6BJi8UC4GxCHjYifxoB7VsiYuMioXg8SosiYRIGx80iOB/xEYj26YsjIev6Yh6CAtIuKS GEyI2CKggINW6OAwA4rnEHMO/BJOwEopR6kNmXIt484tdckB4jIuEzDxPDIreRHXLqADLgDN DEgdvadfJiRLIEc1mEFBmAEECqohugJKtAZVFAQQW+NUsqRDvrIOtiW82sEe/aItMXMxNjMu scEAbtEjE+HoVuqwsLIPuieG1MKtKISnfKZKfoU7k8b0pqQ24gcudka6OAQtlVLVbEEvyMcl O4hbjnOM4DI5OfMqkc8ucNLMWMqA0LNxVAOnJgRoXFNp+ANzAvMheqOMuIRBgAlrUBIpI5MO FgAOJMA9ScY445P26JMqmaM5PbK9EP8oOmVDmPhzIb+mLAkGLlDUK7LkMQ+0cl70V2AlVg7U LOUiGrZBANSzHszg7VQEHzM0kTRzQ2lyEQ6wpWaxLncImGRjvSK0L8PwkhpCIRpCDrqT5was IWoFaLS0SIAGcyiCO72EWFbwDxxhQk/GDOSuRpwqSAlrJomUJh1hEZQU+QigBPjAM3dIRJHr gLKye2QjBGrqMv7S9HYzrWbDrYAJV8QzDE8FaIoFISNqR4VncAbHTW8rTmsSGxTnq4QxAeDx JDx0hxxJLXQI8ajTJKcLGBsBTTH1VW1IU6vSAOwibEC1VkVHAYPLeQhARE8VVfmAL1X1p1Ai AU6AUmE1WXf/RFY3U3RMIlkM0C6aR7gk63DOyEN/c1ibzFWVtVvrgVnB1SSewVq3qjQh6wEu ALLM1RCb5xkUZ0qOUlsfSke9tV5hIVzDdQk7IAR0hQQuoAQuwAIG4AFCgFpvjBE7QAzl9ae4 1V4dFl9lNVlscQD4FcYGpAQs4AEG1gIwNgQ6ILIeYF8zAAIWhysWVrTo1WFVVgMgVlMVAbJI 4AEslgRKIGZLICFWKmQ7oARWqgMgAHMgwAD442ThqmFXtltbNk4TwBF4tkpczWNXCsb4daUy VmaBA8YKICEggHMyQlJNlGgbJ2WPtl6TVlazsEoKBGNBAMZsFnM6QABqFkvIQnSy/yFYwZZD Gmpo7cBoxxZWyzZORYcsBMBjYSwh2LYE4JZqa5Zj4dYBVmBu6/ZJ73YkKEIZVkVs+1ZZBdEB 8iwCKsAfg5Ym84wCTKICMMCEQlcQVwAQ6234bvZfo7ZKSiAE/nVfZ21AHgAQOcIuWCAg6dYP QhKuNgtKMMBKh7ehvEJh5wBLC4RgYrPnkHdvM9dbBZECP8AbWYwDarLFAjECRsAARiAC+rFK FAc4VsBmL2BtS3Vn5wuYQkBmY/YADiAvjQ8YKfFVgGPAfgV/yyIi9NcOHKID2oI7ZbQ7h9Kh MHd6X3VIjY/xXKx0K0AFOCAsWowDVMAkHCACMEB7S1cKIf+gdj4YLjl3gxl4I6H1denLYHfV Qw0QeJvsfx/zf+lAhglUcvR3wGj4DvhWgTN0Psesgrk3IyQQ2gwAApAtaKluBDAgiI142Epi IxXHABpCYw+xsao4ksDR+CASrhgkVlSDNWc0Vk7FPB1TBPJgN7uYRu0EWXnYTQ0wAlfg0ExC xngpAj/gc+VYjldANFpMBSrYAPJ4A6kSA5Z2VAcyi8XsQ6YrUL9TpgoYgLOELKCEN7vzGIGz jZO1hJkN4VpMM/94jpUYlLmuxQzAAfy4xsA3fFN5lL9XOWXNkHdo1k4ggRBZi+12kWe0Ah6H N2n0O3tzhrNEa8yMktNYjO0ggTH/uYfFrImRjQBbTHxBGZqXbYM3+CTeDJS1d5rzjIM5cwXq 9L2+sZaLUHKn6X9RNId30w4MNEXH+JH1YIeTGTPFLAIbzns38JNXWTPF7wMigHQ32XODeJ+p LznztFf1c70MSJz9kTkerED6tXIKBAMuaUEv6ZKWl0EwqUELOKIn+pjZOJ4xk4GZ7SOYTc5O 1yQo0CQ8EJRlbJOlYaWTU3RYgE8vA4HikpxBCUt6A6AqeS1GRT8ZZKejhKelF6SVmSY/wiQ8 WMz2OHX/cY+fmD4JAKgfAs1uOlUnVxDUuBqQ2agxsoSTM6n/VhALUYZIdACueh2N5STYGiVM IqupAZ69/5qqwHqs8VVaZehUD4Azf9NrzVRY4RoPunquqcqH7RpinyGfHulwmtWf/BoaHCGw B0GuCVuMllN0ovqwmdWAaPpUFZojoYdVI3eLJZsOBruyx4h0FGFONHszuxEbVOohdgutCRoa 5tIAMZtVg7e0gwa1zwuz4Si4W5smK0Kih5Qj5ivXppUAqBLfXM1rb3uhFZm32e+jfVuMVNdI afUfIcCp/zZrAfEw2Zo5DRYbuRHf8k0bA6HeLIArqxKrqbu3r5uq/LFWvXFrUVGzETMjdK6U 97UDqDhd68sCBODnYqXnlCEiGBOnlkEz3bW2lxaws/q05/tvphIWl3O7BfEhNv+UX7xbEIHw FcG7ALYWA9DVZmM250DA97YWp3KmlOsnpl6RSOnkJEqbsiu8W/pxToMVuKUYcpKz9D7c+HxP GwOALKQ46Ap3Z0HgAUgFLmwjIQpgGoAjawtPaRpCrOmzbiVcWyk8x0/mwr1xOWsV7TbTGB3C H0VoG63cXpwvfW82VF6Dcwxmyn+wzo98kjVVtJdWsnEczHdEzP1REU5wM5lULYa8AEOlwH1v Cl0XxsqiBEJlqDGAGaqEcRL2V14tAMCbADk9ToFxt8H2ywF9UQR9x08wvwdZhhLdJABxynsq I4BDZi/gfTE2DFW8D2FlD1FlD3ddXl4tIwpcGrpRTvv/wBznAiSA6M9LfTHqWhDxO5jiMtrH qh8DwMzMrL8VBwPMDMBLgMQ5RwBePc6ACXMCgXmBSTONjfo4vQIoYAO0XLp7EU7e1YJIvdmX FXTBMAM2k8H0M+j8ccqnQb3x7cbErADoLanTuwC5seGFuOIwbgQ4ndMHHr0p/tNzrMtH4iT6 q4GYHd/r4dSLMH/BaCM4XlzFrCKmXBqUoYglOhBhEd/oTRmG/SNcbSsPvrnFbBuvLuEiHuGn nPrgndN5owAO7sMUR4IbTUoY4M8CjdA6j6MCbQjOIdCUYAUiIGiXoBISDcCkXtL+jC7uHeR/ QuShXYYiPFgTUBrMLGi38Qe3/xK9ib3h2XwPC2+9tx3g4zQbCwD0mE0ikE0KtG0EWg3bns3H Ki4Dh43aSDDZPI77RsDoW2wIsG3wNUouPp7sYeHZizCADSBhW4NWg1UjFkdrdO7noMTVtKZe Fjwi/Lt/Eb4sEuJzWxcEICDe6XMOkE3GOL3jMs4Eoi/ZANkCH1/6lo37oq34k43sji3hZMx2 Mk7zkj/6g7/Y5GLsNf9b9T0MOXL4dIXT08IsGOT2FcTFIQI2cWb4gPArAPPnXDFc+57zeL/n xU7iy48C4p+VM8/yjA0IRiOAkBIoHkeU0WfEETKIzE9ziEQGstott8tdaMLiMblsPqPT6jWb PTHA4/9yQ4dEmuPhBQyoUOkHOJAUCDoEFHT0FQR0NHYcBmBYFC6CQKwIFhho5nV6bhokfSxW LQp9UKQaXY1sFJyqrjoFNH0kUQAsjdxK4T4JNQgxAYjG8mJ5JSsLTLQ5P0NHs31Sw4HYVROS gHCTHP4FWCgW2JVvk1QUCCz6ARpYrmCEcFbXx70yZVUFADyhfnCggE9gkQL+KADEpavKh35M EDqRQgXJQoNCOPA7mLDXLWUek4GRJnIkyTT2PNnBUK8DhgoQKpCAEKnDHpoCAqDT4qBBzgJ7 HGCguelOAXEnT6o7daiUzypMTLXCx6GACqcNsyCEaAuAVQAANpxqQgFOk6n/EYAR4yrsKisj H99mYVZyLl2Rb47OgWCnAzVtDkCBsIAIQ4HAoPg42HMHMZ07gdVB6EOHMN48LOdwUgdq3aYG FRpoCq3OJ6cVECJAWNQvIK2IWRowaKAFQAPZWVbgzq07lBbYtuECB1l3OHE1DSrLqXOnGogO uDc1MoBOQExOQO2ASHydRIfEMTfxwS0CAnI8GFLKyawHjoD1ndprwo0AN1ZhUPgpIxZgxfwE K+DIt0JwA8IlV3EHIqhBeXFcs1w9CcwHSm4GrJCAexSCsh499ED434JzKLcNeUfR0wkCMEC4 SAANqPLbWxUmYCEcMfpHoI0ehZSgjnPdtSB6R1X4/x8C/sE4439BDlnNcx/OcZ45ljApB4wW 3piFATTGMaWAVXIZVzM7gjkSk3pxhxeWc3gY44wUqhnlUSGao5KbQ8a45Y1TxkFnAl3yGUCO YQLaRo/lKVdZhJ3IJyUC1dTpJhxOmlMOXwtOGWOXNMrIpqV9VmlgoJ8ax2SDjiqZ6Yxtxrio o2RGWs6IyGG66Y1XNgqHnpxy+Seou5IR5Y+kmlgrgGrS6KGjrdqRgYUVqiqHqofKgamdVeIZ B40I4Hqjp7xyq8GgyJE5KbCdpMrmokdi2qwn8xk7B5atWlInncYWeaW6BujJG7WxRltntjfq 2i2oURY6bj1DqsufmvXmKf9jufyZS6uFrToH4YyLJklrf/716++ssXJsrZr/EritwJ/+JSo2 BnuysKlSahxxuS5bvHAckjr5ar/nUlMsHPv9/FYBIONxLckEBnwymCkz+SvLaJ5JTYSNBjlH xtDCIWLW2+DB35INY/wcyNLq64WePrtL49HBmaz0jsdFGe7T61bWLl46Kycno8TWPDbZXVTa Zh5arg1c0m4fyDSTBc/deHmj2lNhxJr6XafCY99bNJaFf9Q24sUprrKDjpN+EpkguOn1xpWT LXWxnH90+Od0hc4kH3qXnjtzduhMKusd2iMt7Ml4/vkGInggBvLPTAA3y5FZAEciuMcBfdwg 6I3/fZR89J5HZORxT+qIIGf+4OaBDL+F7G57YEcYG5CQfBvOP30eeXWI2+R3tq+sF/XIXQMv AXSTXrr3IUwFggSGSF8Aioe4BnFAA+3bgARBIAIKSjCCEvQAB0aEAfJYAHcY0JskKJQIw4wQ AonAQwDxl6UTRm+AKtSe9LjxPxai5zzRW0EiOjAiHjbHgx+0xAz1groZknCIECgi15AIBwhI IhE/hOGjPhiCa/DFiVWMDF9u98TpbZEb/hEHCTDAwCysT2kkEAEbNXAN+MVPBCTYAPySBz8O hKCLZRQE6hgUAul9JwRlFOQKsIPFOWCnjHIQpDxIUMg/GtGF12hk9D5B/4IQXPEdd9BLCJzk AE56Ujp7ieQot+FCUXKHlKk0ZZnOk8eVMZKQqJQUKSe1lwZ1QJBLZCVfsJOBbawAl2d04Mkm wMfzTECOGsDgBCeogfPwAXUpsV9yNqlIA1SyDha4pAGMKAdBlKOPcMgmCbaJujr8J4B2iJ4B v7mN8zhAkI0hj//qQM8ykgmQ5JkkOjXZzZXZU5NBcaQ/+0lNckIAnFnjSz8DyEkDnIehMWlo TC6JgF9mIBTcOSMaZ6eBBqTMf4KogyUEWY4JtK8C8wRBJy8pD3E+KiYybNA6FblN3JEpMvvT aTluKspuLKan1LipXkgqnT76j2v/lESZjmqNiv9uY1TbtGUfr3G6UXETojHhKTamutSfSlWR AVVnVGuKgRVgNIEW4CgxPzWBb1GzQS8lD9eyGkBX8oF3eeHO/lhKV+x9h5px0OE/qxqCv1JT REukp1ZHlwdq5s2pjTEnIEO4P6XKU7FL1OqIMHsHzf4VDpk9rFOpmVgibjauy6kraqEYk4uS IAPhUCBH/aQ0Y+ZhgNssJ+8O2VuuefI8ML2ZUkWp00QsZ4AMcpBVjYvFAdaBqXmVRCY/MUAn xbCMwhXodpV7DQsYNbo+9W45w1tGok6zTCI65AAn2Rjp+tOpRX3vTQMYTBLs6bts/RKvmmfJ P25tBbt1IUkj+k89GlD/uVp9pSuzBuCbPdibroxuVhtTJgcoB0r/Ja6HcLncplYYAoI8pIVt GeERN1U5emzkpJzkwqw6CZAghmQrr6li6fwRAXawkJOWlL40IuhbuhsykYuc2/0ZuWGVm9bR 2kocCdQuyVKesuPkSWXK+Q1bnAMyj4R85S+DeVXtLPLZ/MZkXDl5JM2jX5jb7OY3AytWWiYZ lwXVAC/DOc963vNRzlY2TqUZDXfmM6ELbejg8evMuVLzoRvt6EdjWXhdCrQZIG3pS+s5cEbr Up3LEGVMgzrURb5crBQNHEqPAc+iXjWrS0fqPS06Gq2eNa11l65O8dcZn641r3vNJEnbqNNh /2Czr4ttbEP9bUCUVvWxm+1scpX6z7ET1LOrbe2elfrUuU4Dsa/t7WvL2XBu+Da5y53tzm37 DN0uN7ubjSlpdwHIzG43vXl9NhURL91lWHe9+13rW+NIDfP2N8FXfatkwEHfY+B3wRse6mpp gXIIWN/AHW7xR2ta0wZQeBigfPGPr/p3qZI3yEuOaU1fawVp9rjJW45xhGGt0wx3Oc0Ljeow NK/iNd85mIV9hpzzPOhtvvkadC70oz/N59RGOtNz1zYLQh2DaYC6CEAgP2/NrTlxiA41Vsic /J3E601/dMDsUHU7aBANZrfg1XHOsh9xY3f1KO5RFDx2Q7dtG2JYY/8YPGBBqYdB7zm/Mwcq 4PcKRLOSH+SDuKJJQm70rhzWEGc0PYg95VYeoir0oVIT/ygoav1Rl3dQ5hcf+ruHuewiEEMz 4/dGMUxAs8RNCXeu8Z9blgl/0dUqcnXGV5XEnfdWjSjkiA9VbAC39gTFvR6Ruxzjh4vEqL9y 3kHA+jm2UQPx61GkOrtTFZYTx1lDHRY3a4DqNjVrA41MH9FfBwBb2f16lewStSl+p8Z/OfIH MN2nP2XVXx8chZMcKFYlSdZu6ZVSNVGczBLdKVLt9VGkXENVrdaTFBfXIOB3KKA0UeDWhNMG +h/1pZvehYEyrVGU9Z9kcdNpjd8TudZnDdf/zaiEk0QgTCnVADmgONXVH7GgU93gatlgDYbg lameB/gdCURQ+4zQNbUgItXgboWWU32XBWRSdEETAcrJiAHSEg7UEi6HFZbRBXIgFKrgOWkX QJ3hdknWECZZ3pXD8rzBjRFgDHYe7akECN6X1pQYIsmJN8nYpFzDFTnIjYlhY10hCGqSIG7d XpQhG/7fGuyaI0oiqRCT0U3iJZaH7FgiJnLiSZiMB1xAB1xAKJKiKJpiKYZiJ6piPeiKBxDA K8JiLMoiLMpJNHEDDc3BcIUQiOhMCMVgeeziKvqayXDALBqjLE7KJy1W+OFB74wQiOAOYDnK Mwqjr+VIHB5jNhLA//9oDwn9RS02x2XIgV5Uz2cNlg2JHg19UCIYIONdBuMJEZTA4+exYzXu mVz4F0Rp4zGCXVBkDYPQFUQd1hXmogf10qMcFhWOUEJ20lG5FkK6VlAERmJ1gAVAUQhY1l89 pD3q2Q+AyD4aI045CHMFJGm9w//44/kFZDeNCEuY32X0FXmY5OUZpHR4SAh4iD/GJEfCWXs0 CUjOorh8z80ApHQYZRVBVAr9Ezat1hOxVEpEhkndYVGSHqRgx1E2oDQVJU++mU9uHVDKYvbg Dkka5SCqBEuIC1rKSXJhwDfKQ1smJVZCiVk6FlbWJVly5dCZB1jG4qRw3c1ET2LRQRYxof8c kBFRSsc9UZP/yOX9EGZQAOJUSk9kNubd3SI38MVlnl43QR6DpCUgTgoXTd4tgmZeaE/oiSYe eKX08CUtemA4sdhcmtAliSMeVNdR7lY45mZ0kCUP0eZZyaGD+CaIbWXTGZLWHWdx0SBxyUnw LeBlRdUEruETPeARzZ8crOajtOYrgl1eHlr/FZeVvcMrzd7kteCvhCcM7tUdSlNhYudHbucN NRz7YabdeI9hRIZ8YtolLZaDLRFlHRhB/t47RKAgjuVhQQBl9R9jXpJ75UF26uN2dqfDudJT /mJefFA3weWsdV8DmiRhgdj6OecAzp4dkNaCPiCJPih8tqZ+ehv/FKFlLjLXHQARCikRNVLj Cbnod6LWX6wXEzJSjEnHHZ7Q1jQCE/7oWg4Xg3LH7qnmXkpov9HUVUIYdYZAPJXRNYDTDjqY QAmSAV4aeFIgeWxpOdzhDFKpAl7WmEpWdPiUmhpQdnbAdm5jvbHKk1BnWYVfQr3XyvCRAfzp OnWTqImplWqVAapXFiKiV9EfN/0geIWfUjHqe/5klNIbsqzMNl1REHGmOfgUU6oEY0IKmIbp cBVXdImnP12THxbXd60hhfURpFDVcpGqAcgpne7os2FqjfWO7R2VYJnWd4DPykyf+dkDhGLA KJ7isqKiKdbbrgLfXR7Wc83oUwkUFT4Yb09CaNDtKl1la0z9XoVlFTeBnx5qq2Vi6pgYmHc+ 6djBSQpWhknZp3du69Hx1IRWhrGy6xzU6776K7+2R8Da6sAKbMES7MEabMIi7MIqbMMy7MM6 bMRC7MRKbMVS7MVabMZi7MZqbMdy7Mc6rK0GAQA7 --------------020907060701020505070801-- From henk@ripe.net Fri Jul 18 08:47:09 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:47:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <000f01c34cf2$f0a2bee0$69aa86c2@Default> Message-ID: Jaap, > First of course it should not have happened. In theory, yes, but in the real world, there are always things that should not go wrong but do go wrong anyway. In those case, you try to solve the problem the best way you can and make a note of it to prevent it next time and/or have a standard solution ready. 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 18 09:50:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:50:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200307170411.h6H4Bn3i001275@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030718104817.01d36940@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:01 17/07/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Ted wrote: > > > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being > > off- shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. > >I fully agree Ted. That is why it is important to find out what 2C would >have been in this pair's methods. For instance if playing that the SOS >redouble shows any weak hand with two+ places to play and 2C is "one of >your suits pard" then a good 5/6 card diamond suit on the actual sequence >is no longer low-percentage but almost assured. AG : what if XX meant "any long suit in a weak hand" (a popular treatment in Belgium, and not alertable) ? This matches South's hand, *and* in that case North's skipping clubs means he definitely has an offshape 1NT overcall, probably a 6-card suit. Before chastizing NS, shouldn't one investigate their methods ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 18 09:52:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:52:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <9BD20454-B874-11D7-B520-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030718105202.01d39240@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:35 17/07/2003 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>That is the natural meaning! You can't get more natural than "This is >>where I suggest we play". > >If we accept this, then both a Gambling 3NT opener and a 3NT overcall are >natural. Would you not alert those? AG : nope. Not in Belgium, at least. From David Stevenson Fri Jul 18 11:09:37 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:09:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sit-in-tables In-Reply-To: <002101c34b07$a66691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <192.1d3d78a0.2c43c2f2@aol.com> <$fiOWzIFMzE$EwTA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002101c34b07$a66691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> This leads to two problems. First, you may get boards which are >> played different numbers of times. Second, you may get pairs that play >> different numbers of boards. >> >> If boards are played a different number of times the simplest way to >> do it is to make sure all boards have the same average score. So if >> most boards are played 5 times, you would be scoring from 0 to 8 >> matchpoints [or 0 to 4 if you are in North America]. If one set of >> three boards is played 4 times, you score them from 1 to 7 [0.5 to 3.5 >> in North America]. Easiest is to score them normally then add 1 MP [0.5 >> in NAm] to each score. Now every board has the same average 4 [2 in >> NAm]. > >We used to do that over here, David, many years ago. But now, with computers >ubiquitous, the scores on boards with lower tops are Neuberged by the >ACBLscore program. For this example, a unique zero would change to 0.125 >(one chance in four that a 5th score would tie), and a unique top score >would be factored up (x 4/3) to the greater top and then reduced by 0.125 >(one chance in four that a 5th score would tie) to become 3.875. The >average of those two scores would be (0.125 + 3.875) / 2 = 2, so every board >has the same average, QED. Of course, but this would not be a helpful answer. People do not need to know how a computer scores, so the query was without doubt for manual scoring. [s] >> My main advice is simple: get a computer with a scoring program. Then >> it does not matter whether anyone sits out, sits in, or anything else: >> the computer will cope!!!! >Good advice. Then use pickup slips instead of travelers so that scoring can >be nearly complete when the game is over (and pairs cannot see how their >rivals are doing). Better advice is to use travellers not pickup slips to make the game more fun so you can see what everyone else is doing. Remember the players are customers, Marv. If you want to score the results very quickly you can always collect them near the end and use pickup slips for the last two rounds only. -- 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jul 18 11:38:43 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:38:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00DBAF10-B90C-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, stopper, 15-17 pts, non-forcing, > occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? > > Tim > If this includes your suggested hand of x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx, then yes. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jul 18 12:03:41 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:03:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <3F1796B3.4040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7DD9B6B0-B90F-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 07:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: in reply to Jaap's comment: >> The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an >> incompetent amateuristic mess. > > > Jaap, do I really have to call Henk in again? Herman, do you really think a comment about an organisation, such as Jaap's comment here, is sufficient to justify threats of calling in the moderator? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 18 12:16:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:16:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <7DD9B6B0-B90F-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F17D70F.6020503@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 07:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > in reply to Jaap's comment: > >>> The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an >>> incompetent amateuristic mess. >> >> >> >> Jaap, do I really have to call Henk in again? > > > Herman, do you really think a comment about an organisation, such as > Jaap's comment here, is sufficient to justify threats of calling in the > moderator? > Yes I do, Gordon. Jaap was there, he enjoyed the tournament, and he had the normal and justified complaints. But that is not sufficient to be allowed to be personal and insulting. He is not using the word amateuristic in the sense of "not paid" (we are), nor in the sense of "not qualified". He is being deliberately derogatory far beyond the bounds of normal complaints about a less than perfect organisation. I feel personally attacked by his comments, which are not meant as being funny. As such, I do feel the moderator has correctly intervened in the past, and yet the same comment resurfaces, despite Jaap's previous apologies on the same issue. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jul 18 12:46:29 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:46:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <3F17D70F.6020503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <787D2D17-B915-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:16 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 07:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> in reply to Jaap's comment: >>>> The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an >>>> incompetent amateuristic mess. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jaap, do I really have to call Henk in again? >> Herman, do you really think a comment about an organisation, such as >> Jaap's comment here, is sufficient to justify threats of calling in >> the moderator? > > > Yes I do, Gordon. > > Jaap was there, he enjoyed the tournament, and he had the normal and > justified complaints. If the complaints are "normal and justified", perhaps the proper response is to ensure they don't remain so in the future, rather than complaining about the form in which they were stated? > > > But that is not sufficient to be allowed to be personal and insulting. I don't think you can call this personal. It's a comment about an organisation. We have an interesting and useful distinction in parliamentary debate here, that one may criticise an argument or behaviour (as in "your assertion is asinine") but may not insult the person (as in "you are an ass"). > > He is not using the word amateuristic in the sense of "not paid" (we > are), nor in the sense of "not qualified". He is being deliberately > derogatory far beyond the bounds of normal complaints about a less > than perfect organisation. I doubt if we would have learned as much about the problems at Menton without Jaap's robust contributions. > > I feel personally attacked by his comments, which are not meant as > being funny. As such, I do feel the moderator has correctly intervened > in the past, and yet the same comment resurfaces, despite Jaap's > previous apologies on the same issue. > I'd be concerned about a mailing list in which people couldn't make comments like the one above. If this comment (as opposed to some of Jaap's other comments) deserves censure, then most of the leading contributors to this mailing list should be subject to the same, including you Herman. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jul 18 13:57:18 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <7DD9B6B0-B90F-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <3F17D70F.6020503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006501c34d2d$154c60e0$c82b4451@Default> Herman: > Jaap was there, he enjoyed the tournament, and he had the normal and justified complaints. 1. What makes you think I enjoyed the tournament ? Participate yes. Making the best of it yes. But enjoying not really. But there is more to it. I have apologised to some friends from India and the USA among others. You cannot imagine how dissapointed they were. And I know how I was received and treated when playing tournaments over there. So part of my motivation for attacking that stupid EBL is that I am deeply ashamed. I am also an European in the end. And yes also some Europeans where deeply upset, specially those that don't play this type of events too often and had to pay for themselves. I had all my expenses covered and for me this was just another event I will forget about asap. 2. All but few if not all the players had complaints. I am just one that presses on a little. And with some result because Herman and Grattan and even Ton have revealed quite a lot of new information to me meaning it was still much worse than I thought already. Herman: > But that is not sufficient to be allowed to be personal and insulting. When I call an organisation names it cannot be constructed as being personal. Neither was it meant that way. Herman: > ... a less than perfect organisation ... I once told Ton that the client is to judge the quality of the organisation, not the organizers. You need to be told as well. And you won't find any participant that will call the Menton effort 'less than perfect' apart maybe some Brit with their weird understatements. But if a Brit would say so I am sure you don't want to know what he was really thinking. Herman: > He is being deliberately > derogatory far beyond the bounds of normal complaints about a less > than perfect organisation. Deliberatly yes! But not beyond any bounds in the context of what the EBL did in Menton. Find my one participant that doesn't support this view. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 07:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > in reply to Jaap's comment: > > > >>> The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an > >>> incompetent amateuristic mess. > >> > >> > >> > >> Jaap, do I really have to call Henk in again? > > > > > > Herman, do you really think a comment about an organisation, such as > > Jaap's comment here, is sufficient to justify threats of calling in the > > moderator? > > > > > Yes I do, Gordon. > > Jaap was there, he enjoyed the tournament, and he had the normal and justified complaints. > > > But that is not sufficient to be allowed to be personal and insulting. > > He is not using the word amateuristic in the sense of "not paid" (we > are), nor in the sense of "not qualified". He is being deliberately > derogatory far beyond the bounds of normal complaints about a less > than perfect organisation. > > I feel personally attacked by his comments, which are not meant as > being funny. As such, I do feel the moderator has correctly intervened > in the past, and yet the same comment resurfaces, despite Jaap's > previous apologies on the same issue. > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jul 18 13:59:39 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:59:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> <007601c34c3a$16984d40$18224451@Default> <3F167F57.5000907@skynet.be> <000f01c34cf2$f0a2bee0$69aa86c2@Default> <3F1796B3.4040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006601c34d2d$167158e0$c82b4451@Default> Herman, You take this way to personal. I am sure you do your best. And I am sure everybody does the best they can. But that doesn't make an organisation a proffesional one. And my repeated use of amateuristic is because a) I think it is a rather adequate description of the EBL organizing efforts to date and b) as a kind of joke in the context of Rona justifying the tripled fees by saying this was done to assure the best possible organization. IMHO after this Rona statement and the reality in Menton anything goes to describe the EBL. Words like incompetent and amateuristic are rather nice in this context. Anyway I don't know good alternatives for them. Herman: > Do you really believe everything is in the COC? Wake up, Jaap. No I don't. But I expect the COC to say what should be done with matches with canceled boards. I happens all the time you know. Anyway in your reply you failed to explain to me how my own partial misduplicated match could be ruled by the TD, it must have been done on the basis of some kind of regulation, and the others couldn't. Herman > +3 is the general regulation. I know but research has shown that the equivalent of AV+ is +2 rather than +3. Some NCBO's and SO's have reacted to that already. As I said I am not surprised that the EBL didn't. Herman: But if you apply +3 on 5 boards, the total result in VP exceeds 36VP. That could have been topped off, but this is not in the regulations. Last mail you said 'score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected board and top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all existing regulations)'. That seems to be a ridiculous overstatement. You try to say the regs say +3+3 but forgot to mention a cap. That seems to me a silly omission rather than 'totally outside all existing regulations'. Anyway that very regulation seems to be used to rule my own match but then that did not result in more than 36 VP's. By the way, where does that number 36 come from. Probably some kind of regulation. Why don't you post all relevant regs so we too can have an informed opinion on the quality of the regs and the quality of the decision. It might change my 'this makes no sense' approach. Herman: Please Jaap, come into the organisation. The next time something goes wrong, you can form part of the amateuristic incompetent EBL. You get it completely wrong again Herman. You are like Ton. Good organisation is about minimizing the frequency of things going wrong. Fixing the things that go wrong anyway is another kind of sport. That you can safely leave to Ton. He is very good at it. I would be very surprised if he was in favor of the solution that was chosen in the end (playing some early matches after the swiss was all over). Herman: I prefer solution 1 - I wonder how any sane person can come up with solution 2 - OK it is a little bit less ridiculous - Amateuristic. It is not clear which solution in this context was 1 and 2. I agree that you can have different opinions on it. Still postponing matches in a swiss makes no sense to me given the concept of a swiss. Anyway I am curious what was the argument against scoring those matches 18-18 (or equivalent). It cannot be that it was against some reg, playing the 2nd round after the 5th is sure to be against all kind of regs as well. Jaap From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 18 15:13:18 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: <200307181413.KAA08163@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: > > 2. Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores > > There was discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted scores > following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the > interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that > advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to > the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, > shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or > subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a > consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted > score. Nobody else seems to have responded to this, so I will. As I read the above, it tells us how to adjust, _given that we have decided an adjustment is needed_. In particular, it defines "damage." However, I don't see that it demands an adjustment any time an OS has a good result after an infraction. In particular, I don't think it overrides L72C4. If there is a prescribed penalty, and that penalty is paid, and there is no specific authority for an adjusted score (e.g., L64C), it seems to me that the table score must stand. Of course there are general laws that still apply (L16C2, L72B1), so we might have an adjustment from one of those, but I don't think there is any principle that says "the OS must never gain." If you need a specific example, consider the stab at 3NT after partner is barred. Usually 3NT will be bad, but sometimes it will be good. Are we really supposed to take away the good score automatically, even if there is no question of 16C2 or 72B1 or similar being violated? From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Jul 18 15:29:08 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Jul 18, 2003 10:50:20 AM Message-ID: <200307181429.h6IET8bA005060@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:50:20 +0200 > > At 17:01 17/07/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >Ted wrote: > > > > > Although I certainly understand the possibility of partner being > > > off- shape, I don't think playing for low percentage holdings like a > > > good 5 or 6 card suit is very sound bridge to begin with and don't > > > think it is allowable once UI is on the table. > > > >I fully agree Ted. That is why it is important to find out what 2C would > >have been in this pair's methods. For instance if playing that the SOS > >redouble shows any weak hand with two+ places to play and 2C is "one of > >your suits pard" then a good 5/6 card diamond suit on the actual sequence > >is no longer low-percentage but almost assured. > > AG : what if XX meant "any long suit in a weak hand" (a popular treatment > in Belgium, and not alertable) ? > This matches South's hand, *and* in that case North's skipping clubs means > he definitely has an offshape 1NT overcall, probably a 6-card suit. > Before chastizing NS, shouldn't one investigate their methods ? > TY: Ordinarily I would investigate. However, in this situation, you have a director who has posted this hand to an international mailing list with different regulations in different SO's. I presumed that any local or regional treatments which cannot be expected to be common outside that region would be described and if not, then no such unusual treatments were available. Presumably, Karel as the TD on duty would have either asked that question, or known of such treatments that were common in the area and would have included that information if relevant. And certainly, during the ensuing dialogue that has been on-going, Karel has had the topic brought to his attention that many of us think of XX as natural or a more standard version of SOS that he would have informed us if there were any such agreements or local understanding in force. -Ted. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 18 16:11:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:11:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <200307181413.KAA08163@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c34d3e$eefa2d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > Sent: 18. juli 2003 16:13 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] More on L16C2 >=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Quote freom Lille, Flanders 30 August 1998: > > > > 2. Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores > > > > There was discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted > scores > > following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the > > interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so = that > > advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is = related > to > > the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the > offenders, > > shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether = consequent > or > > subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall = be a > > consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an = adjusted > > score. >=20 > Nobody else seems to have responded to this, so I will. >=20 > As I read the above, it tells us how to adjust, _given that we have > decided an adjustment is needed_. In particular, it defines "damage." > However, I don't see that it demands an adjustment any time an OS has = a > good result after an infraction. In particular, I don't think it > overrides L72C4. If there is a prescribed penalty, and that penalty = is > paid, and there is no specific authority for an adjusted score (e.g., > L64C), it seems to me that the table score must stand. Of course = there > are general laws that still apply (L16C2, L72B1), so we might have an > adjustment from one of those, but I don't think there is any principle > that says "the OS must never gain." >=20 > If you need a specific example, consider the stab at 3NT after partner > is barred. Usually 3NT will be bad, but sometimes it will be good. > Are we really supposed to take away the good score automatically, even > if there is no question of 16C2 or 72B1 or similar being violated? WBFLC says in this minute that the minute constitutes a change in their interpretation of the law, and the way I understand this change it is towards a stricter rule that "OS shall not gain from their = irregularity".=20 I do not understand it to include a gain from an action subsequent to = the irregularity (conforming to Law 72A5) when such action is related to the = new situation (after paying the prescribed penalty) rather than directly to = the irregularity which led to this situation. As I see it your example of a stab at 3NT usually falls within this = second category of actions. Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 18 16:28:33 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:28:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <787D2D17-B915-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F181221.3040704@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:16 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 07:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> in reply to Jaap's comment: >>> >>>>> The EBL is not an amateuristic mess, it is an >>>>> incompetent amateuristic mess. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jaap, do I really have to call Henk in again? >>> >>> Herman, do you really think a comment about an organisation, such as >>> Jaap's comment here, is sufficient to justify threats of calling in >>> the moderator? >> >> >> >> Yes I do, Gordon. >> >> Jaap was there, he enjoyed the tournament, and he had the normal and >> justified complaints. > > > If the complaints are "normal and justified", perhaps the proper > response is to ensure they don't remain so in the future, rather than > complaining about the form in which they were stated? > And do you really believe the lessons aren't learnt? Does that justify words like incompetent and amateuristic? >> >> >> But that is not sufficient to be allowed to be personal and insulting. > > > I don't think you can call this personal. It's a comment about an > organisation. > Well, I was part of that organisation. Any comment directed at it is directed at me. The comments were not about the Italian duplication staff, but also about the solution to the problem that was created. I was involved in that decision. > We have an interesting and useful distinction in parliamentary debate > here, that one may criticise an argument or behaviour (as in "your > assertion is asinine") but may not insult the person (as in "you are an > ass"). > Well, the comment was "the EBL is an incompetent amateuristic mess". I don't know where you would place that. >> >> He is not using the word amateuristic in the sense of "not paid" (we >> are), nor in the sense of "not qualified". He is being deliberately >> derogatory far beyond the bounds of normal complaints about a less >> than perfect organisation. > > > I doubt if we would have learned as much about the problems at Menton > without Jaap's robust contributions. > It was not Jaap who first brought this subject up, it was Hasse. I would not hesitate in also talking about it. There were others present (ie Karel) who have complained about various issues. Ton mentioned issues that no players even noticed. We don't need Jaap's name-calling in order to learn about the mistakes that were made. >> >> I feel personally attacked by his comments, which are not meant as >> being funny. As such, I do feel the moderator has correctly intervened >> in the past, and yet the same comment resurfaces, despite Jaap's >> previous apologies on the same issue. >> > > I'd be concerned about a mailing list in which people couldn't make > comments like the one above. If this comment (as opposed to some of > Jaap's other comments) deserves censure, then most of the leading > contributors to this mailing list should be subject to the same, > including you Herman. > I have not yet called anyone incompetent. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jul 18 16:34:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:34:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003601c34c29$bc6658e0$bb4a65d5@swipnet.se> <007601c34c3a$16984d40$18224451@Default> <3F167F57.5000907@skynet.be> <000f01c34cf2$f0a2bee0$69aa86c2@Default> <3F1796B3.4040308@skynet.be> <006601c34d2d$167158e0$c82b4451@Default> Message-ID: <3F181379.5040303@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > I know but research has shown that the equivalent of AV+ is +2 rather than > +3. Some NCBO's and SO's have reacted to that already. As I said I am not > surprised that the EBL didn't. > but the +3 is still in the regulations. > Herman: > But if you apply +3 on 5 boards, the total result in VP exceeds 36VP. > That could have been topped off, but this is not in the regulations. > > Last mail you said 'score the half affected matches with 3IMPs per affected > board and top off at a total of 36 VP (seems fair but totally outside of all > existing regulations)'. That seems to be a ridiculous overstatement. You try > to say the regs say +3+3 but forgot to mention a cap. That seems to me a > silly omission rather than 'totally outside all existing regulations'. There is no cap because no-one foresaw a situtation in which half the boards were affected. > Anyway that very regulation seems to be used to rule my own match but then > that did not result in more than 36 VP's. By the way, where does that number > 36 come from. Probably some kind of regulation. Why don't you post all 36 = 18+18. There is no regulation, this was invented on the spot by the TD who calculated the first affected match to an outcome of 24-15 or something. He changed that in 22.5-13.5. One totally personal ruling, which the AC chose not to follow. > relevant regs so we too can have an informed opinion on the quality of the > regs and the quality of the decision. It might change my 'this makes no > sense' approach. > > Herman: > Please Jaap, come into the organisation. The next time something goes > wrong, you can form part of the amateuristic incompetent EBL. > > You get it completely wrong again Herman. You are like Ton. Good > organisation is about minimizing the frequency of things going wrong. Fixing > the things that go wrong anyway is another kind of sport. That you can > safely leave to Ton. He is very good at it. I would be very surprised if he > was in favor of the solution that was chosen in the end (playing some early > matches after the swiss was all over). > If he was not, he did not show so. He was not involved in the decision, leaving that to Antonio and the AC. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Jul 18 14:26:34 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:26:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <000d01c34d52$65918b00$d3053dd4@m1q9j9> > I'm sorry to see you accusing players of cheating in public. I have > always been led to believe that the EBU regards such accusations as > reprehensible. Perhaps you should keep your nasty little toe-rag opinions > to yourself in future. > > > There we go again. Ben From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 18 21:16:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:16:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Making rulings [was: a Club ruling] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030718104817.01d36940@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 04:50 US/Eastern, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Before chastizing NS, shouldn't one investigate their methods ? No, no. The proper procedure, in blml at least, if not at an actual game, is to make assumptions about their methods, and about anything else not explicitly specified in the original post, based on the replier's (highly variable) experiences and preferences. Then hammer the putative offending side with whatever tool seems appropriate. Only then might one (rarely) look in the law book for a "justification" for one's "ruling". I'm kidding, of course. Sorta. In my perhaps naive opinion, a formal ruling should consist of: 1. A recitation of the facts of the case as determined by the TD, and his degree of confidence (not to the nearest percentile, but certainly in general, keeping Law 85 in mind). 2. An assertion as to which of the action(s) delineated in (1) constitutes a violation of law or regulation, citing the law or regulation in question, and in the case of regulation, under which law that regulation is made. 3. A determination of what the law requires in response to the violation(s) in (2). 4. A statement of the outcome of the requirements of (3) in terms of score adjustment or penalty, or both. At the table, a less formal procedure is probably appropriate, but not *too* much less. At least a ruling ought to include (and rarely if ever does include, in the ACBL) a reading of the relevant law(s) and regulations from "the book", and some indication of the TD's logic in arriving at his ruling - and a statement regarding players' right to appeal, where the law requires that. Or am I totally confused? If not, did I leave anything out? Side note: I had a TD tell me a while back "I can make any ruling I want". While she may not have meant that literally, it certainly didn't sit well, nor does it conform to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge as I understand them. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Jul 18 22:20:41 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:20:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <00DBAF10-B90C-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c34d72$71bce080$2f2037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Friday, 18 July 2003 10:39 p.m. > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, stopper, 15-17 pts, > non-forcing, > > occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? > > > > Tim > > > > If this includes your suggested hand of x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx, then yes. This is not the definition of a convention. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Jul 18 22:29:59 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:29:59 +1200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c34d73$bf77c0a0$2f2037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Friday, 18 July 2003 7:21 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > > > > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > > That is the natural meaning! You can't get more natural > than "This is > > > where I suggest we play". > > > > If we accept this, then both a Gambling 3NT opener and a > 3NT overcall > > are natural. Would you not alert those? > > A gambling 3N certainly carries "a meaning other than..". > Conventional > and alertable is it not? 3N "to play" I wouldn't alert. 3N > showing a > solid minor (with or without stopper) is conventional and I > would alert. > I would also alert a 1N overcall if always/usually based on > good unbid > minor. I wouldn't alert if it is generally points/stopper > showing but may > occasionally be based on a good unbid minor. I think the > difference with > the gambling 3N type bids is that the meaning is not "This is where I > suggest we play" but "Partner do you have the specific > stoppers necessary > to make this a good place to play". Maybe the definition isn't good but I don't see the difference in terms of the definition between willingness to play because I have a source of tricks and willingness to play because I have a bunch of high cards. In both cases partner with an inappropriate hand is expected to takeout to a more suitable contract. Gambling NT shows willingness to play and a long running suit. Standard NT shows willingness to play and at least two cards in every suit. Either neither have a meaning other than willingness to play or both have a meaning other than willingness to play. Wayne > > Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, stopper, 15-17 pts, > non-forcing, > occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Jul 18 23:17:53 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:17:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. Message-ID: Last night at one table the prospective dummy made a face-up opening lead and her right-hand opponent played to that lead. Declairer objected to the proceedings and the Director was called. (Not me, thank heavens.) She made them pick up the played cards (no penalties) and had Declairer's LHO lead. She asked me to refer this to some more expert people, hence this message. It seems to me that 53C applies here, as the lead was made by an opponent of the proper leader, and the lead should revert to Declairer's LHO. The cards already played are withdrawn without penalty. Right? That's more or less what Director ruled, though not with much confidence. (She did not find 53C at the time.) Is Victor Mollo smiling somewhere? 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 Fri Jul 18 23:38:27 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:38:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <005301c34cab$993ac4f0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> References: <3750563.1058284685911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <006501c34b63$2e676780$cc2ce150@endicott> <004d01c34b6d$c9f80920$a8b64351@noos.fr> <009c01c34b8a$62ea5400$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <005301c34cab$993ac4f0$270cfea9@tjgo.com> Message-ID: Roger Emyard wrote: > >As I suggested in a previous post, won't it be possible to back on what >happens when applying L50D2 ? > >Let us say that E has the HA penalized. When W is on lead, he must not play >a card before the declarer chooses between the 3 usual options. So W knows >to what suit belongs the penalty card : the penalty card is a heart. But >nothing indicates which heart it is when declarer tells his choice. > >When W is not on lead, won't it be possible for W to act with the same >information, but only with that information? >he would be allowed to know the suit to which belongs the penalty card, but >he would not >be allowed to know exactly which card it is in said suit ? > >That would fit L50C as well, and in the case where W has Kx, and would be >obliged to play the king when declarer leads towards dummy's HQ... sorry for >W ! W would have played the king, had >the ace not been penalized, and E has to play the HA as soon as possible, >to "cure" the irregularity and restore the normal course of the game as >quickly >as possible. > >Making the suit an AI, but the face of the card an UI for the whole L50 >would make the Law easier to apply >for players, even if it would be painful in some cases. I know that is >contrary to [WBFLC Minute, 24 Aug 98], but players need Laws which are based >on as few as possible basic guidelines, applying at least to a whole Law, if >not to the whole book... Down here where the mice and grasshoppers play, it is very difficult to explain to players that the presence of the ace of Diamonds (say) as a penalty card, clearly visible to all, conveys any information that could possibly be UI, let alone explaining to players what they must do about the UI they get. To tell them that they can know that the ace must be played at the first legal opportunity is easy. To convince them that if the ace is typically from AK they may not play with the knowledge that partner probably has the K is possible. To tell them that they cannot know that the A is the penalty card seems to me almost impossible. (You must play Q from QJ7 of that suit, if RHO leads the 10 of the suit.) They will just shake their heads and go on their way, certain in their conviction that the lawmakers are even bigger lunatics than the directors. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Sat Jul 19 01:47:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:47:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c34d8f$5e851d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> This, or similar questions have been raised several times, first time I = saw one was more or less as a quiz, but as the situation indeed does happen = it deserves a serious comment. First of all and most important: The auction had not ended when the = presumed dummy made his "opening lead"! (See Law 17E). So what the presumed dummy did was not to make an opening lead but to = expose one of his cards during the auction, and Law 24 is the relevant one for = that irregularity. Normally this means that his card is simply restored to = his hand when play begins (which of course will be almost immediately). Before you ask "so what" let me point out that if it should happen that misinformation (from declaring side) is revealed after the final pass = but before the opening lead is made face up (by one of the defenders!) the auction can on certain conditions be rolled back and continued. In that = case the penalty prescribed in Law 24 is applicable on the offender (the = presumed dummy), and it may even happen that the other side will be declaring in = the final contract so that the originally presumed dummy in fact becomes a defender. (See Law 21B1) In your case dummy's LHO (you wrote RHO but I assume from the context = that this was a misprint?) followed suit to the "opening lead" and the = question now is which of the following two alternatives is correct on this irregularity: A: Declarer's RHO exposed one of his cards during the auction (Law 24), = or B: Declarer's RHO made an opening lead out of turn (Law 54). Neither alternative is obvious and there is no way we can tell from the = laws whether we shall apply Law 24 (leading to RHO possessing a major penalty card) or Law 53 (opening lead made face up by the wrong defender).=20 But whichever way we look at it, as long as the "opening lead" from = presumed dummy technically was no lead at all (because the auction was not ended) = Law 53 cannot be used on this situation. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert E. Harris > Sent: 19. juli 2003 00:18 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. >=20 > Last night at one table the prospective dummy made a face-up opening > lead and her right-hand opponent played to that lead. Declairer > objected to the proceedings and the Director was called. (Not me, > thank heavens.) She made them pick up the played cards (no > penalties) and had Declairer's LHO lead. She asked me to refer this > to some more expert people, hence this message. >=20 > It seems to me that 53C applies here, as the lead was made by an > opponent of the proper leader, and the lead should revert to > Declairer's LHO. The cards already played are withdrawn without > penalty. Right? That's more or less what Director ruled, though not > with much confidence. (She did not find 53C at the time.) >=20 > Is Victor Mollo smiling somewhere? >=20 > REH > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jul 19 11:23:45 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:23:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <3F181221.3040704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <141F2729-B9D3-11D7-A641-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:28 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> We have an interesting and useful distinction in parliamentary debate >> here, that one may criticise an argument or behaviour (as in "your >> assertion is asinine") but may not insult the person (as in "you are >> an ass"). > > > Well, the comment was "the EBL is an incompetent amateuristic mess". I > don't know where you would place that. Not personal. It's a comment about an organisation. If you can't see the significance of that distinction, you're likely to continue to take offence without good cause. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jul 19 23:13:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:13:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. References: <000101c34d8f$5e851d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002301c34e43$e9083370$b723e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 1:47 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In your case dummy's LHO (you wrote RHO but I assume from the context that this was a misprint?) followed suit to the "opening lead" and the question now is which of the following two alternatives is correct on this irregularity: A: Declarer's RHO exposed one of his cards during the auction (Law 24), or B: Declarer's RHO made an opening lead out of turn (Law 54). +=+ If the second card was faced following suit to the "opening lead" there was no intention to lead it. Law 54 is then not applicable. +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Jul 19 23:56:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:56:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <002301c34e43$e9083370$b723e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000201c34e48$f7cb3f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ........ > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 1:47 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. > > > > In your case dummy's LHO (you wrote RHO but I assume > from the context that this was a misprint?) followed suit to > the "opening lead" and the question now is which of the > following two alternatives is correct on this irregularity: > > A: Declarer's RHO exposed one of his cards during the > auction (Law 24), or > > B: Declarer's RHO made an opening lead out of turn > (Law 54). > > +=+ If the second card was faced following suit to the > "opening lead" there was no intention to lead it. Law 54 > is then not applicable. +=+ Thank you for this clarification. (I feel supported on my own opinion). Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jul 20 01:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <00DBAF10-B90C-11D7-BE9D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, stopper, 15-17 pts, > > non-forcing, > > occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? > > If this includes your suggested hand of x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx, then yes. I'm sorry Gordon but the law says: Convention 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Now I agree that if 1N is *limited* to hands such as the above then it would indeed be conventional. I can't see that including such hands in your 1N bids would make it so. I expect to make 1N opposite a flat 3 count and 3N opposite a decent flat 8 count. I don't play a huge range of fancy conventions and like a simple "bid what you think you can make" approach - too much rubber bridge I guess. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jul 20 01:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <000101c34d73$bf77c0a0$2f2037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Sent: Friday, 18 July 2003 7:21 a.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > > > > That is the natural meaning! You can't get more natural > > than "This is > > > > where I suggest we play". > > > > > > If we accept this, then both a Gambling 3NT opener and a > > 3NT overcall > > > are natural. Would you not alert those? > > > > A gambling 3N certainly carries "a meaning other than..". > > Conventional > > and alertable is it not? 3N "to play" I wouldn't alert. 3N > > showing a > > solid minor (with or without stopper) is conventional and I > > would alert. > > I would also alert a 1N overcall if always/usually based on > > good unbid > > minor. I wouldn't alert if it is generally points/stopper > > showing but may > > occasionally be based on a good unbid minor. I think the > > difference with > > the gambling 3N type bids is that the meaning is not "This is where I > > suggest we play" but "Partner do you have the specific > > stoppers necessary > > to make this a good place to play". > > Maybe the definition isn't good but I don't see the difference in terms > of the definition between willingness to play because I have a source of > tricks and willingness to play because I have a bunch of high cards. In > both cases partner with an inappropriate hand is expected to takeout to > a more suitable contract. I guess. On the other hand I expect my pard to remove a gambling 3N well over half the time whereas I expect them to "take out" my 1N much less often. > Gambling NT shows willingness to play and a long running suit. > Standard NT shows willingness to play and at least two cards in every > suit. > > Either neither have a meaning other than willingness to play or both > have a meaning other than willingness to play. Well my NT overcalls don't show a long running suit or 2 cards in every suit (or even necessarily a stopper in opps suit). They do show a certain number of points (which the laws say doesn't make them conventional) and a willingness to play. To be honest I'm not sure promising 2 cards in every suit is "standard" for a 1N overcall but supposing you are right the situation gets truly bizarre. 1N openers/overcalls which promise cards in every suit are conventional and defined by the EBU as natural. 1N openers which are less restrictive are not conventional and defined by the EBU as not natural either. It's a funny old game. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jul 20 09:01:34 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:01:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: Message-ID: <007401c34e95$3f538e40$8255e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > > Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, > > > stopper, 15-17 pts, non-forcing, > > > occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? > > > > If this includes your suggested hand of > > x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx, then yes. > > I'm sorry Gordon but the law says: > > Convention > 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys > a meaning other than willingness to play in the > denomination named (or in the last denomination > named), or high-card strength or length (three > cards or more) there. However, an agreement as > to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > Now I agree that if 1N is *limited* to hands such > as the above then it would indeed be conventional. > I can't see that including such hands in your 1N bids > would make it so. I expect to make 1N opposite a > flat 3 count and 3N opposite a decent flat 8 count. > I don't play a huge range of fancy conventions and > like a simple "bid what you think you can make" > approach - too much rubber bridge I guess. > > Tim > +=+ It is a strange feeling to be in complete accord with Tim on the subject. The 1NT is bid naturally, to play. An SO could require a 1NT that includes such possibilities as a matter of agreement to be alerted and/or disclosed on the CC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Sun Jul 20 15:46:37 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: from "Grattan Endicott" at Jul 20, 2003 09:01:34 AM Message-ID: <200307201446.h6KEkb5u004675@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:01:34 +0100 > > +=+ It is a strange feeling to be in complete accord > with Tim on the subject. The 1NT is bid naturally, > to play. An SO could require a 1NT that includes > such possibilities as a matter of agreement to be > alerted and/or disclosed on the CC. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > TY: Yes, I too find myself in agreement with TWM here. I would say that the 1NT is natural. However, I also believe that it is alertable, at least in the ACBL and possibly within other SO's as well. The ACBL uses L40B as a reference for their alert procedure which can be found at: http://www.acbl.org/misc/alertpamp.htm but the basics is that they consider it the obligation of the bidding side to ensure that the meaning of their bids is clear to the opponents. Thus if there are any "highly unusual and unexpected" meanings, the bidding side should ensure at the appropriate time (either by a pre-alert, an alert, an announcement, or a delayed alert after the auction, but before the opening lead as appropriate) that the opponents are informed. One clause that I find particularly helpful, is that "The opponents need not ask exactly the 'right' question" as one component of the requirement to inform them. Anyone else have documentation from another SO that would require an alert for an agreement like this? -Ted. From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 21 01:08:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. References: <000201c34e48$f7cb3f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001801c34f1c$56fe97b0$1033e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:56 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. > > Thank you for this clarification. (I feel supported on my own opinion). > > Regards Sven > +=+ I have been giving some thought to the facts that: (a) neither side is non-offending; (b) the attempted lead has stimulated the action of the second player. It does not "feel" right that the second player should have a penalty card. However, I have not found a basis on which the Director can waive the penalty, nor a provision allowing the player to withdraw the card without penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 21 07:31:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:31:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. References: <6.157e2241.2c4c93c3@aol.com> Message-ID: <002201c34f52$043d88c0$5249e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. I find it extremely difficult to feel compassion for the second player. +=+ I feel even less compassion for the first player. I feel it unjust that the one should escape scot-free and the other be subject to penalty. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Jul 21 01:54:27 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:54:27 EDT Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. Message-ID: <6.157e2241.2c4c93c3@aol.com> --part1_6.157e2241.2c4c93c3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +=3D+ I have been giving some thought to the facts that: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (a) neither side is non-offending; =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (b) the attempted lead has stimulated =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 the action of the second player. It does not "feel" right that the second player should have a penalty card. However, I have not found a basis on which the Director can waive the penalty, nor a provision allowing the player to withdraw the card without penalty.=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~ G ~=A0 =A0 +=3D+ I find it extremely difficult to feel compassion for the second player. He=20 expects his partner to lead, he knows who the dummy is going to be, he is=20 prepared to defend, and now an opponent leads, meaning his side is declaring= , and=20 he doesn't catch it. Sorry, that exceeds any protection I might have felt f= or=20 his being "mislead" by the RHO. I like the Law just as it is.=20 HOWEVER, I would caution the dummy that his action, should there be any=20 repetition of this kind of mistake, could be harmful to his total matchpoint= /imp=20 score in the future If I had even the slightest feel that it might be=20 entrapment, and nail him/her (or is it her/him?) with a 75 F 2 were that to= be the=20 case. =3DK=3D --part1_6.157e2241.2c4c93c3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +=3D+ I have been giving some thought to the facts
that:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (a) neither side is non-offending;
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (b) the attempted lead has stimulated
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 the action of the second player.
It does not "feel" right that the second player should
have a penalty card. However, I have not found a
basis on which the Director can waive the penalty,
nor a provision allowing the player to withdraw the
card without penalty.=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~ G ~=A0 =A0 +=3D+


I find it extremely difficult to feel compassion for the second player.&n= bsp; He expects his partner to lead, he knows who the dummy is going to be,=20= he is prepared to defend, and now an opponent leads, meaning his side is dec= laring, and he doesn't catch it.  Sorry, that exceeds any protection I=20= might have felt for his being "mislead" by the RHO.  I like the Law jus= t as it is.

HOWEVER, I would caution the dummy that his action, should there be any repe= tition of this kind of mistake, could be harmful to his total matchpoint/imp= score in the future If I had even the slightest feel that it might be entra= pment, and nail him/her (or is it  her/him?) with a 75 F 2 were that to= be the case.

=3DK=3D
--part1_6.157e2241.2c4c93c3_boundary-- From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 21 09:50:00 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:50:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <006601c34d2d$167158e0$c82b4451@Default> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > +3 is the general regulation. > > I know but research has shown that the equivalent of AV+ is +2 rather than > +3. Some NCBO's and SO's have reacted to that already. This applies to Butler and IMP pairs, not head-to-head team matches. 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 B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sun Jul 20 18:18:03 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:18:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <200307201446.h6KEkb5u004675@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <000201c34f7e$c6b30340$6b053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Ying" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:01:34 +0100 > > > > +=+ It is a strange feeling to be in complete accord > > with Tim on the subject. The 1NT is bid naturally, > > to play. An SO could require a 1NT that includes > > such possibilities as a matter of agreement to be > > alerted and/or disclosed on the CC. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > TY: Yes, I too find myself in agreement with TWM here. I > would say that the 1NT is natural. However, I also > believe that it is alertable, at least in the ACBL and > possibly within other SO's as well. > > The ACBL uses L40B as a reference for their alert > procedure which can be found at: > > http://www.acbl.org/misc/alertpamp.htm > > but the basics is that they consider it the obligation > of the bidding side to ensure that the meaning of their > bids is clear to the opponents. Thus if there are any > "highly unusual and unexpected" meanings, the bidding > side should ensure at the appropriate time (either by > a pre-alert, an alert, an announcement, or a delayed > alert after the auction, but before the opening lead > as appropriate) that the opponents are informed. > > One clause that I find particularly helpful, is that > "The opponents need not ask exactly the 'right' question" > as one component of the requirement to inform them. > > Anyone else have documentation from another SO that > would require an alert for an agreement like this? > > -Ted. > > > In The Netherlands: What you need to alert in general: - any bid in NT that expresses something else or more than the willingness to play a NT-contract. Ben From james.a.heneghan@aib.ie Mon Jul 21 13:35:22 2003 From: james.a.heneghan@aib.ie (James Heneghan) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:35:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <0HID0071QKIU9I@sims.isec.aib.ie> I was West in this hand. Karel has presented the facts well. However, I think he was a little rough on _my_ defense :) The reason I objected to the score standing was that both North and South (independently) often have protracted auctions that lead to them explaining away a particular situation. This was just another example. Often, opponents in Ireland are not well versed in the laws (sometimes directors) as they should in order to check up on certain actions. While I accept they had no bidding agreements, The result was a thundering disgrace. i.e. the bidding, the score and the ruling If this incident was on video, it would be confined to the horror section. I dont want to get personal or get even in some vindictive way, but I need advice to on how to deal with what I see as a problem. Regards, James. ********************************************************************** This document is strictly confidential and is intended for use by the addressee unless otherwise indicated. Allied Irish Banks ********************************************************************** From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jul 21 16:26:23 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:26:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Let's see what the EBU have to say on the subject. To start with, there is a specific definition of what 'natural' means in = the context of a 1NT bid. At level 2, this is non-forcing, defined = range and a balanced or semi-balanced hand. Balanced or semi-balanced = are defined elsewhere as including only 4333, 4432, 5332 and 6322 = distributions. At level 3, a 1NT opening bid is also allowed to be 4441 = or 5431 with a singleton honour (if you include these distributions it = must be alerted). Let's call this 'EBU-Natural'. =20 There is a contradiction between 5.3.1(b) and the new 13.3.1. We can = ask someone official to confirm this, but I would expect 13.13.1 (saying = that a natural 1NT that may have a singleton is alertable) to take = precedence as it is newer and more specific. If you overcall 1NT by agreement on a 1264, that is not an EBU-Natural = NT bid. =20 Other than specific conventions (Gardner/Mollo/Baron/Hudson 1NT = overcalls), the only reference to 1NT overcalls is at level 2, where you = are told that you may use any method of responding to a 1NT overcall as = long as it is EBU-Natural. It is not clear whether at levels 3/4 the = definition of EBU-Natural for a NT overcall also expands to include the = possibility of a 4441 or 5431 as it does for an opening bid. By inference, you are not allowed to play a non-EBU-Natural 1NT overcall = at all, unless it is one of the specifically allowed conventions. This = is the general 'if it's not explicitly permitted you can't play it' = rule. So not only do I think it's alertable, I think it's not allowed. p.s. you can play whatever you like over an artificial 1-level opener, = of course, including a 'natural' 1C opening that is minimum 2 cards. =20 On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Are you suggesting that a 1N overcall, stopper, 15-17 pts, = non-forcing, > occasionally off-shape *is* conventional? > > Tim > If this includes your suggested hand of x,Jx,AKQxxx,ATxx, then yes. From adam@irvine.com Mon Jul 21 16:46:05 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:46:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:38:00 BST." Message-ID: <200307211546.IAA11088@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > To be honest I'm not sure promising 2 cards in every suit is "standard" > for a 1N overcall but supposing you are right the situation gets truly > bizarre. 1N openers/overcalls which promise cards in every suit are > conventional and defined by the EBU as natural. 1N openers which are less > restrictive are not conventional and defined by the EBU as not natural > either. It's a funny old game. Although I tend to think that an overcall that could be a distributional hand "willing to play 1NT" is probably not conventional according to the Laws, I disagree that "promising 2 cards in every suit" makes a 1NT call a convention. I suppose a hyper-literal reading of the Laws' definition of "convention" could lead one to that conclusion. However, the conclusion I've formed over the years is that we simply do not have an adequate definition of the term "convention", and that it's extremely difficult to come up with a totally precise definition. If you really read the Laws' definition literally, just about every bid is a convention---an Acol 1C opening is a convention because it conveys some meanings other than willingness to play in clubs (it tends to deny great length in the other suits, and thus says something about the other suits, making it a convention according to the Laws). Once you start applying "common sense" to refute such arguments, you have to admit that the official definition is not quite adequate, and you have to allow that, to an extent, determining what is a convention is a lot like how Potter Stewart determined what was pornographic ("I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it"). -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 21 17:53:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:53:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <0HID0071QKIU9I@sims.isec.aib.ie> Message-ID: Maybe this is a waste of time, but I'd like to bring up another point that, AFAIR, hasn't been addressed in this case. In Karel's original post, he specified that N "hesitated 4/5 seconds" before bidding 1NT. Everyone seems to have assumed that this is out of tempo, but is it? Given N is an expert, I would expect most of his calls would be made within 1 to 2 seconds, because he's *seen* most situations before, and he knows what to do. So on that basis, yeah, it's probably out of tempo for him. But even an expert may need a second or two to (a) recognize an unusual situation and (b) decide what to do about it. Law 73 speaks of "undue hesitation", while Law 16 speaks of "unmistakable" ones. Certainly an undue hesitation is likely to be unmistakable, but is the converse also true? If not (and it seems not, to me) then either the differentiation in the laws has some meaning (what meaning?) or it's irrelevant - in which latter case it seems to me the wording should be changed to eliminate the differentiation. Perhaps my thoughts are colored by the fact that amongst the players around here, 4/5 seconds is *not* a "hesitation" for most players - if anything, it's "unwonted speed". :-) Of course, if N/S are found to be using an "illegal" convention, the question of whether North's tempo conveyed UI is irrelevant. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 21 19:05:42 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <200307211805.OAA02708@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > Perhaps my thoughts are colored by the fact that amongst the players > around here, 4/5 seconds is *not* a "hesitation" for most players - if > anything, it's "unwonted speed". :-) You raise a good point, Ed, but I don't think it applies to this case. 4/5 seconds is a huge delay, grossly out of tempo for normal auctions. If your players seem to be taking that long, my first reaction is that you might want to get your stopwatch checked. :-) Most players around here barely wait that long even after skip bids. On the general point, though, I agree. In an unusual auction, a second or so of hesitation is easily noticeable but is unlikely to suggest one action over another. From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jul 21 18:32:55 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:32:55 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > Let's see what the EBU have to say on the subject. > > To start with, there is a specific definition of what 'natural' means > in the context of a 1NT bid. At level 2, this is non-forcing, defined > range and a balanced or semi-balanced hand. Balanced or semi-balanced > are defined elsewhere as including only 4333, 4432, 5332 and 6322 > distributions. This does surprise me. The EBU doesn't think 5422 is semibalanced? (uhoh... even beginners are taught to sometimes open 1NT on that shape!) I have heard arguments about whether 7222 is semibalanced or not, but that's a bit different. Shall we call this new list 'EBU-semibalanced'? > At level 3, a 1NT opening bid is also allowed to be 4441 > or 5431 with a singleton honour (if you include these distributions it > must be alerted). Let's call this 'EBU-Natural'. Feel free. Long as you don't equate non-EBU-natural with conventional or regulatable. GRB From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 21 20:34:03 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:34:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <003a01c34fbf$0becec10$052e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2003 3:26 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > > > Let's see what the EBU have to say on the subject. > > To start with, there is a specific definition of what > 'natural' means in the context of a 1NT bid. At level 2, > this is non-forcing, defined range and a balanced or > semi-balanced hand. Balanced or semi-balanced are defined > elsewhere as including only 4333, 4432, 5332 and 6322 > distributions. At level 3, a 1NT opening bid is also allowed > to be 4441 or 5431 with a singleton honour (if you include > these distributions it must be alerted). Let's call this > 'EBU-Natural'. > > There is a contradiction between 5.3.1(b) and the new 13.3.1. > We can ask someone official to confirm this, but I would > expect 13.13.1 (saying that a natural 1NT that may have a > singleton is alertable) to take precedence as it is newer and > more specific. > > If you overcall 1NT by agreement on a 1264, that is not an > EBU-Natural NT bid. > > Other than specific conventions (Gardner/Mollo/Baron/Hudson > 1NT overcalls), the only reference to 1NT overcalls is at > level 2, where you are told that you may use any method of > responding to a 1NT overcall as long as it is EBU-Natural. > It is not clear whether at levels 3/4 the definition of > EBU-Natural for a NT overcall also expands to include the > possibility of a 4441 or 5431 as it does for an opening bid. > > By inference, you are not allowed to play a non-EBU-Natural > 1NT overcall at all, unless it is one of the specifically > allowed conventions. This is the general 'if it's not > explicitly permitted you can't play it' rule. > > So not only do I think it's alertable, I think it's not allowed. Non-EBU-Natural does not supercede the definition of convention of the law book. A 1NT overcall that is offering to play there is non-conventional by definition. Such calls are not subject to regulation. Therefore they are allowed everywhere. Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jul 21 21:53:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:53:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: Message-ID: <003901c34fcb$64458960$6f4ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:32 PM Subject: RE: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > Feel free. Long as you don't equate non-EBU-natural with > conventional or regulatable. > +=+ I would not think the EBU suggests that what does not fall within its definition of 'natural' is conventional. I would think the word 'natural' is defined mainly for the purpose of stating alerting requirements. The law book defines 'convention' and the laws have no regard for 'natural' - calls are conventional or not conventional under the laws. However, it appears to me that the only conventional responses licensed for use with a non-conventional 1NT overcall that does not fit within the EBU description of 'natural' are those mentioned in OB 12.12.5 - and even these may not have been intended although that is how the regulation reads. Perhaps a David will clarify. Incidentally, I am intrigued by 'only' in OB 12.5.1. A 1NT opener may express a "willingness to play in the denomination named" (so is not conventional) but be of a shape not "balanced or semibalanced"; in which situation the OB seems not to offer any guidance, although it does when the INT opener is on fewer that 10 HCP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 21 22:34:16 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <200307212134.RAA02867@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > If you really read the Laws' definition > literally, just about every bid is a convention Make that "opening bid," and this has been remarked before. Later in the auction, some bids (typically those that place the contract) will be non-conventional according to the definition. There is a WBFLC interpretation (from Lille?), which I find confusing. As far as I can tell, it says "we didn't really mean it." Thus as Adam says, the real definition is "I know one when I see one." I notice that the ACBL convention charts don't license "a bid of 1H showing at least five hearts and hearts strictly longer than spades," although a great majority of ACBL members use "the 1H convention" in exactly that way. For the future Laws, it is conceivable to modify all Laws that refer to a call being conventional or not. However, this doesn't really solve the problem. It just moves it to a lower level of regulation, where each SO has to define which calls are allowed under its own convention regulations. How is the ACBL supposed to allow the "normal" 1H bid and prohibit "funny" 1H bids? At best, the convention charts will have to be completely rewritten. There is, by the way, at least one bidding system in which I believe a 1S opening bid may not be conventional. (I'm now blanking on the system inventor's name, but he's a well-known West coast expert. I don't know whether he is still using the system or not.) In that system, 1S shows four or more spades and any lengths in the other suits. The reason I'm not certain about 1S is that it may deny a balanced hand in the 1NT range; that denial would make the bid conventional according to the written definition. Of course the other suit openings, which deny four spades, are certainly conventional. From adam@irvine.com Mon Jul 21 23:08:21 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:08:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:34:16 EDT." <200307212134.RAA02867@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200307212208.PAA19019@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > There is, by the way, at least one bidding system in which I believe a > 1S opening bid may not be conventional. (I'm now blanking on the > system inventor's name, but he's a well-known West coast expert. I > don't know whether he is still using the system or not.) In that > system, 1S shows four or more spades and any lengths in the other > suits. You wouldn't be thinking of Steve Robinson ("Washington Standard"), would you? Perhaps not, since (1) his system is a 5-card major system and (2) Washington (the city) was on the East Coast, last time I checked, although a big earthquake in California could change that at any time. :) Robinson's book does say you should open 1S on 65432/void/void/AKQJT987, so that's why I was wondering whether you were thinking of him. -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 22 00:36:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Round robin scoring References: <200307172150.RAA16314@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3F179BEA.2020808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002701c34fe1$309346a0$eb29e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Round robin scoring > > > Suppose in one match, both pairs bid a good > > slam for a push*. In other matches, everyone > > stops in game, also pushing the board. Shouldn't > > the slam bidders get a reward? Another advantage, > > it seems to me, is that we can dispense with victory > > points. Total IMPs is a fair measure. Using total IMPs > > makes dumping less attractive: at least one has to > > judge very well the number of IMPs to be dumped. > > > > There is probably something wrong with this idea. > > Comments? > > +=+ * I am indebted to Max Bavin for the observation that since the EW pair will get the reciprocal scores of those credited to the NS pair, the board will be a push. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 22 01:41:00 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:41:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: <003a01c34fbf$0becec10$052e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00c401c34fe9$ecf417e0$919c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel Guthrie] Karel, are there any rules about notrump overcalls in Ireland? Do you have an "Orange Book"? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 19/07/2003 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 22 01:38:16 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:38:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Round robin scoring References: <200307172150.RAA16314@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004201c34fe9$8a71e480$7b1927d9@pbncomputer> Steve wrote: > Suppose in one match, both pairs bid a good slam for a push. In other > matches, everyone stops in game, also pushing the board. Shouldn't the > slam bidders get a reward? Another advantage, it seems to me, is that > we can dispense with victory points. Total IMPs is a fair measure. > Using total IMPs makes dumping less attractive: at least one has to > judge very well the number of IMPs to be dumped. > There is probably something wrong with this idea. Comments? It's not silly. But... suppose in one match, both pairs bid a good slam and go down on bad breaks for a push. In other matches, everyone stops in game, etc. Should the good players suffer? That, in my submission, would defeat the whole object. The truth is, as I have said before, that it does not matter what scoring method you use. If you play well and in luck, you win. If you play well and out of luck, you may lose to a team worse than you, but not all that much worse. If you play badly and in luck, you may fluke a win you don't deserve. If you play badly and out of luck, you lose. The trouble is that because we think of bridge as a "mind sport", we think that good play ought inevitably to be rewarded, and poor play inevitably punished. But bridge is not primarily a "mind sport" - it is primarily a card game, and it is not a "perfect information game", which means that it is seriously muddle-headed to believe that the element of chance can be eliminated. Thanks to the indefatigable efforts of Herman and his ilk over the past century, we have got a plethora of scoring methods that are, for practical purposes, as good as it gets. Debating which is "best" is angels on pinheads stuff, though I do not say that it is a fruitless exercise - if a refinement such as Bastille scoring or a continuous VP scale can be shown to be superior, then it should be adopted. But bridge - even duplicate bridge - is to some inevitable (but not inconsiderable) extent a game of luck. So is golf, especially if they play it on really stupid courses like Royal St George. In games of luck, many will have hard-luck stories, and some of these may embody an injustice so vast that everyone thinks: "this is terrible - the scoring method is no good, and the lawmakers should be boiled in oil". But for the most part, whether you play bridge or golf or tiddlywinks, the better you play, the luckier you are, and no amount of messing around with the figures will change that. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 22 02:17:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:17:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <200307212208.PAA19019@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c34fef$11c05020$919c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Definition of Convention in the 1997 Laws...] A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. [Wayne Burrow's contention...] A 1NT overcall that is offering to play there is non-conventional by definition. [Adam Beneschan says, on the contrary...] If you really read the Laws' definition literally, just about every bid is a convention. [Nigel] The laws seem to support Wayne Burrow's interpretation. But I find the definition peculiar. For example, at favourable vulnerability, you may be delighted to play in 1NT undoubled, if your partnership agreement is that such an overcall shows 0-5 HCP and a 6 card suit. I don't like the official definition. I would deem my call to be conventional if, without reference to partner's hand, it has a meaning to partner, that is unavailable to an opponent. Perhaps, something like the Orange Book should be incorporated into the WBF Laws. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 19/07/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 22 03:00:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:00:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307211805.OAA02708@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AAAAB00-BBE8-11D7-9A72-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jul 21, 2003, at 14:05 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > Most players around here barely wait that long even after skip bids. Well, perhaps I spoke too broadly. Many people here seem to think the purpose of the skip bid warning is to alert partner to the skip bid. When I tell opponents (and some partners :) that the purpose is to remind the next caller of his or her obligation to pause 10 seconds, I get blank looks - and the next time I make a skip bid, the pass card is out there like a shot. It's one of the reasons I've about given up giving the damn warning. I guess I was speaking of tempo in non-skip auctions. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 22 03:06:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:06:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307212208.PAA19019@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <24B47228-BBE9-11D7-9A72-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jul 21, 2003, at 18:08 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Washington (the city) was on the East Coast, last time I > checked, although a big earthquake in California could change that at > any time. :) Seen on a bumper sticker in southern California ca. 1985: "When the Big One hits, everything east of the San Andreas Fault will slide into the Atlantic Ocean." From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jul 22 03:37:22 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:37:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <002301c34c2f$c77b5b30$1756e150@endicott> <000701c34c7b$1e1b4d60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <007701c34ffa$2dc661a0$7b1927d9@pbncomputer> Marvin wrote: > > +=+Oh, come, David! "If there arise among you a > > prophet or a dreamer of dreams, Thou shalt not > > harken........" > > ..... well, not for ten years, anyway. +=+ World-losers and world-forsakers On whom the pale moon gleams - Yet we are the movers and shakers Of the world forever, it seems. > It could be that the LC interpretation is not so bad as it seems at first > sight. Leading low from KQJx to partner's penalty card ace could hardly be > an exception to a general rule that a defender need not be required to > commit suicide by ignoring the size of the card. What "general rule"? Where in the rulebook can I find that one, Marv? > there has to be a general rule that is not > excessively severe. Tell that to Mark Roe. Why does there have to be such a rule? True, there ought to be a general rule, but its severity is not of the least importance. All that is required of any rule of any game is that anyone, anywhere, knows how to apply it. Whether it leads to "excessively severe" results does not matter one iota. A glance at Law 12B will confirm that even the people responsible for the present mess knew this. > After all, a penalty card in itself figures to be > damaging enough to the OS without tacking on more damage. If on rare > occasions it benefits the OS, that is an acceptable price to pay for a > simple rule. You can know the size of the card when leading the suit, but > you can't know anything more about it, even its HCP value. Yes, but this is a complicated rule. A simple rule, capable of being understood by almost anyone, is this: you are not allowed to know what cards partner has in his hand until he has played them in the normal course of events. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Jul 22 03:54:06 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:54:06 +1200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <00cc01c34fef$11c05020$919c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c34ffc$85c8fb40$127758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2003 1:18 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > > [Definition of Convention in the 1997 Laws...] > A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys > a meaning other than willingness to play in the > denomination named (or in the last denomination > named), or high-card strength or length (three > cards or more) there. However, an agreement as > to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > [Wayne Burrow's contention...] > A 1NT overcall that is offering to play there > is non-conventional by definition. > > [Adam Beneschan says, on the contrary...] > If you really read the Laws' definition > literally, just about every bid is a convention. > > [Nigel] > The laws seem to support Wayne Burrow's > interpretation. > > But I find the definition peculiar. > > For example, at favourable vulnerability, you > may be delighted to play in 1NT undoubled, if > your partnership agreement is that such an > overcall shows 0-5 HCP and a 6 card suit. > > I don't like the official definition. I would > deem my call to be conventional if, without > reference to partner's hand, it has a meaning > to partner, that is unavailable to an opponent. I don't agree with this. This would make everything a convention except some sort of natural bids in some sort of standards system. There is a notion of 'treatment' as distinct from 'convention'. I don't think that treatments should be automatically conventional. e.g. Weak twos 6-10 with a long suit and Strong twos 20+ should both be allowed treatments without either being conventional and yet there is meaning available to partner that is not immediately available to the opponents. There are of course far more subtle treatments that would become conventional. Wayne > > Perhaps, something like the Orange Book should > be incorporated into the WBF Laws. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: > 19/07/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 22 07:34:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:34:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Round robin scoring References: <200307172150.RAA16314@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <004201c34fe9$8a71e480$7b1927d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003201c3501b$85206e20$8f83403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Round robin scoring > > if a refinement such as Bastille scoring or a continuous VP > scale can be shown to be superior, then it should be adopted. > +=+ or to be popular with the players, perhaps? +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 22 10:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <003901c34fcb$64458960$6f4ce150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > Incidentally, I am intrigued > by 'only' in OB 12.5.1. A 1NT opener may express a > "willingness to play in the denomination named" (so is > not conventional) but be of a shape not "balanced or > semibalanced"; in which situation the OB seems not to > offer any guidance, although it does when the INT > opener is on fewer that 10 HCP. The relevant text is below. --------------- 12.5.1 You may only open a natural 1NT. You may vary the HCP range=20 according to position and vulnerability and this must be shown on your=20 convention card. 12.5.2 Minimum opening bids. =B7 The minimum agreement for opening a natural 1NT is 10 HCP; except =B7 You may open a natural 1NT that may be weaker than this by agreement = but=20 only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter. 12.5.3 A natural 1NT must have a defined range, a minimum of 10 HCPs and=20 must not be forcing. *You may play one of the following:* =B7 a balanced hand =B7 a balanced or semi-balanced hand All continuations are allowed. ------------------- One way of making sense of it is to read the sentence in bold as: You may, if you so wish, restrict your natural 1NT in certain ways withou= t=20 it being considered conventional. Obviously you don't have to make such a= =20 restriction and other restrictions (eg 1N denies 4 spades) are not=20 permitted. I think "balanced hand if the longest suit is a major,=20 semibalanced if the longest suit is a minor" would be OK. Just as an aside suppose a pair does open 1N on 9 points by agreement and= =20 Stayman is used subsequently - under what law/regulation would an=20 adjustment be made? Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 22 15:54:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:54:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <002301c34c2f$c77b5b30$1756e150@endicott> <000701c34c7b$1e1b4d60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007701c34ffa$2dc661a0$7b1927d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <013401c35061$2e184c60$349868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Marvin French] After all, a penalty card in itself figures to be damaging enough to the OS without tacking on more damage. If on rare occasions it benefits the OS, that is an acceptable price to pay for a simple rule. You can know the size of the card when leading the suit, but you can't know anything more about it, even its HCP value. [David Burn] Yes, but this is a complicated rule. A simple rule, capable of being understood by almost anyone, is this: you are not allowed to know what cards partner has in his hand until he has played them in the normal course of events. [Jaap van der Neut] 1. A penalty card is AI for everybody. 2. If the penalty doesn't give sufficient redress (or it was done intentionally) ....... IMO all mechanical rules should be done like that. [Nigel] Burn's rule is clear and simple but a sadistic. Marvin's rule is closer to consensus but it too mandates that offenders accomplish mind-boggling imaginative feats. Jaap's rule is best -- simple and common sense to the average player. One problem with overly complex and sophisticated rules is that even the law-makers and law-enforcers, themselves do not understand them (you may verify this from almost any thread in BLML). Hence these rules are enforced rarely and inconsistently. Most players deem it futile to try to understand them, so they "cheat" by default. This makes other players frustrated and unhappy. Unfortunately the WBF seems unwilling to address this urgent issue. The spurious subjectivity of many laws just makes rulings more prone to caprice and cronyism. [David Burn] World-losers and world-forsakers On whom the pale moon gleams - Yet we are the movers and shakers Of the world forever, it seems. [Nigel] Thank you again, David, for broadening our literary education. [Google] "Ode" Arthur O'Shaughnessy. 1844–1881] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 22 16:17:52 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling Message-ID: <200307221517.LAA26294@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> SW> There is, by the way, at least one bidding system in which I believe a SW> 1S opening bid may not be conventional. > From: Adam Beneschan > You wouldn't be thinking of Steve Robinson ("Washington Standard"), > would you? No, I meant Erik Paulsen. I expected his name to come to me the instant I hit the "send" button, but in fact it took a few hours. ("First the memory goes, and I forget what happens next.") I remember one hand where Erik's partner opened 1S on a hand containing Jxxx of spades (or maybe it was Txxx) and seven or eight solid clubs. Erik commented that 1S was the system bid, but he himself might have been tempted to "use judgment" and open 1C. They got a great result, though. We had no clue how to defend the eventual spade contract: big swing for them. It was more than 20 years ago, so I am no longer certain of the details, but I think they made an "unmakeable" 6S while our teammates played a humdrum 5C. On the general question of convention definition, I wonder if the way forward might be to base it on the "primary meaning" of a call. Consider two possible definitions of a weak 2H bid: A. Exactly five hearts and a four card or longer minor. B. Exactly five hearts, and we never have a four card major on the side, and we always have a singleton or void. Whatever definition is adopted, either both of these should be conventional or neither should be. I think the majority thinking has been to make both of them conventional, but it might simplify things if neither of them is. How bad is that? From adam@irvine.com Tue Jul 22 17:08:48 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:08:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:17:52 EDT." <200307221517.LAA26294@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200307221608.JAA07392@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > On the general question of convention definition, I wonder if the way > forward might be to base it on the "primary meaning" of a call. > Consider two possible definitions of a weak 2H bid: > > A. Exactly five hearts and a four card or longer minor. > > B. Exactly five hearts, and we never have a four card major on the > side, and we always have a singleton or void. > > Whatever definition is adopted, either both of these should be > conventional or neither should be. I think the majority thinking has > been to make both of them conventional, but it might simplify things if > neither of them is. How bad is that? I don't think it's bad, because when a natural bid shows N-card length in some other unknown suit (N <= 4) or shortness in some other unknown suit, they are showing the kinds of things that could reasonably follow from inference. If you had stated it as: C. Exactly five hearts, fewer than four spades, distribution not 5-3-3-2, now I'd guess that most people would *not* think of it as a convention, just a natural bid with some reasonable restrictions on it. But this is of course equivalent to the other definitions. In my past thinking about this issue, my feeling has been that an otherwise natural bid that shows unknown shortness probably shouldn't be conventional, but an otherwise natural bid that shows shortness in a specific suit (in an auction which hasn't precluded shortness in some other suit) should be conventional. However, in an auction like this: 1C 1H 2C 2S 2NT 3C If you have an agreement that 3C is forcing and shows a singleton or void in diamonds, that shouldn't be a convention. This is why I've felt it to be so difficult to come up with an adequate definition of "convention". -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 22 18:28:39 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:28:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <200307212208.PAA19019@mailhub.irvine.com> <00cc01c34fef$11c05020$919c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000d01c35076$c5dace00$3e42e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > > Perhaps, something like the Orange Book should > be incorporated into the WBF Laws. > +=+ At least the Laws are incorporated into the Orange Book! - 2.2.1 "The TD must always apply the law....." I would think this may be interpreted as saying "should the Orange Book conflict with the law, the latter prevails"? (Just as well we have clarified that regulations authorised by 40D, for example, are not in conflict with the law.)+=+ From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Jul 22 18:50:54 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:50:54 -0300 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <07d901c35079$cc28d9c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Hi, >From a recent tournament, I was west and my screen-mate was north. W N E S 1n p 2h* p 2n p 3n p 4s p p p 1nt was 15-17 2h was alerted as a transfer. When 2nt appeared on the tray north didn't alert and bid 3n, I asked what 2n was and north said "should be 3 cards". Dummy tabled Axxxx, xx, KQx, xxx At trick 12 I had to play and I could play a club or the 13th diamond, if declarer has 3 spades and 15-17 a club can cost the contract (giving a finesse) while the 13th diamond cannot cost (no way to park the third club from declarer's hand) and could have promoted the sJ in partner's hand en-passant. Declarer had already played the hand poorly and in a very randomic way so the play is not interesting nor revealing. I knew he had missplayed but how can I know how bad he was playing the hand? I lead the 13th diamond and declarer turned out to have 14 HCP with 4 spades so he was able to discard his losing doubleton club while ruffing and claim making 4. A club would have resulted in down 1 my pd cA would have been our 4th defensive trick. I felt damaged asked the director and he said that south was entitled to bid whatever he wants and that my play was at my own risk. I was angry but understood. "Gee why this happens to me...." But then before next round the director asked south why he didn't bid 2s over the transfer and he said "because 2s shows 2 cards" north quickly pointed "that's only over 2nt not 1nt" and south said "oh I didn't know".... Then I did protest the hand again because now it seemed like 2nt was conventional for south and he didn't alert.... They didn't have a cc or any written material. The director said the he already ruled the result to stand and let me know I could appeal. The director also stated that 2n wasn't conventional because nobody plays that over a transfer "he just missbid". I don't want to know if the director was right wrong or terrible but what is the general way to proceed when they bid something that may or may not be conventional and they just say "I don't know.... I thought 2n was right...." Maybe I just was unlucky, the question is: how would you rule? Tks, Luis. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/15/2003 From adam@irvine.com Tue Jul 22 19:22:05 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:22:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:50:54 -0300." <07d901c35079$cc28d9c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <200307221822.LAA09830@mailhub.irvine.com> Luis wrote: > Hi, > > >From a recent tournament, I was west and my screen-mate was north. > > W N E S > 1n > p 2h* p 2n > p 3n p 4s > p p p > > 1nt was 15-17 > 2h was alerted as a transfer. > When 2nt appeared on the tray north didn't alert and bid 3n, I asked what 2n > was and north said > "should be 3 cards". > > Dummy tabled > Axxxx, xx, KQx, xxx > > At trick 12 I had to play and I could play a club or the 13th diamond, if > declarer has 3 spades and 15-17 > a club can cost the contract (giving a finesse) while the 13th diamond > cannot cost (no way to park the > third club from declarer's hand) and could have promoted the sJ in partner's > hand en-passant. > Declarer had already played the hand poorly and in a very randomic way so > the play is not interesting nor > revealing. I knew he had missplayed but how can I know how bad he was > playing the hand? > I lead the 13th diamond and declarer turned out to have 14 HCP with 4 spades > so he was able to discard > his losing doubleton club while ruffing and claim making 4. A club would > have resulted in down 1 my pd cA > would have been our 4th defensive trick. > > I felt damaged asked the director and he said that south was entitled to bid > whatever he wants and > that my play was at my own risk. > I was angry but understood. "Gee why this happens to me...." > > But then before next round the director asked south why he didn't bid 2s > over the transfer and he said > "because 2s shows 2 cards" north quickly pointed "that's only over 2nt not > 1nt" and south said "oh I didn't know".... > > Then I did protest the hand again because now it seemed like 2nt was > conventional for south and he didn't alert.... The failure to alert 2NT is not an issue since you asked about the bid and received an explanation. So the only question is, was the explanation of 2NT misinformation, and were you damaged by it? To determine this, we'd have to know what their actual agreements were, if any. If the actual agreement was as North said, there's no infraction. If the actual agreement was that 2NT showed some sort of four-card raise, or that it showed either a 3-card or longer raise, I'd adjust. If there was no clear agreement, it gets interesting. North definitely misled you into thinking South had only three spades; still, in the absence of an agreement, it seems quite odd for a player to bid 2NT in this auction with four spades, at least when playing with the usual American agreements (I have no idea what the usual Argentinian agreements are). It would be one thing if South recognized that 2NT with four spades was an oddball bid, and he did it anyway for whatever reason; if that were the case, I'd rule that you were damaged by South's "creative" bidding, not by the misexplanation, so no adjustment. However, with the evidence you've given us, it appears that South thought he had to bid 2NT with any spade holding three cards or longer. That being the case, I believe that the damage *was* caused by North's misexplanation, since he misled you into believing South could not have four spades. So I'd adjust. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 22 19:44:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:44:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <200307221822.LAA09830@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c35081$390ad3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan > Luis wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > >From a recent tournament, I was west and my screen-mate was north. > > > > W N E S > > 1n > > p 2h* p 2n > > p 3n p 4s > > p p p > > > > 1nt was 15-17 > > 2h was alerted as a transfer. > > When 2nt appeared on the tray north didn't alert and bid 3n, I asked > what 2n > > was and north said > > "should be 3 cards". > > > > Dummy tabled > > Axxxx, xx, KQx, xxx > > > > At trick 12 I had to play and I could play a club or the 13th diamond, > if > > declarer has 3 spades and 15-17 > > a club can cost the contract (giving a finesse) while the 13th diamond > > cannot cost (no way to park the > > third club from declarer's hand) and could have promoted the sJ in > partner's > > hand en-passant. > > Declarer had already played the hand poorly and in a very randomic way > so > > the play is not interesting nor > > revealing. I knew he had missplayed but how can I know how bad he was > > playing the hand? > > I lead the 13th diamond and declarer turned out to have 14 HCP with 4 > spades > > so he was able to discard I am very puzzled by one single question, and the answer to this would probably have influenced my ruling had I been the director: How come that when you are to lead to trick 12 you still are in the dark whether your partner or the declarer possesses the last (not the highest) outstanding trump? It must have been a rather strange play when the distribution of the trump suit hasn't been revealed at that late stage? Regards Sven From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Jul 22 20:19:36 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:19:36 -0300 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <000001c35081$390ad3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant for down 1. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:44 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? > Adam Beneschan > > Luis wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > >From a recent tournament, I was west and my screen-mate was north. > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1n > > > p 2h* p 2n > > > p 3n p 4s > > > p p p > > > > > > 1nt was 15-17 > > > 2h was alerted as a transfer. > > > When 2nt appeared on the tray north didn't alert and bid 3n, I asked > > what 2n > > > was and north said > > > "should be 3 cards". > > > > > > Dummy tabled > > > Axxxx, xx, KQx, xxx > > > > > > At trick 12 I had to play and I could play a club or the 13th diamond, > > if > > > declarer has 3 spades and 15-17 > > > a club can cost the contract (giving a finesse) while the 13th diamond > > > cannot cost (no way to park the > > > third club from declarer's hand) and could have promoted the sJ in > > partner's > > > hand en-passant. > > > Declarer had already played the hand poorly and in a very randomic way > > so > > > the play is not interesting nor > > > revealing. I knew he had missplayed but how can I know how bad he was > > > playing the hand? > > > I lead the 13th diamond and declarer turned out to have 14 HCP with 4 > > spades > > > so he was able to discard > > I am very puzzled by one single question, and the answer to this would > probably have influenced my ruling had I been the director: > > How come that when you are to lead to trick 12 you still are in the dark > whether your partner or the declarer possesses the last (not the highest) > outstanding trump? It must have been a rather strange play when the > distribution of the trump suit hasn't been revealed at that late stage? > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/15/2003 From Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jul 22 20:22:22 2003 From: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000001c35081$390ad3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> from "Sven Pran" at Jul 22, 2003 08:44:02 PM Message-ID: <200307221922.h6MJMMu23209@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > I am very puzzled by one single question, and the answer to this would > probably have influenced my ruling had I been the director: > > How come that when you are to lead to trick 12 you still are in the dark > whether your partner or the declarer possesses the last (not the highest) > outstanding trump? It must have been a rather strange play when the > distribution of the trump suit hasn't been revealed at that late stage? Possibly. Or possibly he had a concentration lapse. I've had them. Shouldn't affect his right to redress if you judge that his play was a consequence of mis-information. From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 22 23:51:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:51:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Luis Argerich=20 > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to=20 > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed=20 > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > for down 1.=20 And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ if he had them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the declarer, = but is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving the declarer?=20 Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no = difference; there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but there can certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to avoid a ruff and sluff for the last two tricks.=20 (If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick is = playing your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only chance to = make another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if your = partner holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter what = you do). I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. Regards Sven > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:44 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? >=20 >=20 > > Adam Beneschan > > > Luis wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > >From a recent tournament, I was west and my screen-mate was = north. > > > > > > > > W N E S > > > > 1n > > > > p 2h* p 2n > > > > p 3n p 4s > > > > p p p > > > > > > > > 1nt was 15-17 > > > > 2h was alerted as a transfer. > > > > When 2nt appeared on the tray north didn't alert and bid 3n, I = asked > > > what 2n > > > > was and north said > > > > "should be 3 cards". > > > > > > > > Dummy tabled > > > > Axxxx, xx, KQx, xxx > > > > > > > > At trick 12 I had to play and I could play a club or the 13th > diamond, > > > if > > > > declarer has 3 spades and 15-17 > > > > a club can cost the contract (giving a finesse) while the 13th > diamond > > > > cannot cost (no way to park the > > > > third club from declarer's hand) and could have promoted the sJ = in > > > partner's > > > > hand en-passant. > > > > Declarer had already played the hand poorly and in a very = randomic > way > > > so > > > > the play is not interesting nor > > > > revealing. I knew he had missplayed but how can I know how bad = he > was > > > > playing the hand? > > > > I lead the 13th diamond and declarer turned out to have 14 HCP = with > 4 > > > spades > > > > so he was able to discard > > > > I am very puzzled by one single question, and the answer to this = would > > probably have influenced my ruling had I been the director: > > > > How come that when you are to lead to trick 12 you still are in the = dark > > whether your partner or the declarer possesses the last (not the > highest) > > outstanding trump? It must have been a rather strange play when the > > distribution of the trump suit hasn't been revealed at that late = stage? > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 >=20 > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/15/2003 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Wed Jul 23 00:14:52 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:14:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:51:27 +0200." <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200307222314.QAA15689@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Luis Argerich > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > for down 1. > > And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ if he had > them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the declarer, but > is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving the > declarer? > > Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no difference; > there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but there can > certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. I don't see how you can tell that without knowing the whole hand. Maybe declarer needs to ruff a couple hearts in dummy, and would like to know whether RHO has the other spade honor---if his spade holding is KT8, he might want to ruff the fourth heart with the ace and finesse toward his hand, rather than risk an overruff. (Note that we're talking about partner's play to the first trump trick, before declared cashed the SK.) > IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to avoid a > ruff and sluff for the last two tricks. > > (If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick is playing > your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only chance to make > another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if your partner > holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter what you > do). > > I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. Except I don't know of anyplace where an "inferior play" ruling is allowed. Do they rule that way in Norway? In the ACBL, TD's can rule that damage is not caused by an infraction if there is an "egregious error"; I can hardly see how playing the wrong card from equals in this situation qualifies, especially when a bit of analysis is required to recognize that you should play an honest card (and especially when one could conceivably construct a layout where concealment does matter). The WBF standard is "wild, irrational, or gambling", and the defense definitely doesn't fall into that category. In any case, my experience with BLML is that most of us hate the idea that players have to play perfect bridge in order to have a score adjusted in their favor. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 23 00:48:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:48:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <07d901c35079$cc28d9c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003, at 13:50 US/Eastern, Luis Argerich wrote: > The director also stated that 2n wasn't conventional > because nobody plays that over a transfer > "he just missbid". The director is mistaken. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 23 09:08:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:08:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <200307222314.QAA15689@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000201c350f1$9c95cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan=20 > Sven wrote:=20 > > Luis Argerich > > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to > > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed > > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > > for down 1. > > > > And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ if he = had > > them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the = declarer, > but > > is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving the > > declarer? > > > > Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no > difference; > > there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but there = can > > certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. >=20 > I don't see how you can tell that without knowing the whole hand. > Maybe declarer needs to ruff a couple hearts in dummy, and would like > to know whether RHO has the other spade honor---if his spade holding > is KT8, he might want to ruff the fourth heart with the ace and > finesse toward his hand, rather than risk an overruff. (Note that > we're talking about partner's play to the first trump trick, before > declared cashed the SK.) You seem to be fishing for excuses on behalf of the defense. Why would declarer need to ruff his heart(s) while defense still had any trump = left?=20 >=20 > > IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to = avoid a > > ruff and sluff for the last two tricks. > > > > (If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick is > playing > > your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only chance = to > make > > another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if your > partner > > holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter = what > you > > do). > > > > I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. >=20 > Except I don't know of anyplace where an "inferior play" ruling is > allowed. Do they rule that way in Norway? In the ACBL, TD's can rule > that damage is not caused by an infraction if there is an "egregious > error"; I can hardly see how playing the wrong card from equals in > this situation qualifies, especially when a bit of analysis is > required to recognize that you should play an honest card (and > especially when one could conceivably construct a layout where > concealment does matter). The WBF standard is "wild, irrational, or > gambling", and the defense definitely doesn't fall into that > category. In any case, my experience with BLML is that most of us > hate the idea that players have to play perfect bridge in order to > have a score adjusted in their favor. Before adjusting the score the declarer must establish three facts: 1: Was there misinformation (rather than misbid)? 2: Was opponents damaged? 3: Was the damage caused by the misinformation rather by defense's own = play? Only if all three questions are answered affirmative is an adjustment in order. (There seems to be a common misunderstanding that misinformation automatically results in adjustment; that should not be so). In this case my main impression is that there was no misinformation at = all, it seems to me from the original post that south made a misbid, bidding according to an agreement that applied only after 2NT, not after 1NT. But let me stipulate that there was misinformation here: If the critical choice had occurred for west earlier during the play I might very well adjust. But for west when playing to trick 12 to be in the dark whether partner holds the highest outstanding club (or possibly the SJ in spite = of his false carding to the first trump trick) is unacceptable. Clubs must = have been played sometime; did the defense not use any card signals? My impression is that west has tried a double-shot (intentionally or accidentally): He plays his diamond in the unlikely case that declarer has miscounted = the trumps (however incredible that should be), and if it turns out that = partner held the highest outstanding club and not the SJ he calls the director = with a claim on misinformation. Regards Sven =20 From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 23 10:23:31 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:23:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <003901c350fc$2e17d3c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Dear Henk, I am not a regulation buff. I only know that +3 was scaled down to +2 in certain environments. Good idea, but not enough. +3 is way too much at any form of scoring if it is supposed to be the equivalent of Average Plus. +3 a board results in 23-7 (8 boards) to 25-1 (32 boards). Hard to maintain this is Average Plus. Besides it creates a conflict with 18 VP's being considered as Average Plus for a match. The problem of Menton was caused by this inconsistency in regulations. Given short matches 18 VP's boils down to about 1.2 imps/board (for long matches it is much less, 0.6 at the 32 board scale). If you apply +3 instead to enough boards the result is nonsense (23-23 and the like). You make the table happy but the rest of the field sad. A simple solution is to lower the +3 to +1 (the integer closest to 18 VP's a match). Myself I would be in favor of just throwing out the boards completely (boards that cannot be played because of TD/organisation error) rather than handing out random bonusses. At pairs you calculate the average over only the played boards. At teams you calculate just the played boards (maybe you need another scale). The only thing you need is a reg that defines the minimum number (or percentage) of boards a match needs to be scored normally rather than be given 18-18. Anyway, in the end any solution has all kind of serious problems (I would hate to get 18 in the last match of a Swiss if I still had a go at a win but needed more than that, but I would be happy if the same 18 put me out of reach). So it seems better to improve the quality controls to avoid this kind of problems. I know it is hard, boring and dull. But if we really want it and we allocate the necessary recources we can play a championship without duplication errors. But maybe not with the current staff and or the current procedures. According to my inside information (I have multiple sources) I am afraid the later assertion tends to be true. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Cc: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > +3 is the general regulation. > > > > I know but research has shown that the equivalent of AV+ is +2 rather than > > +3. Some NCBO's and SO's have reacted to that already. > > This applies to Butler and IMP pairs, not head-to-head team matches. > > > > 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 Wed Jul 23 10:38:25 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:38:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003901c350fc$2e17d3c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F1E5791.1000900@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Dear Henk, > > I am not a regulation buff. I only know that +3 was scaled down to +2 in > certain environments. Good idea, but not enough. > > +3 is way too much at any form of scoring if it is supposed to be the > equivalent of Average Plus. +3 a board results in 23-7 (8 boards) to 25-1 > (32 boards). Hard to maintain this is Average Plus. Besides it creates a > conflict with 18 VP's being considered as Average Plus for a match. > > The problem of Menton was caused by this inconsistency in regulations. Given > short matches 18 VP's boils down to about 1.2 imps/board (for long matches > it is much less, 0.6 at the 32 board scale). If you apply +3 instead to > enough boards the result is nonsense (23-23 and the like). You make the > table happy but the rest of the field sad. > > A simple solution is to lower the +3 to +1 (the integer closest to 18 VP's a > match). > That would be my idea as well. > Myself I would be in favor of just throwing out the boards completely > (boards that cannot be played because of TD/organisation error) rather than > handing out random bonusses. At pairs you calculate the average over only > the played boards. At teams you calculate just the played boards (maybe you > need another scale). The only thing you need is a reg that defines the > minimum number (or percentage) of boards a match needs to be scored normally > rather than be given 18-18. > > Anyway, in the end any solution has all kind of serious problems (I would > hate to get 18 in the last match of a Swiss if I still had a go at a win but > needed more than that, but I would be happy if the same 18 put me out of > reach). > > So it seems better to improve the quality controls to avoid this kind of > problems. I know it is hard, boring and dull. But if we really want it and > we allocate the necessary recources we can play a championship without > duplication errors. And we have. Several times already. And no amount of quality control will reduce the number of errors to ZERO (at 100% reliability). > But maybe not with the current staff and or the current > procedures. According to my inside information (I have multiple sources) I > am afraid the later assertion tends to be true. > > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "Jaap van der Neut" > Cc: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:50 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > >>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>>+3 is the general regulation. >>>> >>>I know but research has shown that the equivalent of AV+ is +2 rather >>> > than > >>>+3. Some NCBO's and SO's have reacted to that already. >>> >>This applies to Butler and IMP pairs, not head-to-head team matches. >> >> >> >>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) >> >> >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 23 10:57:29 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:57:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling References: <200307212208.PAA19019@mailhub.irvine.com> <00cc01c34fef$11c05020$919c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <008601c35100$d5988be0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Nigel: > But I find the definition peculiar. > > For example, at favourable vulnerability, you > may be delighted to play in 1NT undoubled, if > your partnership agreement is that such an > overcall shows 0-5 HCP and a 6 card suit. > > I don't like the official definition. I would > deem my call to be conventional if, without > reference to partner's hand, it has a meaning > to partner, that is unavailable to an opponent. Of course you are right. Whenever one explains an 1NT opening or overcall as 'natural' they will interpreted that as balanced and they will probably assume 15-17 or so if it is unmentioned (probably slightly stronger for the overcall, and in certain cultures 15-17 might not be standard). At higher level they all know you might be a Jack short, you might have a singleton in a clumsy distribution or the like, you might have a source of tricks (specially when overcalling). But it means that partner will assume that you have a (more or less) balanced hand. BUT this concept of natural (the word is often used in the sense of normal) is completely different from 'willingness to play in NT' which means next to nothing. If the 'meaning' of 1NT is such that the partner will refrain from bidding a six-card suit and the like, the opponents have a right to know and it is almost criminal to use the word 'natural' (although it might be natural in the sense of willingness to play) because you (should) know it will lead to them not understanding what is going on. It is a kind of full disclosure violation. Now suppose you overcall 3NT over a 3S opening. They ask (stupid question by the way). You say 'natural'. Now everybody (should) understand you can have almost anything. 3NT in this sequence just means you intend to play that contract. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling > [Definition of Convention in the 1997 Laws...] > A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys > a meaning other than willingness to play in the > denomination named (or in the last denomination > named), or high-card strength or length (three > cards or more) there. However, an agreement as > to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > [Wayne Burrow's contention...] > A 1NT overcall that is offering to play there > is non-conventional by definition. > > [Adam Beneschan says, on the contrary...] > If you really read the Laws' definition > literally, just about every bid is a convention. > > [Nigel] > The laws seem to support Wayne Burrow's > interpretation. > > But I find the definition peculiar. > > For example, at favourable vulnerability, you > may be delighted to play in 1NT undoubled, if > your partnership agreement is that such an > overcall shows 0-5 HCP and a 6 card suit. > > I don't like the official definition. I would > deem my call to be conventional if, without > reference to partner's hand, it has a meaning > to partner, that is unavailable to an opponent. > > Perhaps, something like the Orange Book should > be incorporated into the WBF Laws. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: > 19/07/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 23 11:43:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:43:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: <003901c350fc$2e17d3c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> <3F1E5791.1000900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00bb01c35107$53b68f80$a8b64351@noos.fr> Herman: > And we have. Several times already. > And no amount of quality control will reduce the number of errors to > ZERO (at 100% reliability). Lets not start over again. Of course the above is true. Still the current procedures (quality control) are a joke. And although you are not going to reduce the number of errors to zero (I am a pratical person so I know), good procedures (quality control) can greatly reduce the (maximum) damage caused by those errors. Both the Lille and Menton disasters could never have happend if sensible procedures existed (maybe they did) and were enforced. For Lille, I can imagine that you needed to change the movement at the last moment (not really but ok), I can imagine (very well) something goes wrong in such a last minute effort, I CAN NOT imagine nobody double/triple checking the results of this effort. If I understood Ton's mail about this problem correctly he was the person who should have done the checking (what else means 'I was responsible'). He more or less said he didn't or couldn't because he had too much to do already (what else means 'I worked already 16 hours a day') although in that case he should have ordered someone else to check it. And he said 'he didn't feel guilty about it'. Great. The Menton thing is more understandable and less at the same time. Zillions of boards get duplicated. It is boring and repetitious work. So every production manager knows it is 100% SURE that errors are made. So you need production procedures that allowes for mistakes, finds them, and corrects them. Anyway I CAN NOT imagine that boards are shipped out the duplication area without some kind of checks (well I am sure there are some checks). One of the most damaging errors (different rather than identical sets make it to the playing area) is easy to make but also very easy to spot. Someone just checking 1 hand from 1 board each set is sure to find that particular error. You can ask the TD's to do that for god's sake. Even if a TD has 10 sets it is a question of seconds rather than minutes to do this test. And yes I know there are some other possible duplicating errors which need different tests than this one. Of course I can imagine very well that what I CAN NOT imagine above is the very truth. But that is why I call the EBL an amateuristic mess rather than a proffesional organisation. But there is hope. Now the EBL has succeeded to impose proffesional fees on the players it might even use that money to set up a (more) proffesional organisation. The first problem being that the money will probably be used for other purposes (or is already used). The second problem being they might need to do more than just that to convince the players (those that are actually paying for themselves) to come back after this wonderful Menton experience. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Dear Henk, > > > > I am not a regulation buff. I only know that +3 was scaled down to +2 in > > certain environments. Good idea, but not enough. > > > > +3 is way too much at any form of scoring if it is supposed to be the > > equivalent of Average Plus. +3 a board results in 23-7 (8 boards) to 25-1 > > (32 boards). Hard to maintain this is Average Plus. Besides it creates a > > conflict with 18 VP's being considered as Average Plus for a match. > > > > The problem of Menton was caused by this inconsistency in regulations. Given > > short matches 18 VP's boils down to about 1.2 imps/board (for long matches > > it is much less, 0.6 at the 32 board scale). If you apply +3 instead to > > enough boards the result is nonsense (23-23 and the like). You make the > > table happy but the rest of the field sad. > > > > A simple solution is to lower the +3 to +1 (the integer closest to 18 VP's a > > match). > > > > > That would be my idea as well. > > > > Myself I would be in favor of just throwing out the boards completely > > (boards that cannot be played because of TD/organisation error) rather than > > handing out random bonusses. At pairs you calculate the average over only > > the played boards. At teams you calculate just the played boards (maybe you > > need another scale). The only thing you need is a reg that defines the > > minimum number (or percentage) of boards a match needs to be scored normally > > rather than be given 18-18. > > > > Anyway, in the end any solution has all kind of serious problems (I would > > hate to get 18 in the last match of a Swiss if I still had a go at a win but > > needed more than that, but I would be happy if the same 18 put me out of > > reach). > > > > So it seems better to improve the quality controls to avoid this kind of > > problems. I know it is hard, boring and dull. But if we really want it and > > we allocate the necessary recources we can play a championship without > > duplication errors. > > > And we have. Several times already. > And no amount of quality control will reduce the number of errors to > ZERO (at 100% reliability). > > > But maybe not with the current staff and or the current > > procedures. According to my inside information (I have multiple sources) I > > am afraid the later assertion tends to be true. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > To: "Jaap van der Neut" > > Cc: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" > > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > > > > > >>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>+3 is the general regulation. > >>>> > >>>I know but research has shown that the equivalent of AV+ is +2 rather > >>> > > than > > > >>>+3. Some NCBO's and SO's have reacted to that already. > >>> > >>This applies to Butler and IMP pairs, not head-to-head team matches. > >> > >> > >> > >>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) > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 23 12:48:55 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:48:55 -0300 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <000201c350f1$9c95cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <084701c35110$65ae6380$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Sven, I need to clarify that my West's play was at trick 10 (4 cards in each hand) not at trick 12, I just typed too fast. All the details are ok. And I was not looking for a double shot, I didn't call the director because I just felt I was unlucky due to a missbid I did protest when South stated that he didn't bid 2s because that would have shown 2 cards, then in my vision 2nt is conventional and should have been properly alerted. So it wasn't a double shot. Besides that after my screenmate said "should be 3 cards" and seeing declarer play I knew that a ruff and sluff wasn't going to cost because declarer couldn't dispose his third club while a club play can give him a free club finesse if my pd has the Q and declarer AJT (in the previous trick declarer played a club to his J and I took the K) declarer showed the sA, dA, cJ and hA, 13 HCP if he has the cA then pd has the sJ or maybe declarer has 18HCP and that's why he bid 2nt, so he does have the cA and the sJ. IMO to bid 2nt he must have some kind of maximum to risk playing at the 3 level with 8 trumps if his pd wanted to signoff in 2s, so not having the cA wasn't an option. Now if he has cAJT a club play gives him a finesse that I don't know if he would take (he was playing badly as you can see). Bidding 2NT with 14HCP and 4 trumps seem to be completely bizarre to me and can only be explained because he was confused about 2s showing only 2 spades..... Then I would have asked what bids do they have with 3/4 spades to know if 2nt is minimum and 3s maximum etc. And I could have had the chance to return a more logical club for down 1. The hand is cold all the time, declarer decided to go down when he took a direct trump finesse with 9 trumps. Maybe I was unlucky I don't think this can be adjusted :-( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:08 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? > Adam Beneschan > > Sven wrote: > > > Luis Argerich > > > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to > > > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed > > > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > > > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > > > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > > > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > > > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > > > for down 1. > > > > > > And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ if he had > > > them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the declarer, > > but > > > is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving the > > > declarer? > > > > > > Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no > > difference; > > > there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but there can > > > certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. > > > > I don't see how you can tell that without knowing the whole hand. > > Maybe declarer needs to ruff a couple hearts in dummy, and would like > > to know whether RHO has the other spade honor---if his spade holding > > is KT8, he might want to ruff the fourth heart with the ace and > > finesse toward his hand, rather than risk an overruff. (Note that > > we're talking about partner's play to the first trump trick, before > > declared cashed the SK.) > > You seem to be fishing for excuses on behalf of the defense. Why would > declarer need to ruff his heart(s) while defense still had any trump left? > > > > > > IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to avoid a > > > ruff and sluff for the last two tricks. > > > > > > (If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick is > > playing > > > your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only chance to > > make > > > another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if your > > partner > > > holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter what > > you > > > do). > > > > > > I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. > > > > Except I don't know of anyplace where an "inferior play" ruling is > > allowed. Do they rule that way in Norway? In the ACBL, TD's can rule > > that damage is not caused by an infraction if there is an "egregious > > error"; I can hardly see how playing the wrong card from equals in > > this situation qualifies, especially when a bit of analysis is > > required to recognize that you should play an honest card (and > > especially when one could conceivably construct a layout where > > concealment does matter). The WBF standard is "wild, irrational, or > > gambling", and the defense definitely doesn't fall into that > > category. In any case, my experience with BLML is that most of us > > hate the idea that players have to play perfect bridge in order to > > have a score adjusted in their favor. > > Before adjusting the score the declarer must establish three facts: > > 1: Was there misinformation (rather than misbid)? > > 2: Was opponents damaged? > > 3: Was the damage caused by the misinformation rather by defense's own play? > > Only if all three questions are answered affirmative is an adjustment in > order. (There seems to be a common misunderstanding that misinformation > automatically results in adjustment; that should not be so). > > In this case my main impression is that there was no misinformation at all, > it seems to me from the original post that south made a misbid, bidding > according to an agreement that applied only after 2NT, not after 1NT. > > But let me stipulate that there was misinformation here: If the critical > choice had occurred for west earlier during the play I might very well > adjust. But for west when playing to trick 12 to be in the dark whether > partner holds the highest outstanding club (or possibly the SJ in spite of > his false carding to the first trump trick) is unacceptable. Clubs must have > been played sometime; did the defense not use any card signals? > > My impression is that west has tried a double-shot (intentionally or > accidentally): > > He plays his diamond in the unlikely case that declarer has miscounted the > trumps (however incredible that should be), and if it turns out that partner > held the highest outstanding club and not the SJ he calls the director with > a claim on misinformation. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/16/2003 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 23 13:00:09 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:00:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030723075519.00a649b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:51 PM 7/22/03, Svwn wrote: >Luis Argerich > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > for down 1. > >And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ if he had >them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the declarer, but >is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving the >declarer? > >Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no difference; >there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but there can >certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. > >IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to avoid a >ruff and sluff for the last two tricks. > >(If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick is >playing >your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only chance >to make >another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if your >partner >holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter what you >do). > >I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. I find nothing in TFLB that allows us to "rule inferior play". Sven's four-paragraph analysis is compelling, and undoubtedly correct, but I hope he doesn't mean to suggest that a player's failure to make such an analysis at the table would be "an egregious error" or a "wild, irrational or gambling action". "Inferior play" as such just doesn't matter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From henk@ripe.net Wed Jul 23 12:59:56 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AS in team play (was Re: [blml] Menton European Championships) In-Reply-To: <3F1E5791.1000900@skynet.be> Message-ID: Jaap, Herman, > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > I am not a regulation buff. I only know that +3 was scaled down to +2 in > > certain environments. Good idea, but not enough. > > > > +3 is way too much at any form of scoring if it is supposed to be the > > equivalent of Average Plus. +3 a board results in 23-7 (8 boards) to 25-1 > > (32 boards). Hard to maintain this is Average Plus. Besides it creates a > > conflict with 18 VP's being considered as Average Plus for a match. > > A simple solution is to lower the +3 to +1 (the integer closest to 18 VP's a > > match). > That would be my idea as well. I'd lower the +3 but increase the 18 VP's: If I score 60% in a one-day, 50 or so boards, pair game with a decent field, then I won't always win, but I will be amongst the top pairs every time. So, an AS of 60% won't neither increase or decrease my chances of winning the event. With 18 VP's in a team game, this isn't true. For a one day swiss (7 or 8 rounds of 6 or 7 boards), one needs closer to 20 VP's/round in Europe, and a lot more in the US. We saw that +3/board results in 23..25 VP's. In that case, if a large number of boards is thrown out, then with +3, my chances of winning the event increase. If entire matches are thrown out (and I get 18VP's), my chances of winning decrease. To avoid that, I'd make ave+ 20 VP's of a round, or the equivalent in IMP's for board. 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 jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 23 13:18:46 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:18:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030723075519.00a649b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <010501c35114$9340d040$a8b64351@noos.fr> 1. I prefer a full hand and full play sequence before saying anything. But I tend to laugh when someone claims at trick twelve not to have a full count. To be more gentle, missing the full count happens to all of us including me, but the cause is always falling asleep or not seeing obvious info, rather than lack of info. 2. What exactly was the MI. The guy didn't alert, but explained when asked as 'should be three', so it seemed that he thought 2NT was some kind of fit but was not sure about details. This kind of thing happens all the time and for me doesn't easily create MI. The correct answer might well have been 'undiscussed but I guess he has three'. In the end you might even ask declarer if dummy's explanation was correct. Maybe a dubious procedure, declarer should do so by himself, but not everybody knows, so a gentle remainder might be very practical. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? > At 06:51 PM 7/22/03, Svwn wrote: > > >Luis Argerich > > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to > > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed > > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > > for down 1. > > > >And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ if he had > >them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the declarer, but > >is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving the > >declarer? > > > >Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no difference; > >there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but there can > >certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. > > > >IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to avoid a > >ruff and sluff for the last two tricks. > > > >(If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick is > >playing > >your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only chance > >to make > >another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if your > >partner > >holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter what you > >do). > > > >I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. > > I find nothing in TFLB that allows us to "rule inferior play". > > Sven's four-paragraph analysis is compelling, and undoubtedly correct, > but I hope he doesn't mean to suggest that a player's failure to make > such an analysis at the table would be "an egregious error" or a "wild, > irrational or gambling action". "Inferior play" as such just doesn't > matter. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 23 14:11:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:11:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <084701c35110$65ae6380$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000001c3511b$ede0b7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> As I have already indicated it makes a lot of difference when your play happened to trick 10 instead of to trick 12. I cannot judge how = significant this difference is without seeing all the hands and all the plays up to = and including trick 9. But if the play so far should not give reason to = override the information that south had shown three trumps (and denied four) I = might quite likely adjust provided I would rule misinformation and not misbid. Playing behind screens you would not know if south thought his 2nt bid = to be alertable because you would not know whether he alerted or not (East = would know). North did not alert 2nt, hopefully because he did not think it = was alertable. Before the play you asked north the meaning of 2nt, and if I = have understood this thread right you received the correct explanation?=20 Returning to my three conditions for an adjustment I still have a = problem with the question of misinformation. I am unable to judge whether such misinformation in case caused the alleged damage. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Luis > Argerich > Sent: 23. juli 2003 13:49 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? >=20 > Sven, >=20 > I need to clarify that my West's play was at trick 10 (4 cards in each > hand) > not at trick 12, I just > typed too fast. All the details are ok. And I was not looking for a = double > shot, I didn't call > the director because I just felt I was unlucky due to a missbid I did > protest when South > stated that he didn't bid 2s because that would have shown 2 cards, = then > in > my vision 2nt > is conventional and should have been properly alerted. So it wasn't a > double > shot. > Besides that after my screenmate said "should be 3 cards" and seeing > declarer play I knew > that a ruff and sluff wasn't going to cost because declarer couldn't > dispose > his third club while > a club play can give him a free club finesse if my pd has the Q and > declarer > AJT (in the previous > trick declarer played a club to his J and I took the K) declarer = showed > the > sA, dA, cJ and hA, > 13 HCP if he has the cA then pd has the sJ or maybe declarer has 18HCP = and > that's why he bid > 2nt, so he does have the cA and the sJ. IMO to bid 2nt he must have = some > kind of maximum to > risk playing at the 3 level with 8 trumps if his pd wanted to signoff = in > 2s, > so not having the cA > wasn't an option. Now if he has cAJT a club play gives him a finesse = that > I > don't know if he > would take (he was playing badly as you can see). Bidding 2NT with = 14HCP > and > 4 trumps > seem to be completely bizarre to me and can only be explained because = he > was > confused about > 2s showing only 2 spades..... Then I would have asked what bids do = they > have > with 3/4 spades > to know if 2nt is minimum and 3s maximum etc. And I could have had the > chance to return a > more logical club for down 1. The hand is cold all the time, declarer > decided to go down when > he took a direct trump finesse with 9 trumps. > Maybe I was unlucky I don't think this can be adjusted :-( >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:08 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? >=20 >=20 > > Adam Beneschan > > > Sven wrote: > > > > Luis Argerich > > > > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was = to > > > > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > > > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but = seemed > > > > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull = the > > > > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he = bid > > > > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that = he > > > > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > > > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third = club > > > > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > > > > for down 1. > > > > > > > > And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ = if he > had > > > > them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you and the > declarer, > > > but > > > > is this a board where he could gain anything at all by deceiving = the > > > > declarer? > > > > > > > > Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no > > > difference; > > > > there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive declarer but = there > can > > > > certainly be something to lose by deceiving you. > > > > > > I don't see how you can tell that without knowing the whole hand. > > > Maybe declarer needs to ruff a couple hearts in dummy, and would = like > > > to know whether RHO has the other spade honor---if his spade = holding > > > is KT8, he might want to ruff the fourth heart with the ace and > > > finesse toward his hand, rather than risk an overruff. (Note that > > > we're talking about partner's play to the first trump trick, = before > > > declared cashed the SK.) > > > > You seem to be fishing for excuses on behalf of the defense. Why = would > > declarer need to ruff his heart(s) while defense still had any trump > left? > > > > > > > > > IMO you should have trusted your partner and played your club to > avoid > a > > > > ruff and sluff for the last two tricks. > > > > > > > > (If declarer holds the SJ your only chance to make another trick = is > > > playing > > > > your club to partner's CA. If declarer holds the CA your only = chance > to > > > make > > > > another trick is playing your diamond for partner's SJ. And if = your > > > partner > > > > holds both the CA and the SJ, or none of them, it doesn't matter > what > > > you > > > > do). > > > > > > > > I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. > > > > > > Except I don't know of anyplace where an "inferior play" ruling is > > > allowed. Do they rule that way in Norway? In the ACBL, TD's can = rule > > > that damage is not caused by an infraction if there is an = "egregious > > > error"; I can hardly see how playing the wrong card from equals in > > > this situation qualifies, especially when a bit of analysis is > > > required to recognize that you should play an honest card (and > > > especially when one could conceivably construct a layout where > > > concealment does matter). The WBF standard is "wild, irrational, = or > > > gambling", and the defense definitely doesn't fall into that > > > category. In any case, my experience with BLML is that most of us > > > hate the idea that players have to play perfect bridge in order to > > > have a score adjusted in their favor. > > > > Before adjusting the score the declarer must establish three facts: > > > > 1: Was there misinformation (rather than misbid)? > > > > 2: Was opponents damaged? > > > > 3: Was the damage caused by the misinformation rather by defense's = own > play? > > > > Only if all three questions are answered affirmative is an = adjustment in > > order. (There seems to be a common misunderstanding that = misinformation > > automatically results in adjustment; that should not be so). > > > > In this case my main impression is that there was no misinformation = at > all, > > it seems to me from the original post that south made a misbid, = bidding > > according to an agreement that applied only after 2NT, not after = 1NT. > > > > But let me stipulate that there was misinformation here: If the = critical > > choice had occurred for west earlier during the play I might very = well > > adjust. But for west when playing to trick 12 to be in the dark = whether > > partner holds the highest outstanding club (or possibly the SJ in = spite > of > > his false carding to the first trump trick) is unacceptable. Clubs = must > have > > been played sometime; did the defense not use any card signals? > > > > My impression is that west has tried a double-shot (intentionally or > > accidentally): > > > > He plays his diamond in the unlikely case that declarer has = miscounted > the > > trumps (however incredible that should be), and if it turns out that > partner > > held the highest outstanding club and not the SJ he calls the = director > with > > a claim on misinformation. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 >=20 > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/16/2003 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 23 14:45:35 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:45:35 -0300 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <000001c3511b$ede0b7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <08c101c35120$b1b13590$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> > Playing behind screens you would not know if south thought his 2nt bid to be > alertable because you would not know whether he alerted or not (East would > know). North did not alert 2nt, hopefully because he did not think it was > alertable. Before the play you asked north the meaning of 2nt, and if I have > understood this thread right you received the correct explanation? When I asked north said "mmmm should be 3 cards" But he wasn't sure. Maybe I failed to protect my side, what should I have done? I need to know count the hand but I didn't know if asking pd or opener about 2nt was ok? Can you pls let me know what should I do if I face a similar situation? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/16/2003 From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 23 15:29:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:29:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <08c101c35120$b1b13590$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000101c35126$d20b2a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Luis Argerich > > Playing behind screens you would not know if south > > thought his 2nt bid to be alertable because you > > would not know whether he alerted or not (East would > > know). North did not alert 2nt, hopefully because he > > did not think it was alertable. Before the play you > > asked north the meaning of 2nt, and if I have > > understood this thread right you received the correct > > explanation? > > When I asked north said "mmmm should be 3 cards" > But he wasn't sure. > Maybe I failed to protect my side, what should I have > done? I need to know count the hand but I didn't know > if asking pd or opener about 2nt was ok? Can you pls > let me know what should I do if I face a similar > > situation? You are entitled to a correct and complete explanation of opponent's agreements (understandings), but you are not entitled to any information to the effect that any of your opponents in any of their calls has deviated from such agreements. In this case you correctly asked north about the call(s) made by south and as far as I understand you got a correct answer (not about what cards south actually had but what cards his bid indicated that he should have had). If south is convinced that he hears north giving you an incorrect explanation it is his duty at the proper moment (which when being declarer or dummy is before the opening lead is made or faced) and in the proper manner to correct that explanation. (The "proper manner" is with the director present, although that is very often ignored without any problem unless the correction leads to further actions in which case the director definitely must be summoned to the table). Again I am under the impression that south did correct the explanation by north (or did he do so only after the play was over?). However, as it was immediately revealed that south was mistaken and his mistake was corrected right away there should be no cause for you claiming any misinformation. It seems obvious that south misbid and that you received the correct information. There is no way you are entitled to find out by questioning your opponents that south did indeed misbid so I don't think there is anything you could have done differently from what you actually did. (Except that you could during the play have figured out yourself that something didn't add up). Regards Sven From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Jul 23 15:50:51 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:50:51 -0300 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <000101c35126$d20b2a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <08ed01c35129$cfc44000$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> North said to me "mmm should be 3 cards" not conclusive South didn't say anything about 2n and pd didn't ask, he didn't say a single word during the play. So the hand was played and over without any incidents. I commented the hand with the director because I felt damaged but I knew it was just bad luck. The director asked then south about why he didn' bid 2s over the transfer and thats when he said 2s would have shown 2 cards, then I did protest but the director said the result should stand and that I should have called him before.... Why? If 2nt is 3 cards everything is normal, 17 or maybe 18 HCP with 3 cards seems to be logical for a 2n bid over the transfer and it barely matched my count of the hand (with 9 trumps not crazy declarers play from the top or finesse after cashing an honor they don't play a direct finesse).... When south finally "confessed" why he bid 2n I thought that was MI since he was not alerting something that for him was conventional even when his pd didn't know that...... In other words: South was playing 2s as 2 cards so he bid 2nt, north was playing "normal" transfers so he imagined 2n was showing 3 cards..... Is this MI or was I just in the middle of an unfortunate lucky result by a pair that couldn't figure out what they were playing? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? > Luis Argerich > > > Playing behind screens you would not know if south > > > thought his 2nt bid to be alertable because you > > > would not know whether he alerted or not (East would > > > know). North did not alert 2nt, hopefully because he > > > did not think it was alertable. Before the play you > > > asked north the meaning of 2nt, and if I have > > > understood this thread right you received the correct > > > explanation? > > > > When I asked north said "mmmm should be 3 cards" > > But he wasn't sure. > > Maybe I failed to protect my side, what should I have > > done? I need to know count the hand but I didn't know > > if asking pd or opener about 2nt was ok? Can you pls > > let me know what should I do if I face a similar > > > situation? > > You are entitled to a correct and complete explanation of opponent's > agreements (understandings), but you are not entitled to any information to > the effect that any of your opponents in any of their calls has deviated > from such agreements. > > In this case you correctly asked north about the call(s) made by south and > as far as I understand you got a correct answer (not about what cards south > actually had but what cards his bid indicated that he should have had). > > If south is convinced that he hears north giving you an incorrect > explanation it is his duty at the proper moment (which when being declarer > or dummy is before the opening lead is made or faced) and in the proper > manner to correct that explanation. > > (The "proper manner" is with the director present, although that is very > often ignored without any problem unless the correction leads to further > actions in which case the director definitely must be summoned to the > table). > > Again I am under the impression that south did correct the explanation by > north (or did he do so only after the play was over?). However, as it was > immediately revealed that south was mistaken and his mistake was corrected > right away there should be no cause for you claiming any misinformation. > > It seems obvious that south misbid and that you received the correct > information. There is no way you are entitled to find out by questioning > your opponents that south did indeed misbid so I don't think there is > anything you could have done differently from what you actually did. > > (Except that you could during the play have figured out yourself that > something didn't add up). > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/16/2003 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 23 15:53:54 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <200307231453.KAA27448@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Before adjusting the score the declarer must establish three facts: > > 1: Was there misinformation (rather than misbid)? > 2: Was opponents damaged? > 3: Was the damage caused by the misinformation rather by defense's own play? I think we all agree on this, but apparently we disagree on how to interpret number 3. Until now, I thought the consensus was to ask "What would have happened with a correct explanation?" (There was strong agreement and no disagreement at all when this question was put to BLML a few years ago.) Sven instead seems to want to ask "Should the player have got it right, even given the MI?" I think the latter approach, though occasionally seen, is incorrect. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 23 16:21:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:21:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <200307231453.KAA27448@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c3512e$21186c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > Before adjusting the score the declarer must establish three facts: > > > > 1: Was there misinformation (rather than misbid)? > > 2: Was opponents damaged? > > 3: Was the damage caused by the misinformation rather by defense's = own > play? >=20 > I think we all agree on this, but apparently we disagree on how to > interpret number 3. Until now, I thought the consensus was to ask > "What would have happened with a correct explanation?" (There was > strong agreement and no disagreement at all when this question was > put to BLML a few years ago.) Sven instead seems to want to ask > "Should the player have got it right, even given the MI?" >=20 > I think the latter approach, though occasionally seen, is incorrect. The latter approach is to prevent anybody from making a double-shot: "If = I try an action that I could claim a consequence of what I am convinced = must be misinformation and it fails then I file a protest that without the misinformation I would have tried the other approach". I certainly agree that the director must try to find out what would have happened with a correct explanation, but he must balance against the double-shot and not let the MI be a sleeping pillow or safeguard for an opponent. And as I explained while I still had the understanding that the critical play took place to trick twelve: It is difficult to convince me the = defender should not at that time have a clear count of at least one of the two = most important remaining cards in the play (The highest outstanding club and = the trump jack) in spite of whatever misinformation could have been = presented earlier. And yes, with either of those two cards located he should have got his = play to trick twelve right, even given the MI (if there was any MI at all - = which I still doubt). Regards Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Jul 23 16:14:36 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:14:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> <001c01c34cd9$da994d80$1929e150@endicott> Message-ID: <018301c3512e$1921d920$0b053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "If ye break faith with us who die > We shall not sleep, though poppies grow > In Flanders fields." > (John McRae, died 1918) > ================================ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; > "blml" > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > > > > > Although in English I don't know due to the famous > >poem: > > ... Flanders' Fields ... the poppies blow ... the crosses > > row by row ... Now the bloodiest battles including > > Britsh troops in the Great War were fought in Picardy > > (the 1st and 2nd battle of the Somme) not in Flandres. > > But since any single Brit knows that poem by heart it > > must have some effect on the default meaning of > > Flanders in their language. > > > +=+ It is not necessarily true that any Brit born after > 1939 will have any idea what Flanders is; many may > not even have heard of it. For those born a little > earlier than that it is, like Armentieres (where > the mademoiselles come from), a place somewhere > over the other side of the English Channel where > our soldiers were bogged down in World War 1. > Roses flower in Picardy, poppies blow in Flanders. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > (English) Channel or Pas de Calais or Strait of Dover ? Ben From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 23 17:07:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:07:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <010501c35134$8f232420$689468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Luis Argerich] I was west and my screen-mate was north. W N E S 1n p 2h* p 2n p 3n p 4s p p p 1nt was 15-17. 2h was alerted as transfer. When 2nt appeared on the tray north didn't alert and bid 3n, I asked what 2n was and north said "should be 3 cards". But then before next round the director asked south why he didn't bid 2s over the transfer and he said "because 2s shows 2 cards" north quickly pointed "that's only over 2nt not 1nt" and south said "oh I didn't know".... They didn't have a cc or any written material. [Nigel] South should explain his 2N bid to East, *his* screen-mate, as *minimum with 4 card support*. Or at the very least "conventional". If South didn't do so, I would certainly adjust to 4S-1 because *East*, your partner, might lead, play, or signal differently. Life is too short to study all available opportunities, during the previous 11 tricks. I would leave that to an AC (who would I hope keep the N-S deposit) Otherwise, perhaps, for EW to merit redress, West should protect himelf by asking South to explain the systemic meaning of his 2NT bid, after the auction. Anyway, were I a TD I would rule a PP against NS because of their lack of CC and evasiveness. IMO, N-S are guilty of prevarication as it seems overwhelmingly likely that 2N was *conventional to both of them*. Even if they were each unsure what the *exact* meaning was, both should make a better attempt to explain likely meanings after the auction and before (:not after:) the play. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 23 16:56:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:56:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bananas Message-ID: <001001c3513d$e96b15b0$1847e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott [presumed dummy makes an "opening lead," and the next player "follows"] > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I have been giving some thought to the facts > that: > (a) neither side is non-offending; > (b) the attempted lead has stimulated > the action of the second player. > It does not "feel" right that the second player should > have a penalty card. However, I have not found a > basis on which the Director can waive the penalty, > nor a provision allowing the player to withdraw the > card without penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ The Director can certainly assign an adjusted score afterwards under L72B1 or even under L12A1 alone. (I don't think even Sven will deny that the initial lead is an irregularity.) In fact, it seems automatic to do so if the defending side is damaged. Presented with that possibility, it wouldn't be surprising :-) if the original offender requests the Director to waive the penalty. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 23 19:25:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:25:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <200307231743.h6NHhNLU004193@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000501c35147$c31b9b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > [presumed dummy makes an "opening lead," and the next player = "follows"] >=20 > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=3D+ I have been giving some thought to the facts > > that: > > (a) neither side is non-offending; > > (b) the attempted lead has stimulated > > the action of the second player. > > It does not "feel" right that the second player should > > have a penalty card. However, I have not found a > > basis on which the Director can waive the penalty, > > nor a provision allowing the player to withdraw the > > card without penalty. ~ G ~ +=3D+ >=20 > The Director can certainly assign an adjusted score afterwards under > L72B1 or even under L12A1 alone. (I don't think even Sven will deny > that the initial lead is an irregularity.)=20 No, "not even me" deny that, on the contrary I do indeed consider it an irregularity. The essential question here however is how to handle the second irregularity. The letters of the laws are clear: It is another card exposed during the auction, the irregularity is a separate one and Law 24 applies (independently) to this irregularity as well as to the first. It could seem desirable if the director had a possibility to decide that = the second irregularity was a direct result of the first and therefore to = waive all penalties for the second irregularity. I see no such provision = anywhere in the laws. (Using Law 72B1 or 12A for such a purpose requires some law bending; the presumed defending side is the offending side in this = second irregularity). There might be a case study for WBFLC hidden here somewhere? (Noted, Grattan?) But can it be denied that the main cause for the second irregularity in = this case is lack of attention by that player? Regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 23 19:46:46 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Bananas Message-ID: <200307231846.h6NIkkgQ004219@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Ceefax carries a page today discussing the > price of "conventional bananas". > Unnatural fruit?? :-) +=+ Heh! In that spirit :-), I'm wondering what the definition of "convention" needs to accomplish. I can find three things: 1. SO's may regulate conventions, and SO's may state their regulations in the form of a list of allowed conventions. 2. Insufficient bid rules change when a convention is involved. 3. Call out of rotation rules change when a convention is involved. Anything else? In this context, is there a _need_ for the following to be conventions? I know they are now usually considered to be so, but would it be bad if the convention definition were changed so they no longer are? Which of the rules above would become unfair? a) 1C bid that may include a balanced hand with 4=4=3=2 distribution? b) 1D bids that may include balanced hands with longer clubs? c) 1C that may include strong hands, even unbalanced ones without clubs (e.g., Polish)? From adam@irvine.com Wed Jul 23 19:57:03 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:57:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:08:33 +0200." <000201c350f1$9c95cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200307231856.LAA05270@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Adam Beneschan > > Sven wrote: > > > Luis Argerich > > > > Well dummy held A9xxx as I said the first play by declarer was to > > > > run the sT to my pd's Q then he cashed the sK both following. > > > > That play is (to me) wrong with either 9 or 8 trumps but seemed > > > > to be more logical with 8, now why did declarer didn't pull the > > > > remaining trump if he has 8? I can't tell. You can see how he bid > > > > and how he played the suit so I had my reasons to decide that he > > > > was simple missplaying the hand. Had my pd held the sJ or not > > > > doesn't matter because declarer cannot get rid of the third club > > > > and if my pd does have the sJ then he can make that en-passant > > > > for down 1. > > > > > > And would your partner seriously use his SQ rather than his SJ > > > if he had them both? I mean: By that play he deceives both you > > > and the declarer, but is this a board where he could gain > > > anything at all by deceiving the declarer? > > > > > > Definitely not, whether you or declarer holds the SK makes no > > > difference; there is nothing to gain by attempting to deceive > > > declarer but there can certainly be something to lose by > > > deceiving you. > > > > I don't see how you can tell that without knowing the whole hand. > > Maybe declarer needs to ruff a couple hearts in dummy, and would like > > to know whether RHO has the other spade honor---if his spade holding > > is KT8, he might want to ruff the fourth heart with the ace and > > finesse toward his hand, rather than risk an overruff. (Note that > > we're talking about partner's play to the first trump trick, before > > declared cashed the SK.) > > You seem to be fishing for excuses on behalf of the defense. Why would > declarer need to ruff his heart(s) while defense still had any trump left? Perhaps if North analyzed the hand adequately, he should have realized that the SJ was definitely a better play. But look at what you're saying. You're saying that North, whose instincts may be to play randomly from equal honors in order to avoid giving the show away, would (if he had had both trump honors) have analyzed the hand in enough detail to realize that there was no advantage to doing so in this case, and that he should have figured out to play SJ to avoid misleading his partner. You're also saying that South should also have worked this all out and figured out that North would have worked out to play the SJ if he had both honors, and that South should therefore conclude that North cannot possibly have the SJ despite his opponent's misexplanation. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT SOUTH'S FAILURE TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT IS AN "EGREGIOUS ERROR" THAT SHOULD COST THEM THE RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGE DUE TO MISINFORMATION??????????? You're practically saying that non-offenders must play as well as Hamman in order to get a score adjusted in their favor. This cannot be right!!! Your argument would be fine in a "You Be The Judge" column in the Bridge World. But it has no place in a discussion of whether a defense is bad enough to break the causative link between misinformation and damage. The standards are very different. They have to be. -- Adam From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Jul 23 19:06:42 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:06:42 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships In-Reply-To: <003901c350fc$2e17d3c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > +3 is way too much at any form of scoring if it is supposed to be the > equivalent of Average Plus. +3 a board results in 23-7 (8 boards) to 25-1 > (32 boards). Hard to maintain this is Average Plus. Besides it creates a > conflict with 18 VP's being considered as Average Plus for a match. +3 is specified in a law relating to the scoring of a single unplayable board, as compensation against the lost chance for a big gain on that board. For that purpose, like 60% on one board in pairs, it seems to work well. Over a larger number of boards, you still need some compensation for the fact that a big swing might have come up on one or two of them, but a big gain on every single board is not going to happen. I would suggest that the appropriate award for multiple unplayable boards might be 3*sqrt(n) imps. Guess what! 3*sqrt(n), rounded up, converts to 18-12 on all of the WBF VP scales!! (9 imps for 8 boards, on up to 21 imps for 48 boards.) GRB From svenpran@online.no Wed Jul 23 20:59:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:59:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <200307231856.LAA05270@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000701c35154$dd09de20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan ............=20 > Perhaps if North analyzed the hand adequately, he should have realized > that the SJ was definitely a better play. North? East I suppose. >=20 > But look at what you're saying. You're saying that North, whose > instincts may be to play randomly from equal honors in order to avoid > giving the show away, would (if he had had both trump honors) have > analyzed the hand in enough detail to realize that there was no > advantage to doing so in this case, and that he should have figured > out to play SJ to avoid misleading his partner. You're also saying > that South should also have worked this all out and figured out that > North would have worked out to play the SJ if he had both honors, and > that South should therefore conclude that North cannot possibly have > the SJ despite his opponent's misexplanation. South? West I suppose. Was East playing a one-man show or did he play on team with his partner? >=20 > AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT SOUTH'S FAILURE TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT IS AN > "EGREGIOUS ERROR" THAT SHOULD COST THEM THE RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGE DUE > TO MISINFORMATION??????????? You're practically saying that > non-offenders must play as well as Hamman in order to get a score > adjusted in their favor. This cannot be right!!! I was saying that if you lead the wrong card to trick twelve you have a = lot of convincing to do if you want redress because of alleged = misinformation as the reason for your play. It shouldn't take much cooperation between partners to locate at least one of the key cards: The highest = outstanding club and the jack of trumps when each hand holds just two cards left. The fact that this was not the lead to trick twelve, it was the lead to trick ten (which has been later revealed); inevitably changed the = picture quite a lot. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 23 21:42:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:42:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Menton European Championships References: Message-ID: <000c01c3515a$eeb2af20$a8b64351@noos.fr> Good work Gordon. Gordon: > Guess what! 3*sqrt(n), rounded up, converts to 18-12 on all of the WBF VP > scales!! (9 imps for 8 boards, on up to 21 imps for 48 boards.) I guess that is the way the scales have been constructed. Gordon: > Over a larger number of boards, you still need some compensation for the > fact that a big swing might have come up on one or two of them, but a big > gain on every single board is not going to happen. Disagree. Why do you need compensation for the fact that a big swing might have come up. That swing might also have been against you. In the end your expectation at imps is 0 a board. The only real reason to claim 'damage' is that you would play that canceled board against weaker opponents (or maybe lost opportunity if this was the last board and you still needed a big swing, but that can work two ways, you winning unless you have a big adverse swing). But if you use this argument to get lets say +2 it implies you should get -2 when playing against stronger opponents. Anyway, for practical reasons this leads nowhere. So, I remain in favor of just ignoring single/few boards altogether. All the imps you hand out are an undeserved penalty for all the other players in the room. But I have no real hard feelings about it. I can understand giving some compensation. But it should not be too much. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Menton European Championships > > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > +3 is way too much at any form of scoring if it is supposed to be the > > equivalent of Average Plus. +3 a board results in 23-7 (8 boards) to 25-1 > > (32 boards). Hard to maintain this is Average Plus. Besides it creates a > > conflict with 18 VP's being considered as Average Plus for a match. > > +3 is specified in a law relating to the scoring of a single unplayable > board, as compensation against the lost chance for a big gain > on that board. For that purpose, like 60% on one board in pairs, it seems > to work well. > > Over a larger number of boards, you still need some compensation for the > fact that a big swing might have come up on one or two of them, but a big > gain on every single board is not going to happen. > > I would suggest that the appropriate award for multiple unplayable boards > might be 3*sqrt(n) imps. > > Guess what! 3*sqrt(n), rounded up, converts to 18-12 on all of the WBF VP > scales!! (9 imps for 8 boards, on up to 21 imps for 48 boards.) > > GRB > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Jul 23 21:49:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:49:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> <001c01c34cd9$da994d80$1929e150@endicott> <018301c3512e$1921d920$0b053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <004101c3515b$d9fcc100$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ben: > (English) Channel or Pas de Calais or Strait of Dover ? Every bridge player should know that one: LA MANCHE. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > Grattan Endicott > (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > "If ye break faith with us who die > > We shall not sleep, though poppies grow > > In Flanders fields." > > (John McRae, died 1918) > > ================================ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > To: "Herman De Wael" ; > > "blml" > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although in English I don't know due to the famous > > >poem: > > > ... Flanders' Fields ... the poppies blow ... the crosses > > > row by row ... Now the bloodiest battles including > > > Britsh troops in the Great War were fought in Picardy > > > (the 1st and 2nd battle of the Somme) not in Flandres. > > > But since any single Brit knows that poem by heart it > > > must have some effect on the default meaning of > > > Flanders in their language. > > > > > +=+ It is not necessarily true that any Brit born after > > 1939 will have any idea what Flanders is; many may > > not even have heard of it. For those born a little > > earlier than that it is, like Armentieres (where > > the mademoiselles come from), a place somewhere > > over the other side of the English Channel where > > our soldiers were bogged down in World War 1. > > Roses flower in Picardy, poppies blow in Flanders. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > (English) Channel or Pas de Calais or Strait of Dover ? > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jul 23 22:26:08 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:26:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <00c401c34fe9$ecf417e0$919c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: [Nigel Guthrie] Karel, are there any rules about notrump overcalls in Ireland? Do you have an "Orange Book"? +++I wouldn't be positive on what are and aren't the rules in ireland. Fergahal is the man to answer that. but As far as I'm aware we follow european rules (EBl/EBU whatever). We do not have an Orange book or equivalent. We do have some Irish specific rules such as .. "you can't psyche a conventional bid", etc. In ireland - A 1NT overcall is normally 15-17 balanced. It is assumed to show a stopper in the opps suit but may not (either way not alertable). Off beat 1NT (ie) 6322 or possibly 1543, or 1633 etc while not normal are acceptable. If regular off beat NT's are used an alert would be expected. 6502 on the other hand is definitely not normal :>> K. From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jul 23 22:25:49 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:25:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <200307231743.h6NHhNLU004193@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > +=+ I have been giving some thought to the facts > that: > (a) neither side is non-offending; > (b) the attempted lead has stimulated > the action of the second player. > It does not "feel" right that the second player should > have a penalty card. However, I have not found a > basis on which the Director can waive the penalty, > nor a provision allowing the player to withdraw the > card without penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ "A card prematurely exposed by a defender ... is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise" (L50). If the TD believes that it does not "feel" right that the second player should have a penalty card, does this not empower him to "designate otherwise"? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Thu Jul 24 06:00:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:00:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c351a0$90c14bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown=20 > "A card prematurely exposed by a defender ... is a penalty card unless = the > Director designates otherwise" (L50). If the TD believes that it does = not > "feel" right that the second player should have a penalty card, does = this > not empower him to "designate otherwise"? >From Law 24: ".....; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes = a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). = In addition: ....." You were quoting from Law 50 which is the wrong (primary) law here. The = card was not exposed by a defender; it was exposed by a player who = subsequently became a defender. And be aware of the following extract from the "Commentaries to the laws = of duplicate contract bridge 1987": Where the players have agreed amongst themselves that a card is a = penalty card, the Director called subsequently to the table should usually rule = it to be so and proceed on that basis. He will "designate otherwise" if he feels that rights have been jeopardized by a failure to call him = earlier; he may cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players before he is called to the table if this action is the best resolution of = difficulties which players have created prior to summoning him. What "rights" would have been jeopardized in the situation under = discussion? Sven From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 24 09:02:33 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:02:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again In-Reply-To: <009e01c342dc$dbbde740$b92a24d5@Default> Message-ID: <000001c351b9$f16ae520$4f4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> But, but, but.... Consider if North had not hesitated but passed in tempo. What would you do with the South hand? Why are you allowing ANYTHING else after a hesitation? [Anything else is having it both ways!] regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Jaap van der Neut Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 8:02 PM To: Peter Gill; BLML Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Peter: > It worries me that a case such as this, which IMO is a simple case of=20 > adjusting to 2S undoubled minus 100, is not so widely regarded as a=20 > simple case. It worries me too. On appeal it would take me 3 seconds (or so) to keep = the money if a TD ruling of -100 would be appealed. What worries me more is that lots of people wonder if pass can be a LA. = In their fantasies they don't realise that pass is the NORMAL almost = AUTOMATIC action. I am not saying that double is ridiculous, of course it might = work, but it is a very dangerous call because you have the wrong shape. Anyway what is double? You cannot penalty double without 4 decent spades = because partner will sit for it with short spades. And you have the wrong shape = for a take-out double. Change the hand to xx AQxxx Axx Axx. Now double is = far far more attractive (even with a 12 or 13 count) although lots of = players will still pass. 2S is now for sure at least an eight-card fit and all = suits are breaking well for declarer (so if 2S was a dubious call the guy just guessed right also because he is not on lead against 1NT) and you have a decent fit for either minor. You might have a problem if partner is = exactly 3244 but that is the kind of normal risk of bridge life. Next, some posts said that thinking doesn't suggest double. Please. = Partner' s thinking means he is close to bidding something himself. So double = will work with 99% certainty. Partner will bid his suit (sure to be six if he = has his thinking) or pass if he thought about doubling (in that case 2S will not make). The point is that partners' thinking excludes most if not all = hands (all those random 6 and 7 counts) where doubling might not be such a = good idea. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > 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=20 > 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=20 > >better than passing AND that bidding >would be > better than passing---and that passing would be the >worst of the=20 > 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=20 > 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=20 > 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=20 > above example is not exceptional - it is the sort of everyday=20 > situation in which hesitations occur. Hesitations often give partner=20 > 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=20 > >>>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=20 > >>>hesitation) 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=20 > >>>to a committee. The committee said that Pass was not a logical=20 > >>>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=20 > 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=20 > intelligence. With KQJx, KJxx, xx, xxx he passes 1H then balances with = > 2S as the well-placed hearts (with partner hopefully able to=20 > 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=20 > 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=20 > will often make, and if N/S venture to the three level when the=20 > earlier auction has made it clear that they do not want to go the the=20 > three level, there is a fair chance that they will be doubled at the=20 > 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=20 > long to pass 2S, and South will then have no trouble passing out 2S=20 > and conceding 110 or 140. However, if North holds K10x, xx, Axxxx,=20 > Qxx, he will be worried that if he doubles 2S, it may make, so he=20 > thinks for ages and eventually decides not to. Or he holds x, Kx,=20 > KJxxxx, xxxx and wants to bid 3D but decides it's too risky so he=20 > thinks then passes 2S to the opener who Doubles, pulled to 3D of=20 > course. IMO Double is very clearly indicated over Pass with the South=20 > 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=20 > >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=20 > torrent of protest. As my above examples are meant to indicate, it is=20 > IMO outrageous and totally contrary to the Laws of Bridge to think=20 > 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=20 > both a bid and a double, might not > >apply here. I still think my argument is correct where a double by=20 > >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=20 > adjusting to 2S undoubled minus 100, is not so widely regarded as a=20 > simple case. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Jul 24 15:22:54 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:22:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <000001c351a0$90c14bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Sven Pran wrote: > > Brambledown: > > "A card prematurely exposed by a defender ... is a penalty card > > unless the Director designates otherwise" (L50). If the TD believes > > that it does not "feel" right that the second player should have a > > penalty card, does this not empower him to "designate otherwise"? > From Law 24: ".....; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes > a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card > (Law 50). In addition: ....." > You were quoting from Law 50 which is the wrong (primary) law > here. The card was not exposed by a defender; it was exposed by a > player who subsequently became a defender. True we start with L24, but we are then cross-referenced to L50, which allows the TD to "otherwise designate". > And be aware of the following extract from the "Commentaries to > the laws of duplicate contract bridge 1987": > > 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; he may cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players before > he is called to the table if this action is the best resolution of difficulties > which players have created prior to summoning him. > > What "rights" would have been jeopardized in the situation under > discussion? The above merely provides an example of circumstances in which the TD might think it appropriate to "otherwise designate", it doesn't suggest that these are the *only* circumstances in which he may do so. I recollect that we have had similar discussions about L11, where we have been advised that the TD's powers to apply the terms of the first paragraph are not limited to the conditions of the second. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From joanandron@worldnet.att.net Thu Jul 24 15:38:33 2003 From: joanandron@worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:38:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Web Site. References: <000001c351a0$90c14bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002701c351f1$42969980$1243580c@Dell4500> Hi, Many of you may be wondering why you cannot reach the ACBL web site..... There was a horrific storm in Memphis on Tuesday morning... 100 mile an hour winds. All the power and phone lines are down. The airport was closed until Wednesday morning. Many homes were damaged. The ACBL office has been closed. Hopefully it won't be more than a day or two more before the web site is up again. From what I hear, our employees are all ok although many had damage to their homes. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Best regards, Joan Gerard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:00 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. > Brambledown > "A card prematurely exposed by a defender ... is a penalty card unless the > Director designates otherwise" (L50). If the TD believes that it does not > "feel" right that the second player should have a penalty card, does this > not empower him to "designate otherwise"? >From Law 24: ".....; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). In addition: ....." You were quoting from Law 50 which is the wrong (primary) law here. The card was not exposed by a defender; it was exposed by a player who subsequently became a defender. And be aware of the following extract from the "Commentaries to the laws of duplicate contract bridge 1987": 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; he may cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players before he is called to the table if this action is the best resolution of difficulties which players have created prior to summoning him. What "rights" would have been jeopardized in the situation under discussion? Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 24 16:15:15 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. Message-ID: <200307241515.h6OFFFfs029337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Now to some of your points: Once you accept that we have indeed two separate > irregularities here I don't think you can legally apply Law 72B1 or 12A1 on > the first irregularity in order to waive penalties (due to equity) on the > second. I don't understand this at all. Suppose NS commit an infraction in the bidding (UI or MI, say), and then EW commit an infraction in the play (revoke or exposed card, say). Then suppose you judge as a result of the first infraction (by NS) to adjust the score to the result in some different contract. Isn't it normal that the second infraction (by EW) is ignored? Why don't we have the same procedure here? > L81C8 is of course applicable, but that law requires the request > from non-offending side; Yes, of course. It may, however, be in their interest to request it, and if so, don't you think the TD should explain that? > "irrational, wild, or gambling," is certainly not characteristics of the > second irregularity. You don't think exposing a card during the auction is irrational? > We shall have to see what comes out of this, but you are not quite correct > in saying that the laws say nothing about multiple irregularities. There are > some situations where the second irregularity is cancelled right away, > however the main principle is that multiple irregularities are treated > separately; one after the other. This is normal interpretation and procedure, but I don't see it spelled out in so many words. Am I missing something? > Now back to multiple Law 24 infractions: Agreed: if the situation differs from the one described by the original poster, the ruling could be different. From svenpran@online.no Thu Jul 24 16:25:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:25:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c351f7$e1b93850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Brambledown: > > > "A card prematurely exposed by a defender ... is a penalty card > > > unless the Director designates otherwise" (L50). If the TD believes > > > that it does not "feel" right that the second player should have a > > > penalty card, does this not empower him to "designate otherwise"? > > > From Law 24: ".....; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes > > a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card > > (Law 50). In addition: ....." > > > You were quoting from Law 50 which is the wrong (primary) law > > here. The card was not exposed by a defender; it was exposed by a > > player who subsequently became a defender. > > True we start with L24, but we are then cross-referenced to L50, which > allows the TD to "otherwise designate". And it should be clear from the commentaries that the director must have a better reason than "I felt sorry for the offender" before he may rule that the exposed card shall not be a penalty card. The commentaries are an excellent source for finding the circumstances the WBFLC had in mind when they made the laws and these commentaries indicate that some tangible damage to the offending side due to an irregular action in which the non-offending side took part must have occurred after the exposure of the card. > > > And be aware of the following extract from the "Commentaries to > > the laws of duplicate contract bridge 1987": > > > > 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; he may cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players > before > > he is called to the table if this action is the best resolution of > difficulties > > which players have created prior to summoning him. > > > > What "rights" would have been jeopardized in the situation under > > discussion? > > The above merely provides an example of circumstances in which the TD > might > think it appropriate to "otherwise designate", it doesn't suggest that > these > are the *only* circumstances in which he may do so. > > I recollect that we have had similar discussions about L11, where we have > been advised that the TD's powers to apply the terms of the first > paragraph > are not limited to the conditions of the second. Sure. The first paragraph gives the necessary condition for the director to consider ruling the right to penalize forfeited while the second paragraph gives the condition under which the director has no choice but to rule the right forfeited. You cannot compare those two laws. > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rwilley@mit.edu Thu Jul 24 16:38:58 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:38:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Web Site. In-Reply-To: <002701c351f1$42969980$1243580c@Dell4500> References: <000001c351a0$90c14bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002701c351f1$42969980$1243580c@Dell4500> Message-ID: <1059061138.3f1ffd92e7582@webmail.mit.edu> I'm very glad to hear that everyone in Memphis is doing fine and I hope that the cleanup goes smoothly. However, I'm somewhat confused about some of your comments. What does the state of the Memphis office have to do with the Website. I can't imagine that the ACBL is hosting its own web servers. [If you are hosting your web server, this might be a good example why many company's locate their hardware at a secure location that can guaruntee connectivity] From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 24 16:47:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:47:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <000001c351b9$f16ae520$4f4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <00a201c351fa$db6e0400$879c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Noel and Pamela] Consider if North had not hesitated but passed in tempo. What would you do with the South hand? Why are you allowing ANYTHING else after a hesitation? [Nigel] Suppose you disagree with expert opinion: Without the hesitation, you would, yourself, always double on the South hand. Eric Landau *demonstrates* that double is suggested by the hesitation. Hence the law says that you may not double after the hesitation if there is a *logical alternative* not so suggested - here "Pass". Nevertheless, some mavericks (: ?Jeff Rubens? :) interpret the law as you would prefer. Other cynics claim that nowadays players hesitate to force their partner to pass unless their other action is defensible before an AC. i.e. Nowadays, "Pass" is the bid most often suggested by a hesitation. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003 From svenpran@online.no Thu Jul 24 16:46:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:46:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <200307241515.h6OFFFfs029337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000101c351fa$c68ab9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ......... > > Now to some of your points: Once you accept that we have indeed two > separate > > irregularities here I don't think you can legally apply Law 72B1 or = 12A1 > on > > the first irregularity in order to waive penalties (due to equity) = on > the > > second. >=20 > I don't understand this at all. Suppose NS commit an infraction in = the > bidding (UI or MI, say), and then EW commit an infraction in the play > (revoke or exposed card, say). Then suppose you judge as a result of > the first infraction (by NS) to adjust the score to the result in some > different contract. Isn't it normal that the second infraction (by = EW) > is ignored? Ignored? NO, definitely not in the world I know (unless the second irregularity is a direct consequence of the first and not for instance = the result of a sloppy mind). But it can make the decision on which adjusted score to be assigned to each side a bit trickier. =20 >=20 > Why don't we have the same procedure here? >=20 > > L81C8 is of course applicable, but that law requires the request > > from non-offending side; >=20 > Yes, of course. It may, however, be in their interest to request it, > and if so, don't you think the TD should explain that? In what way (other than possibly maintaining a social friendship) can it = be in their interest? Don't overlook that we are discussing serious competitions and not social bridge in this thread.=20 >=20 > > "irrational, wild, or gambling," is certainly not characteristics of = the > > second irregularity. >=20 > You don't think exposing a card during the auction is irrational? No, careless is IMO a better word for it. >=20 > > We shall have to see what comes out of this, but you are not quite > correct > > in saying that the laws say nothing about multiple irregularities. = There > are > > some situations where the second irregularity is cancelled right = away, > > however the main principle is that multiple irregularities are = treated > > separately; one after the other. >=20 > This is normal interpretation and procedure, but I don't see it = spelled > out in so many words. Am I missing something? No, I don't think so. Except that the laws contain no special = instructions for handling multiple irregularities together. On the contrary we have a = few places where the laws specifically say that multiple irregularities are = to be treated separately one after the other. (See for instance L50D2). Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 24 16:58:47 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:58:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <000001c351b9$f16ae520$4f4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <00a201c351fa$db6e0400$879c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00c101c351fc$7ad08440$879c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Noel and Pamela] Consider if North had not hesitated but passed in tempo. What would you do with the South hand? Why are you allowing ANYTHING else after a hesitation? [Nigel - with English cleaned up] Suppose you disagree with expert opinion and without the hesitation, you would, yourself, always double on the South hand. Eric Landau *demonstrates* that the variation in tempo suggests a double. Hence the law says that you may not double after the hesitation if there is a *logical alternative* to double that is not so suggested - here "Pass". Nevertheless, some mavericks (: ?Jeff Rubens? :) interpret the law as you would prefer. Other cynics claim that nowadays players deliberately hesitate to force their partner to pass unless their other action is defensible before an AC. i.e. Nowadays, "Pass" is the call that is most often suggested by a hesitation. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 24 08:50:52 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:50:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> <001c01c34cd9$da994d80$1929e150@endicott> <018301c3512e$1921d920$0b053dd4@m1q9j9> <004101c3515b$d9fcc100$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001c01c3520a$d1a92660$3011e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Ben Schelen" ; "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > Ben: > > (English) Channel or Pas de Calais or Strait of Dover ? > > Every bridge player should know that one: LA MANCHE. > > Jaap > +=+ In bridge isn't it 'un manche'? :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 24 21:41:29 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:41:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <000501c34bba$69e6f5d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003f01c34bf3$334c9960$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <3F164377.6080005@skynet.be> <007501c34c3a$1594e700$18224451@Default> <3F168585.7090809@skynet.be> <006501c34c88$4a4c8d60$e0254451@Default> <001c01c34cd9$da994d80$1929e150@endicott> <018301c3512e$1921d920$0b053dd4@m1q9j9> <004101c3515b$d9fcc100$a8b64351@noos.fr> <001c01c3520a$d1a92660$3011e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000701c35223$f6de4280$a8b64351@noos.fr> Grattan, No dear sir. C'est une manche. And no dear Ben. The Channel cannot be translated to Pas de Calais. That is the name of the department and it means something like 'the surroundings of Calais'. The Channel in French is simply La Manche. I also make mistakes. When correcting Herman on his less than accurate lessons about French/Flanders geography I got one wrong to. It is Flandre in French, not Flandres. But once again, outside of Belgium this name, although accurate and correct, is seldom used when referring to French territory. Anyway, if we continue like this we might need some French participating. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "There is no man so friendless but what he > can find a friend sincere enough to tell him > disagreeable truths. " > [Bulwer Lytton] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Ben Schelen" ; > "Grattan Endicott" ; > "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > Ben: > > > (English) Channel or Pas de Calais or Strait of Dover ? > > > > Every bridge player should know that one: LA MANCHE. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ In bridge isn't it 'un manche'? :-) ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 24 21:52:52 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:52:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <000001c351b9$f16ae520$4f4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <002601c35225$8efb3040$a8b64351@noos.fr> Noel & Pamela: What would you do with the South hand? I would normally pas, although I can imagine getting busy. Noel & Pamela: Why are you allowing ANYTHING else after a hesitation? I don't understand this question. After an hesitation I will just pas. Even someone who tends to get busy often (here to double whatever that double is supposed to be) cannot do so after partner has provided UI that getting busy is probably a good idea. But I can understand very well frustration about this and similar cases. As I said in other mails this can only be solved by playing with screens or an extended stop rule. In competitive situations players should get say 5 seconds to make up their mind. They often need it. But this only works if they also take 5 seconds or so if they don't have a problem. If you don't agree on 5 please pick any number you like. It is about a concept. Not about 5 seconds. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel and Pamela" To: "'BLML'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:02 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again But, but, but.... Consider if North had not hesitated but passed in tempo. What would you do with the South hand? Why are you allowing ANYTHING else after a hesitation? [Anything else is having it both ways!] regards, Noel and/or Pamela -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 8:02 PM To: Peter Gill; BLML Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again Peter: > 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. It worries me too. On appeal it would take me 3 seconds (or so) to keep the money if a TD ruling of -100 would be appealed. What worries me more is that lots of people wonder if pass can be a LA. In their fantasies they don't realise that pass is the NORMAL almost AUTOMATIC action. I am not saying that double is ridiculous, of course it might work, but it is a very dangerous call because you have the wrong shape. Anyway what is double? You cannot penalty double without 4 decent spades because partner will sit for it with short spades. And you have the wrong shape for a take-out double. Change the hand to xx AQxxx Axx Axx. Now double is far far more attractive (even with a 12 or 13 count) although lots of players will still pass. 2S is now for sure at least an eight-card fit and all suits are breaking well for declarer (so if 2S was a dubious call the guy just guessed right also because he is not on lead against 1NT) and you have a decent fit for either minor. You might have a problem if partner is exactly 3244 but that is the kind of normal risk of bridge life. Next, some posts said that thinking doesn't suggest double. Please. Partner' s thinking means he is close to bidding something himself. So double will work with 99% certainty. Partner will bid his suit (sure to be six if he has his thinking) or pass if he thought about doubling (in that case 2S will not make). The point is that partners' thinking excludes most if not all hands (all those random 6 and 7 counts) where doubling might not be such a good idea. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again > 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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 new-domains-dot@yahoo.co.jp Fri Jul 25 02:34:40 2003 From: new-domains-dot@yahoo.co.jp (New domains Released now) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:34:40 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) New Domain Released now Message-ID: OHANSOERACVAWECF
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 jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Fri Jul 25 08:00:56 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:00:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 Message-ID: "Jaap van der Neut" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 24/07/2003 22:41 =20 Pour : "Grattan Endicott" , "blml" cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] More on L16C2 Grattan, No dear sir. C'est une manche. *** "un manche" exists also; it means something like an idiot or an unskilful=20 person. i think it was what grattan had in mind. *** And no dear Ben. The Channel cannot be translated to Pas de Calais. That=20 is the name of the department and it means something like 'the surroundings=20 of Calais'. The Channel in French is simply La Manche. ***=20 "la Manche" is the name of a sea: equivalent of the channel; it's also the = name of a french "departement", including towns like Cherbourg and=20 Saint-Lo, and beaches where american troops landed in 1944. jp rocafort ***=20 I also make mistakes. When correcting Herman on his less than accurate lessons about French/Flanders geography I got one wrong to. It is Flandre=20 in French, not Flandres. But once again, outside of Belgium this name,=20 although accurate and correct, is seldom used when referring to French territory. Anyway, if we continue like this we might need some French participating. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "There is no man so friendless but what he > can find a friend sincere enough to tell him > disagreeable truths. " > [Bulwer Lytton] > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Ben Schelen" ; > "Grattan Endicott" ; > "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > > Ben: > > > (English) Channel or Pas de Calais or Strait of Dover ? > > > > Every bridge player should know that one: LA MANCHE. > > > > Jaap > > > +=3D+ In bridge isn't it 'un manche'? :-) ~ G ~ +=3D+ > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From tom.cornelis@pi.be Fri Jul 25 08:26:07 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:26:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bananas References: <200307231846.h6NIkkgQ004219@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c3527e$19b0cd00$a8d1eb3e@cornelis> Hi all, Steve Willner wrote: > Heh! In that spirit :-), I'm wondering what the definition of > "convention" needs to accomplish. I can find three things: > > 1. SO's may regulate conventions, and SO's may state their regulations > in the form of a list of allowed conventions. > > 2. Insufficient bid rules change when a convention is involved. > > 3. Call out of rotation rules change when a convention is involved. > > Anything else? > > In this context, is there a _need_ for the following to be > conventions? I know they are now usually considered to be so, but > would it be bad if the convention definition were changed so they no > longer are? Which of the rules above would become unfair? > > > a) 1C bid that may include a balanced hand with 4=4=3=2 distribution? > > b) 1D bids that may include balanced hands with longer clubs? > > c) 1C that may include strong hands, even unbalanced ones without > clubs (e.g., Polish)? IMO, the rules on conventional bids (1, 2 and 3) should be modified for all conventions, not just for case a, b and c. 1. No need for change here, at least not on the level of the Laws. 2. Here I wouldn't disallow any bid, no direct penalties. If an unsufficient bid is changed into a sufficient one, the sufficient bid retains the meaning it had as without the infringement. There are three possible cases: a) the insufficient and the sufficient bid have the same meaning; whether conventional or not, such a change should not be penalized; b) the insufficient bid gives extra information, which the sufficient bid does not; should be treated as UI; c) the insufficient bid gives no extra information, but the sufficient bid does; no such change should be penalized. 3. I would prefer rules along the same lines as in 2. After all, there isn't much difference with the infringement in 2. Actually, why would there be any need for conventional calls to be treated differently? I can only suppose, it's one of the traditional rules, dating from the period where few conventions were used. Best regards, Tom. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jul 25 12:30:33 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A and 73C Again References: <000001c351b9$f16ae520$4f4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <002601c35225$8efb3040$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <008501c352a0$3d1f1cc0$7d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] As I said in other mails this can only be solved by playing with screens or an extended stop rule. In competitive situations players should get say 5 seconds to make up their mind. They often need it. But this only works if they also take 5 seconds or so if they don't have a problem. If you don't agree on 5 please pick any number you like. [Nigel] As part of a communal bidding box, it should be easy to devise a simple automatic timing device that measures short intervals. You have to wait 7 secs, say, before any call. There is a green light for another 3 secs, say, during which you must call, to avoid penalty. Your call triggers LHO's timer. The penalty for a call outwith the green light period can be recorded automatically. (As Jaap says) 7 secs and 3 secs are merely suggestions and the TD may vary them. Also, if a tempo variation is due to extraneous factors, the TD may waive the penalty, at his discretion. Since you can use the other players' thinking time as well as your own, the thinking period should be more than ample for most people. This would eliminate much of the unauthorised information that arises from variation of tempo. And would probably speed up the game especially when you consider how many appeals are about UI. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Jul 25 13:53:49 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:53:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: Message-ID: <025701c352ba$a6f25580$ba053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 "Jaap van der Neut" Envoyé par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 24/07/2003 22:41 Pour : "Grattan Endicott" , "blml" cc : Objet : Re: [blml] More on L16C2 Grattan, No dear sir. C'est une manche. *** "un manche" exists also; it means something like an idiot or an unskilful person. i think it was what grattan had in mind. *** And no dear Ben. The Channel cannot be translated to Pas de Calais. That is the name of the department and it means something like 'the surroundings of Calais'. The Channel in French is simply La Manche. *** "la Manche" is the name of a sea: equivalent of the channel; it's also the name of a french "departement", including towns like Cherbourg and Saint-Lo, and beaches where american troops landed in 1944. jp rocafort *** According to the information from Michelin Pas de Calais is department 62 but also the name of the sea in front of Calais. I do not know what was first: the sea or the department. Pas in french means narrows or strait in english. I also visited my school atlas named Bos. The english map shows Channel for the broad part and Strait of Dover for the small part, whereas the french map shows La Manche and Pas the Calais. Strange is not it? Ben Ben From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jul 25 16:56:25 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:56:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <025701c352ba$a6f25580$ba053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000701c352c5$4e86d500$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ben, I will double check again but according to my French sources Pas de Calais doesn't mean The Chanell. But who knows, it might have in the past. Anyway, by now the French should react on this. > "la Manche" is the name of a sea: equivalent of the channel; it's also the > name of a french "departement", This is quite normal. Almost all departements are named after a river or mountain formation or (few) sea body. 'Nord' is an odd exception. But this suggest that Pas de Calais might refer to some water after all. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > "Jaap van der Neut" > Envoyé par : blml-admin@rtflb.org > 24/07/2003 22:41 > > > Pour : "Grattan Endicott" , "blml" > > cc : > Objet : Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > Grattan, > > No dear sir. C'est une manche. > > *** > "un manche" exists also; it means something like an idiot or an unskilful > person. i think it was what grattan had in mind. > *** > > And no dear Ben. The Channel cannot be translated to Pas de Calais. That > is > the name of the department and it means something like 'the surroundings > of > Calais'. The Channel in French is simply La Manche. > > *** > "la Manche" is the name of a sea: equivalent of the channel; it's also the > name of a french "departement", including towns like Cherbourg and > Saint-Lo, and beaches where american troops landed in 1944. > > jp rocafort > *** > > According to the information from Michelin Pas de Calais is department 62 > but also the name of the sea in front of Calais. I do not know what was > first: the sea or the department. > Pas in french means narrows or strait in english. > I also visited my school atlas named Bos. The english map shows Channel for > the broad part and Strait of Dover for the small part, whereas the french > map shows La Manche and Pas the Calais. > Strange is not it? > > Ben > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jul 25 17:06:48 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:06:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <000001c351f7$e1b93850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Sven Pran wrote: > > Brambledown > > True we start with L24, but we are then cross-referenced to L50, which > > allows the TD to "otherwise designate". > > And it should be clear from the commentaries that the director must have a > better reason than "I felt sorry for the offender" before he may rule that > the exposed card shall not be a penalty card. Now just a moment, I have said nothing about feeling sorry for the offender. Personally I do not see an opening lead from the presumptive dummy as much excuse for the next player following with another card. L21 aside, the first offence happens to escape without penalty while the second incurs L50 penalties. C'est la vie. However, the second offence would clearly not have occurred without the first, and Grattan and others ventured that penalising it did not "feel" right. All I have suggested is that if the TD *wanted* to waive the penalty card provision, L50 appeared to allow him to do so. > The commentaries are an excellent source for finding the circumstances the > WBFLC had in mind when they made the laws and these commentaries indicate > that some tangible damage to the offending side due to an irregular action > in which the non-offending side took part must have occurred after the > exposure of the card. The "Commentary" deals in 50.5 with the situation where the TD has not been called immediately. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the director may "otherwise designate". In any event the "Commentary" while helpful is not law. L50 permits the TD to "otherwise designate" with no indication as to the circumstances in which he should do so. If the lawmakers had intended that this power should only be applied in certain specific circumstances, then ISTM that the law should say so. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From adam@irvine.com Fri Jul 25 17:44:26 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:44:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bananas In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:26:07 +0200." <000f01c3527e$19b0cd00$a8d1eb3e@cornelis> Message-ID: <200307251644.JAA20897@mailhub.irvine.com> Tom wrote: > Actually, why would there be any need for conventional calls to be treated > differently? > I can only suppose, it's one of the traditional rules, dating from the > period where few conventions were used. No, the rules that treat conventional bids differently when dealing with insufficient bids and calls out of rotation are a recent addition. I believe they were added in 1987. In fact, before 1987, a partner and I had a problem related to this issue: Partner Me 1H 2C 3H 4NT 4H Partner heard the 4NT bid as 3NT (this was before bidding boxes were in wide use). We called the TD, who told us partner could correct to the lowest sufficient bid with no penalty, so of course he bid 5H. Now I asked the director what my responsibilities were---partner made a bid that showed two aces, but I knew that might not be the case because of partner's insufficient bid. The TD's response should be held up as a model of how to give a contestant clear and unambiguous information about his responsibilities: "Well, we're not using screens". Very helpful. Anyway, I decided on my own that the ethical thing was to assume partner had two aces, so I asked for kings and then bid 7NT, off an ace---making when LHO guessed the wrong suit to lead. Anyway, that couldn't happen after 1987; since the 5H correction would be conventional, I would be barred no matter what partner did, and so partner would have to place the contract. Back then, there was no Law 16C either, so the information that partner had to withdraw a call was not considered UI for me (even though I treated it as UI on my own initiative). It is now, and perhaps problems such as the above could be solved simply by relying on 16C; but resolving alleged UI problems are more difficult for TD's, and I think the WBF was absolutely right to add a rule that would solve problems like this mechanically. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Fri Jul 25 17:48:39 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:48:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bananas In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:56:26 BST." <001001c3513d$e96b15b0$1847e150@endicott> Message-ID: <200307251648.JAA20990@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Ceefax carries a page today discussing the > price of "conventional bananas". > Unnatural fruit?? :-) +=+ You know, it is kind of funny that in bridge "conventional" means something along the lines of "unusual" or "nonstandard" (or at least most conventions were considered nonstandard at one time); while in the rest of life it means "usual" or "standard" as opposed to something exotic. Ah well, what else can we expect from a game that has a Grand Slam Force that doesn't force to a grand slam, and an Unusual Notrump that everybody and his brother plays. -- Adam From tom.cornelis@pi.be Sat Jul 26 09:51:14 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:51:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bananas References: <200307251644.JAA20897@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001701c35353$2751d050$27d3eb3e@cornelis> Adam wrote: > > Tom wrote: > > > Actually, why would there be any need for conventional calls to be treated > > differently? > > I can only suppose, it's one of the traditional rules, dating from the > > period where few conventions were used. > > No, the rules that treat conventional bids differently when dealing > with insufficient bids and calls out of rotation are a recent > addition. I believe they were added in 1987. > > In fact, before 1987, a partner and I had a problem related to this > issue: > > Partner Me > 1H 2C > 3H 4NT > 4H > > Partner heard the 4NT bid as 3NT (this was before bidding boxes were > in wide use). We called the TD, who told us partner could correct to > the lowest sufficient bid with no penalty, so of course he bid 5H. > Now I asked the director what my responsibilities were---partner made > a bid that showed two aces, but I knew that might not be the case > because of partner's insufficient bid. The TD's response should be > held up as a model of how to give a contestant clear and unambiguous > information about his responsibilities: "Well, we're not using > screens". Very helpful. Anyway, I decided on my own that the ethical > thing was to assume partner had two aces, so I asked for kings and > then bid 7NT, off an ace---making when LHO guessed the wrong suit to > lead. > > Anyway, that couldn't happen after 1987; since the 5H correction would > be conventional, I would be barred no matter what partner did, and so > partner would have to place the contract. > > Back then, there was no Law 16C either, so the information that > partner had to withdraw a call was not considered UI for me (even > though I treated it as UI on my own initiative). It is now, and > perhaps problems such as the above could be solved simply by relying > on 16C; but resolving alleged UI problems are more difficult for TD's, > and I think the WBF was absolutely right to add a rule that would > solve problems like this mechanically. > This kind of UI is not alleged, the TD can establish the UI quite clearly. But perhaps you are writing about its misuse. In any case, the WBF is certainly not right to solve problems mechanically allowing for easier TD decisions. The aim of the Laws is to solve problems - which aren't always the players' fault, I might add. In the aforementioned case I think it would be very _unjust_ to disallow your partner to show his aces. You only should be warned not to misuse the UI, derived from the 4H bid. It is true that UI cases are harder to deal with. But there's no arguing that it would be right to solve a certain kind of UI problems mechanically, when the other UI problems can be solved mechanically as well. The reason for having Laws is to do justice, not to execute penalties. It is up to the TD to judge each case properly, and the players have the right to appeal his decision when they doubt it. So I see no reason to make life easier for TDs with Laws that would prohibit justice to be served. Best regards, Tom. From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Jul 26 13:51:14 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:51:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Boy I just had to laugh - once again I get nabbed in the local club and lo and behold another juicy 1NT overcall !! Pairs Dealer East. N/S vul North S Txx H AJ98xx D x C T9x S xx S AJxxx H xx H Qx D A9xxx D QJT C AJxx C Qxx South S KQx H KTx D K8xx C K8x Bidding E W 1S 1NT% DBL 2D$ P P DBL 2H P P DBL P P P % 14 - 18 balanced $ North "assumed" system on. Over 1NT(opening by them) DBL N/S play system on (stayman, 4 way transfers etc). Over 1x(opps) 1NT P N/S play system on. 2H*+1 made. E/W called me and felt they were damaged. Either S forgot to alert or N/S didn't know their system. S said they played Rdbl as SOS and everything else as natural - system on with 2 opps bidding didn't make sense. North said when she bid 2D she assumed they played system on as over an opening 1NT. It seems N/S had no agreement on this sequence. I felt N/S just got lucky and let the result stand. West should have passed 2D vul for a certain top. West's 2nd double of 2H was abit opportunistic. .... but ... N/S had no CC or written (available) proof as to their understanding. Maybe 2D was dont ?? Maybe 2H's woke South up ?? Maybe 2H+1 no double was fairer ?? K. From kaima13@hotmail.com Sat Jul 26 17:51:19 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:51:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another -- point range References: Message-ID: Hi, Without commenting on the ruling or the case that Karel brought up for discussion (though I do have an unqualified opinion...), I would like to know if a five HCP range stretch is allowed for NT opening or NT overcall. And if so, is there a limitation to available conventions the pair can use in that case? ACBL is my *home* but all responses welcome of course. Thanks to all who care to respond. kaima aka D R Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 5:51 AM Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > Boy I just had to laugh - once again I get nabbed in the local club and lo > and behold another juicy 1NT overcall !! > > Pairs Dealer East. N/S vul > > North > S Txx > H AJ98xx > D x > C T9x > > S xx S AJxxx > H xx H Qx > D A9xxx D QJT > C AJxx C Qxx > > South > S KQx > H KTx > D K8xx > C K8x > > > Bidding > > E W > 1S 1NT% DBL 2D$ > P P DBL 2H > P P DBL P > P P > > % 14 - 18 balanced > $ North "assumed" system on. Over 1NT(opening by them) DBL N/S play system > on (stayman, 4 way transfers etc). Over 1x(opps) 1NT P N/S play system on. > > > 2H*+1 made. > > E/W called me and felt they were damaged. Either S forgot to alert or N/S > didn't know their system. S said they played Rdbl as SOS and everything > else as natural - system on with 2 opps bidding didn't make sense. North > said when she bid 2D she assumed they played system on as over an opening > 1NT. It seems N/S had no agreement on this sequence. > > I felt N/S just got lucky and let the result stand. West should have passed > 2D vul for a certain top. West's 2nd double of 2H was abit opportunistic. > > .... but ... N/S had no CC or written (available) proof as to their > understanding. Maybe 2D was dont ?? Maybe 2H's woke South up ?? Maybe > 2H+1 no double was fairer ?? > > K. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 26 19:06:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:06:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, Jul 26, 2003, at 08:51 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > I felt N/S just got lucky and let the result stand. West should have > passed > 2D vul for a certain top. West's 2nd double of 2H was abit > opportunistic. > > .... but ... N/S had no CC or written (available) proof as to their > understanding. Maybe 2D was dont ?? Maybe 2H's woke South up ?? > Maybe > 2H+1 no double was fairer ?? Well, I'm certainly no expert, but... "The Director is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary" (Law 75). Seems to me there's no evidence to the contrary. Ergo... :-) Unless West's doubles were, what's the phrase? "wild, egregious or gambling", I don't think the TD ought to be in the business of judging their bridge merit. My 2 cents. :) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 26 19:15:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:15:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another -- point range In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1A2B58C6-BF95-11D7-B8E6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jul 26, 2003, at 12:51 US/Eastern, DRD wrote: > Without commenting on the ruling or the case that Karel brought up for > discussion (though I do have an unqualified opinion...), I would like > to > know if a five HCP range stretch is allowed for NT opening or NT > overcall. > And if so, is there a limitation to available conventions the pair can > use > in that case? ACBL is my *home* but all responses welcome of course. > Thanks to all who care to respond. I don't know what the Irish regulations are, but in the ACBL, the only restriction on natural 1NT openings or overcalls is that if, by agreement, they are made with less than 10 HCP or a spread of *greater* than 5 points, conventional responses and rebids are disallowed. That's under all charts, it seems, unless the NT range is split and neither part is more than 3 points. Then the provision does not apply at Mid-Chart or Super-Chart. So the answers to your questions, for the ACBL, are "yes" and "yes". :-) From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jul 26 20:28:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:28:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: Message-ID: <000701c353b4$8a94c490$1c87403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 "Jaap van der Neut" Envoyé par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 24/07/2003 22:41 Pour : "Grattan Endicott" cc: "blml" Objet : Re: [blml] More on L16C2 Grattan, No dear sir. C'est une manche. *** "un manche" exists also; it means something like an idiot or an unskilful person. i think it was what grattan had in mind. *** +=+ Thanks jean-pierre. It takes a Frenchman to fathom the English mind. But we've been at it for centuries, haven't we?! ~ G ~ +=+ From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Jul 27 09:03:12 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:03:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <04e301c34861$6bae04a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or = 'shut up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute = my email by subscribing to this list... I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to insult people. regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Jaap van der Neut Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 6:19 PM To: David Stevenson; blml Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking David: > I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up as the Supreme=20 > Being in my absence. Always funny that people that accuse my of being too direct or too rude never fail to do so in a rather direct and rude way. Never mind. I = probably overdid a little. Sorry. I just got irritated by the way you put = yourself as the Supreme Judge on 'perfect ethics'. That kind of language upsets me = far more (specially when part of the backing story seems to be inconsistent) when someone calls me an idiot or lunatic or whatever which I deserve = from time to time because I am from time to time. It is normal bridge = language you know. Ever analysed the language of a random after play discussion = among friends. Anyway just check a recent mail from David Burn on this = subject. Anyway I have to realise that a lot of people just stop discussing the = issue if they don't like the form so I guess I should adapt a little. Because = the issue at hand was quite interesting and with all due respect I still = think that your post misused the concept of 'perfect ethics'. Or maybe you = will be so kind as to explain me what it means and how it relates to Tony's = case. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >'... Perfect ethics ...', don't make me laugh with this kind of silly = > >concepts. You don't give me the impression you have any idea what it means. > >Don't worry, probably nobody does. > > I am sorry, I did not realise you had been set up as the Supreme=20 > Being in my absence. > > [s] > > >You (DWS) do have some reputation > >on discussing laws but you don't seem to understand a lot about high-level > >competitive bidding. > > No, I am very sorry, I am merely a novice at this game. When I win=20 > my first duplicate I shall bring you the results and until that time I = > shall merely marvel at the feet of the master. > > --------- > > BLML any better, is it? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D > 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 karel@esatclear.ie Sun Jul 27 13:20:29 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:20:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I felt N/S just got lucky and let the result stand. West should have > passed > 2D vul for a certain top. West's 2nd double of 2H was abit > opportunistic. > > .... but ... N/S had no CC or written (available) proof as to their > understanding. Maybe 2D was dont ?? Maybe 2H's woke South up ?? > Maybe > 2H+1 no double was fairer ?? Well, I'm certainly no expert, but... "The Director is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary" (Law 75). Seems to me there's no evidence to the contrary. Ergo... :-) +++ Normally when someone quotes a law I take it as given and may check up the law reference to see its context ... but the above is an eye opener ... to a pretty common problem. Indeed L75 the example as above. Td's are being "ordered" to assume a mistaken explanation rather than a mistaken bid. Whow that's pretty much killing the OS if they ever have a misunderstanding and fall on their feet. I can see the logic behind it. It throws the burden of proof squarely on the OS side ... but it does seem to give the TD an easy "out" option (ie) he doesn't really have to ever decide whether the OS is genuine or not. In this case (and again local knowledge of the players involved etc) led me to believe they were telling the truth. Infact this pair probably could have produced evidence to support their claim (given the time to print out some system notes etc) but for a local club game it is pretty much unheard of, for a player to be carting around system notes. Certainly an eye opener to find out I'm being forced to rule against my judgement. Unless West's doubles were, what's the phrase? "wild, egregious or gambling", I don't think the TD ought to be in the business of judging their bridge merit. +++ well ... true. Again local knowledge - This particular West will double any contract which she feels is going down regardless of its merits. The 2nd double can't be called any of the above but isn't too far off. It probably stemmed from annoyance that the opps escaped from 2D. Its far from good but as you've just passed up a top why not. What gets me about this situation is that it allows the more knowledgable player to attempt double shots in dubious circumstances. A stronger "knowledgable" player knowing that the result will be turned back (Via L75) can keep doubling even though for his level he knows his doubles are dubious. K. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jul 27 14:36:43 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: Message-ID: <001501c35444$1f8dc580$669468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert SNIPPED] "The Director is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary [Law 75]" [Karel SNIPPED] In fact this pair probably could have produced evidence to support their claim [Ed SNIPPED] Unless West's doubles were, what's the phrase? "wild, egregious or gambling" [Karel SNIPPED] A stronger "knowledgable" player knowing that the result will be turned back (Via L75) can keep doubling even though for his level he knows his doubles are dubious. [Nigel] Ed is surely right: In the absence of an alert or CC, how is poor East to know that a wheel has come off when North bids 2D? North says that, after a double, her understanding was "System-On". Why can't this be their agreement? IMO, however, Karel ruled in accord with current laws that endorse subjective "evidence". I agree with Karel that West's double is dubious but, as Ed says, that's OK as long as it is not "wild & gambling": it's not a blatant double-shot". My concern is: How do we rule if North-South are shifty nasty-looking strangers? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From joanandron@worldnet.att.net Fri Jul 25 20:12:00 2003 From: joanandron@worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:12:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL web site Message-ID: <013c01c352e0$a044c800$d842580c@Dell4500> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C352BF.18C0B720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, For those of you that are interested, the ACBL web site is up and running. It is now 3:15pm on Friday and all should be well in just a few hours.=20 Thanks for your patience. Regards, Joan Gerard ------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C352BF.18C0B720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
For those of you that are interested, = the ACBL web=20 site
is up and running. It is now 3:15pm on = Friday and=20 all
should be well in just a few hours. =
 
Thanks for your patience. Regards, Joan = Gerard
------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C352BF.18C0B720-- From a.witzen@chello.nl Sun Jul 27 17:46:24 2003 From: a.witzen@chello.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:46:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <001501c35444$1f8dc580$669468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20030727184624.00d1ceb0@mail.chello.nl> the question is if n is entitled to escape to 2H i doubt it. he probably knows a rat smelling (a nasty one) i wouldnt allow the 2h bid and adjust to 2dx a lot off eventually thats the way to get the right party to protest. what the PC decides is their problem. regards anton At 02:36 PM 27-07-03 +0100, you wrote: >[Ed Reppert SNIPPED] >"The Director is to presume mistaken explanation >rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence >to the contrary [Law 75]" > >[Karel SNIPPED] >In fact this pair probably could have produced >evidence to support their claim > >[Ed SNIPPED] >Unless West's doubles were, what's the phrase? >"wild, egregious or gambling" > >[Karel SNIPPED] >A stronger "knowledgable" player knowing that >the result will be turned back (Via L75) can keep >doubling even though for his level he knows his >doubles are dubious. > >[Nigel] > >Ed is surely right: In the absence of an alert or >CC, how is poor East to know that a wheel has come >off when North bids 2D? > >North says that, after a double, her understanding >was "System-On". Why can't this be their agreement? > >IMO, however, Karel ruled in accord with current >laws that endorse subjective "evidence". > >I agree with Karel that West's double is dubious >but, as Ed says, that's OK as long as it is not >"wild & gambling": it's not a blatant double-shot". > >My concern is: How do we rule if North-South are >shifty nasty-looking strangers? > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system >(http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: >24/07/2003 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 27 18:41:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <972EC56C-C059-11D7-B90F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 27, 2003, at 08:20 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > Certainly an eye opener to find out I'm being forced to rule against > my judgement. A TD's judgment is important, of course, but if that was *all* that was required, we wouldn't need more that a broad outline of how to play the game - and then there would be no consistency from place to place, because different TDs are likely to judge (some, anyway) things differently. You might also want to check out Laws 81 and 82, particularly 81B2 and 82A. "The Director is bound by these laws.." and "It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors... in a manner that is not contrary to these laws". From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jul 27 18:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Well, I'm certainly no expert, but... "The Director is to presume > mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of > evidence to the contrary" (Law 75). Seems to me there's no evidence to > the contrary. Ergo... :-) You snipped it. S said they played Rdbl as SOS and everything else as natural - system on with 2 opps bidding didn't make sense. North said when she bid 2D she assumed they played system on as over an opening. This is certainly evidence. Whether it is sufficient evidence to rule that the pair had no agreement is a judgement call for the TD. 1NT. South's pass of 2D provides further evidence that the sequence had not been discussed. Personally I do not expect a pair to have much written evidence of things they aren't playing. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jul 27 19:09:48 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:09:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <001501c3546a$46374640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Noel and Pamela" > I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or 'shut up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute my email by subscribing to this list... > I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to insult people. So where will you go now to learn? Most of us know by now that David uses intemperate language at times, but we forgive him because he is a valuable contributor to BLML. When I was fairly new to BLML, he once publicly declared that he would filter out all my e-mails because I was too stubborn in my convictions (not a quote, David hates to be misquoted) to admit his correctness. I asked Herman if this was acceptable language, and he wrote back, "Oh, that's just David." During the Long Beach NABC, Alice and I had dinner with David, which we enjoyed immensely. Among other topics, he gave me some valuable insights into the subject of Swiss Pairs (generally unknown over here), which convinced me that this very popular event might be the road to salvation for the ACBL. He has been an important factor in my Laws education, for which i thank him. Personally, I don't mind a bit of rough language during the exchange of views. It adds some spice to BLML, which tends to be dull at times. But then, I am rather thick-skinned. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Sun Jul 27 21:14:37 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20030727184624.00d1ceb0@mail.chello.nl> References: <001501c35444$1f8dc580$669468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3.0.5.32.20030727184624.00d1ceb0@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: In article <3.0.5.32.20030727184624.00d1ceb0@mail.chello.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >the question is if n is entitled to escape to 2H >i doubt it. >he probably knows a rat smelling (a nasty one) >i wouldnt allow the 2h bid and adjust to 2dx a lot off >eventually thats the way to get the right party to protest. >what the PC decides is their problem. >regards >anton > > that's ludicrous, the player bid 2D intending to play hearts. Whether or not there's UI that's where he intends to play. > >At 02:36 PM 27-07-03 +0100, you wrote: >>[Ed Reppert SNIPPED] >>"The Director is to presume mistaken explanation >>rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence >>to the contrary [Law 75]" >> >>[Karel SNIPPED] >>In fact this pair probably could have produced >>evidence to support their claim >> >>[Ed SNIPPED] >>Unless West's doubles were, what's the phrase? >>"wild, egregious or gambling" >> >>[Karel SNIPPED] >>A stronger "knowledgable" player knowing that >>the result will be turned back (Via L75) can keep >>doubling even though for his level he knows his >>doubles are dubious. >> >>[Nigel] >> >>Ed is surely right: In the absence of an alert or >>CC, how is poor East to know that a wheel has come >>off when North bids 2D? >> >>North says that, after a double, her understanding >>was "System-On". Why can't this be their agreement? >> >>IMO, however, Karel ruled in accord with current >>laws that endorse subjective "evidence". >> >>I agree with Karel that West's double is dubious >>but, as Ed says, that's OK as long as it is not >>"wild & gambling": it's not a blatant double-shot". >> >>My concern is: How do we rule if North-South are >>shifty nasty-looking strangers? >> >> >>--- >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system >>(http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: >>24/07/2003 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >Anton Witzen. >Tel: 020 7763175 >boniplein 86 >1094 SG Amsterdam > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Jul 27 22:27:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:27:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030727170346.00a8f740@pop.starpower.net> At 08:51 AM 7/26/03, Karel wrote: >Boy I just had to laugh - once again I get nabbed in the local club and lo >and behold another juicy 1NT overcall !! > >Pairs Dealer East. N/S vul > > North > S Txx > H AJ98xx > D x > C T9x > >S xx S AJxxx >H xx H Qx >D A9xxx D QJT >C AJxx C Qxx > > South > S KQx > H KTx > D K8xx > C K8x > > >Bidding > >E W >1S 1NT% DBL 2D$ >P P DBL 2H >P P DBL P >P P > >% 14 - 18 balanced >$ North "assumed" system on. Over 1NT(opening by them) DBL N/S play system >on (stayman, 4 way transfers etc). Over 1x(opps) 1NT P N/S play >system on. > >2H*+1 made. > >E/W called me and felt they were damaged. Either S forgot to alert or N/S >didn't know their system. S said they played Rdbl as SOS and everything >else as natural - system on with 2 opps bidding didn't make sense. North >said when she bid 2D she assumed they played system on as over an opening >1NT. It seems N/S had no agreement on this sequence. > >I felt N/S just got lucky and let the result stand. West should have >passed >2D vul for a certain top. West's 2nd double of 2H was abit opportunistic. > >.... but ... N/S had no CC or written (available) proof as to their >understanding. Maybe 2D was dont ?? Maybe 2H's woke South up ?? Maybe >2H+1 no double was fairer ?? The missing piece here is whether, and if so how, N-S described their agreements to E-W. Karel's finding seems quite right at the club level (and a fairly low club level, at that, if the club tolerates pairs with no CCs); a casual partnership wouldn't be expected to discuss methods over doubled 1NT overcalls, and this N-S undoubtedly had no agreement and were playing by ear. If no alerts where given and no inquiries made, there was no misinformation, score stands, end of story. What usually creates problems at this level is a misguided tendency to try to be helpful by basing one's alerts and explanantions on a presumed or hoped-for meaning, which the opponents take to be a description of a partnership agreement, when in fact there is no agreement. Misunderstandings are exacerbated when the call in question is one (as in Karel's example) for which we wouldn't normally expect players at that level to have an explicit agreement, especially if we get the sense that the opponents really should know that (or do know that, and are "bridge lawyering"). It is at higher levels of play that we get the usual BLML-debate-subject problems caused by partnerships claiming not to have agreements when they do (for example, issues of when psyching tendencies become implicit agreements). In our search for solutions to those problems, we should keep in mind that we are also making rules for the lowest levels of competition, where we see far more misinformation-related problems caused by players claiming to have agreements when they don't. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jul 27 23:45:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:45:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000b01c35490$d8eb02d0$201fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 9:03 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Just checking I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or 'shut up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute my email by subscribing to this list... I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to insult people. regards, Noel and/or Pamela < +=+It would be sad if you were to allow Jaap's uncouth and unacceptable use of the English language to drive you away. An alternative action is to bar from your inbox any mail that contains the name 'Jaap', as sender or in the text. Jaap obviously does not understand how deeply offensive is his aggressive choice of expressions; he may be thinking Dutch words thast would be acceptable in the Dutch ethic and translating them without refinement. I would not wish to believe that it would be he himself who lacks the refinement. For the rest you will find no shortage of variety here and I wish you good fortune with your choices of which to follow. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 28 02:08:42 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:08:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Noel and Pamela" < >I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or 'shut up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute my email by subscribing to this list... >I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to insult people. Re-reading more carefully, I see that this was aimed at Jaap, not David. Sorry, David. Jaap, please adapt. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jul 28 04:25:09 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:25:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <200307241515.h6OFFFfs029337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030727231652.01ad0db0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 11:15 AM 7/24/2003, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Now to some of your points: Once you accept that we have indeed two > separate > > irregularities here I don't think you can legally apply Law 72B1 or 12A1 on > > the first irregularity in order to waive penalties (due to equity) on the > > second. > >I don't understand this at all. Suppose NS commit an infraction in the >bidding (UI or MI, say), and then EW commit an infraction in the play >(revoke or exposed card, say). Then suppose you judge as a result of >the first infraction (by NS) to adjust the score to the result in some >different contract. Isn't it normal that the second infraction (by EW) >is ignored? The second infraction can break the connection between the bad result and the damage. Again, N-S may have made use of UI in bidding 4S rather than 3S. 9 tricks is a routine result, but East revokes and pays a one-trick penalty. The usual ruling is that E-W get to keep their -620 because they were not damaged by the N-S infraction. (I would also give N-S +170, assuming that the infraction would have happened anyway.) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 28 05:11:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:11:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <80826904-C0B1-11D7-B90F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 27, 2003, at 13:50 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > This is certainly evidence. Whether it is sufficient evidence to rule > that the pair had no agreement is a judgement call for the TD. Good point. :-) From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Mon Jul 28 05:27:20 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:27:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] embarrassed to ask Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030728142503.03137508@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> I know I should have paid attention in class when it has been discussed so many times but; Declarer has two winning trumps and the Ace of spades. Defenders lead the King of spades, declarer ruffs and claims. Has the revoke been established? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Jul 28 05:28:07 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:28:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c354c0$a6e9f3b0$274726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Thanks Marvin, I thought I had flamed David there for a minute.... regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Marvin French Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:09 AM To: 'blml' Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking From: "Noel and Pamela" < >I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or=20 >'shut up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute = my email by subscribing to this list... >I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to insult people. Re-reading more carefully, I see that this was aimed at Jaap, not David. Sorry, David. Jaap, please adapt. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 28 06:13:13 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:13:13 +1200 Subject: [blml] embarrassed to ask In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030728142503.03137508@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <001701c354c6$f49f1530$f92d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Sent: Monday, 28 July 2003 4:27 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] embarrassed to ask > > > I know I should have paid attention in class when it > has been discussed so many times but; > > Declarer has two winning trumps and the Ace of spades. > Defenders lead the King of spades, declarer ruffs and > claims. Has the revoke been established? This should answer your question. But disclaimer I have been known to interpret things as they are written. Herman or someone might tell me that it means something completely different than what it says. LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE A. Revoke Becomes Established A revoke becomes established: 3. Member of Offending Side Makes a Claim or Concession when a member of the offending side makes or acquiesces in a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand (or in any other fashion). Wayne > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 28 13:59:56 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:59:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 References: <025701c352ba$a6f25580$ba053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <007301c3550b$69c930e0$df2b4451@Default> Ben, I checked on Pas-de-Calais. You are right, it is the equivalent of the Straits of Dover. But it is no= t a normal name in French in the sense that some French I asked were not sure about it or even did not know. Which explained I got lost in the first place. Sorry about that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > "Jaap van der Neut" > Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org > 24/07/2003 22:41 > > > Pour : "Grattan Endicott" , "blml" > > cc : > Objet : Re: [blml] More on L16C2 > > > Grattan, > > No dear sir. C'est une manche. > > *** > "un manche" exists also; it means something like an idiot or an unskilf= ul > person. i think it was what grattan had in mind. > *** > > And no dear Ben. The Channel cannot be translated to Pas de Calais. Tha= t > is > the name of the department and it means something like 'the surrounding= s > of > Calais'. The Channel in French is simply La Manche. > > *** > "la Manche" is the name of a sea: equivalent of the channel; it's also = the > name of a french "departement", including towns like Cherbourg and > Saint-Lo, and beaches where american troops landed in 1944. > > jp rocafort > *** > > According to the information from Michelin Pas de Calais is department = 62 > but also the name of the sea in front of Calais. I do not know what was > first: the sea or the department. > Pas in french means narrows or strait in english. > I also visited my school atlas named Bos. The english map shows Channel for > the broad part and Strait of Dover for the small part, whereas the fren= ch > map shows La Manche and Pas the Calais. > Strange is not it? > > Ben > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Jul 28 14:23:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:23:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> Marvin Don't worry. I'll adapt. I got some valuable advice by Gordon Rainsford on that. Anyway part of it is my style which indeed I should 'adapt'. But part is getting through layers of defence by certain people which has been interesting and useful at times. Certain contributors can be quite insulting and humilating (and worse dodging the issue) using only perfectly correct language. But then it is their native language, not mine, so at times I get/got out of bounds trying to level the playing field a little. But why sorry to David. I am sure he was rather pleased by your mail. Anyway there is nothing I like better on blml than a good flame by David Burn. And one thought on Noel and Pamala. They complain in rather rude language about a two week old message just after I disagreed with them on a completely unrelated thread. 1. If they really worry about 'polluting mailboxes' and all that, it makes more sense to do it in a decent way rather than to do excactly that what they are accusing me of. 2. The timing stinks. If they dislike that two week old message so much (but come on it was far from the worst I have ever posted) why it took them so long to say so. If they disagree with me in another thread why don't they say so. Good manners and so is more than just the way you use language. Anyway e-mail discussion poses an interesting cultural challenge. For some people it tends to be the equivalent of a formal letter, in this context I and some others should be banned, executed or whatever. For others it tends to be the equivalent of spoken language and we all know that is far worse than anything which has ever appeared on blml. I guess we'll have to find some middle ground. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > From: "Noel and Pamela" < > > >I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or 'shut > up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute my > email by subscribing to this list... > > >I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to insult > people. > > Re-reading more carefully, I see that this was aimed at Jaap, not David. > > Sorry, David. > > Jaap, please adapt. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 28 14:48:11 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:48:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT Message-ID: <200307281348.h6SDmB2N029807@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > What usually creates problems at this level is a misguided tendency to > try to be helpful by basing one's alerts and explanantions on a > presumed or hoped-for meaning, which the opponents take to be a > description of a partnership agreement, when in fact there is no > agreement. Misunderstandings are exacerbated when the call in question > is one (as in Karel's example) for which we wouldn't normally expect > players at that level to have an explicit agreement, especially if we > get the sense that the opponents really should know that (or do know > that, and are "bridge lawyering"). While I agree completely with Eric in principle, in the original message we were told: > >Over 1NT(opening by them) DBL N/S play system > >on (stayman, 4 way transfers etc). Over 1x(opps) 1NT P N/S play > >system on. If I were EW, I would feel entitled to be told these facts. In fact, it seems to me that these auctions where NS _do_ have an alertable agreement are close enough to the actual auction to require an alert, even if there is no explicit agreement for the actual auction. It's also amusing that here North assumes a balanced hand for South's 1NT overcall and corrects the contract to his six-card suit. In the previous hand, several people were saying that North could tell from the (similar but not identical) auction that the notrump overcaller must be offshape, and it was OK not to bid the six-bagger. These positions are, of course, a lot easier to get right with a little black magic. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 28 15:02:06 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Just checking Message-ID: <200307281402.h6SE26hn029818@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Anyway e-mail discussion poses an interesting cultural challenge. For some > people it tends to be the equivalent of a formal letter, in this context I > and some others should be banned, executed or whatever. For others it tends > to be the equivalent of spoken language and we all know that is far worse > than anything which has ever appeared on blml. I guess we'll have to find > some middle ground. This is something that has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating. In person to person conversation, we have all sorts of clues from tone of voice and body language. In email, these clues are absent, and the bare words have to stand on their own. We therefore all need to try our best to make sure the words, read with no additional information, say what we intend. I don't think any of us succeeds 100% of the time. Perhaps that will put into perspective the difficulty of writing unambiguous bridge laws. Despite the difficulties, it seems to me that both posters to BLML and bridge law writers need to understand the problems and do their best to overcome them. It is also true that readers need to be aware of the problems. For example, my personal preference is to read the bridge laws as literally as possible. Usually that leads to a sensible result, though perhaps not the result intended by the law writers. However, there are a few cases where a literal reading is absurd, and there is nothing else but to recognize that the law writers are fallible. Similarly, for difficult BLML posts, we should be ready to forgive the occasional flawed message. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 28 17:04:12 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:04:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: <200307281348.h6SDmB2N029807@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00a801c35521$e3f3e700$6a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Steve Willner] It's also amusing that here North assumes a balanced hand for South's 1NT overcall and corrects the contract to his six-card suit. In the previous hand, several people were saying that North could tell from the (similar but not identical) auction that the notrump overcaller must be offshape, and it was OK not to bid the six-bagger. These positions are, of course, a lot easier to get right with a little black magic. [Nigel] For this and for the other reasons advanced earlier, it might be difficult for the TD to let a pair of shifty strangers off the hook. But Karel *knows* from her experience, that both these North-South pairs are honest and truthful. This is valid subjective *evidence*. So, in accord with the current law, she is right to rule in their favour. Is this interpretation correct? If so, should the WBFLC remove subjective assessments, where possible, to improve equity. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 28 17:11:36 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:11:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <000b01c35490$d8eb02d0$201fe150@endicott> References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000b01c35490$d8eb02d0$201fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <3p7cmuA4sUJ$EwJB@asimere.com> In article <000b01c35490$d8eb02d0$201fe150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Speak in French when you can't think > of the English for a thing." > C.L Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) >================================ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Noel and Pamela" >To: "'blml'" >Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 9:03 AM >Subject: RE: [blml] Just checking > > >I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to > 'adapt a lot' [or 'shut up' even] because if this >continues, I for one, will no longer pollute my >email by subscribing to this list... > >I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament >- not how to insult people. I can turn the gratuitous insult with the best of them. Here it's a case of "Do you want to learn?". If so that's good because some of the best bridge brains and some of the best TD brains and some of the best AC brains and some of the best L&E brains lurk here. Furthermore they're willing to educate the pond life. You want it should be run like a Sunday School or a Posy Simmons picnic?. Get real or go join a church! cheers John > >regards, >Noel and/or Pamela >< >+=+It would be sad if you were to allow Jaap's >uncouth and unacceptable use of the English >language to drive you away. An alternative >action is to bar from your inbox any mail that >contains the name 'Jaap', as sender or in the >text. > Jaap obviously does not understand how >deeply offensive is his aggressive choice of >expressions; he may be thinking Dutch words >thast would be acceptable in the Dutch ethic >and translating them without refinement. I >would not wish to believe that it would be he >himself who lacks the refinement. > For the rest you will find no shortage of >variety here and I wish you good fortune with >your choices of which to follow. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Mon Jul 28 17:13:56 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:13:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:46:24 +0200." <3.0.5.32.20030727184624.00d1ceb0@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <200307281613.JAA01627@mailhub.irvine.com> Anton wrote: > the question is if n is entitled to escape to 2H > i doubt it. > he probably knows a rat smelling (a nasty one) > i wouldnt allow the 2h bid and adjust to 2dx a lot off > eventually thats the way to get the right party to protest. > what the PC decides is their problem. The hands: North S Txx H AJ98xx D x C T9x S xx S AJxxx H xx H Qx D A9xxx D QJT C AJxx C Qxx South S KQx H KTx D K8xx C K8x If North had something like 5 hearts and 3 diamonds, I'd agree with you. North has UI from South's failure to alert, and must therefore pass on the theory that if South correctly explained the 2D bid and then passed, he must have long diamonds, and thus passing with 5-3 in the reds is a logical alternative. But with the actual distribution---no. Not with a 5-card disparity in suit lengths. Pass is not a LA for North here. -- Adam From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Jul 28 18:37:22 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:37:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: from "Karel" at Jul 26, 2003 01:51:14 PM Message-ID: <200307281737.h6SHbMRd020382@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Karel" > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:51:14 +0100 > > Pairs Dealer East. N/S vul > > North > S Txx > H AJ98xx > D x > C T9x > > S xx S AJxxx > H xx H Qx > D A9xxx D QJT > C AJxx C Qxx > > South > S KQx > H KTx > D K8xx > C K8x > > > 2H*+1 made. > > E/W called me and felt they were damaged. Either S forgot to alert or N/S > didn't know their system. S said they played Rdbl as SOS and everything > else as natural - system on with 2 opps bidding didn't make sense. North > said when she bid 2D she assumed they played system on as over an opening > 1NT. It seems N/S had no agreement on this sequence. > > I felt N/S just got lucky and let the result stand. West should have passed > 2D vul for a certain top. West's 2nd double of 2H was abit opportunistic. > > .... but ... N/S had no CC or written (available) proof as to their > understanding. Maybe 2D was dont ?? Maybe 2H's woke South up ?? Maybe > 2H+1 no double was fairer ?? > TY: Okay, in this case, let's assume that they were playing with screens (or on-line where alerts can be made to opponents but not to partner). Assume North thinks that South has alerted the transfer and has still chosen to pass. What are the possibilities? Perhaps South has a good 5 or 6 card diamond suit for his overcall? Unlikely, but possible especially if South has alerted the transfer correctly. But with only one diamond and with six hearts and the possibility that partner's better values will play the same in hearts vs diamonds, I don't think that passing diamonds is an equal alternative. I don't think that the action of bidding 2H is based so much on the UI that is conveyed but based on the hand that North is holding. If North was holding 2+ diamonds or only five hearts then I would be agreeing with those who want to hang partner. Unless N/S have some agreement about off-shape NT O/C (and that is something for the TD to investigate), North can be allowed to assume a standard type O/C situation which means something like singleton honor in hearts and five good diamonds. So, I don't think this is a case of UI. However, it could be a case of MI (which I think it was). South should have correctly told the opponents that they had no agreement. In the case of MI, had the opponents been given the information that N/S had no agreement, West would probably have passed out 2D. E/W certainly made their error based on MI, IMHO. I would adjust the score to 2D down whatever they play. In this case, without questioning the players integrity, I would inform them that players should not volunteer information about situations that they have not discussed or should correctly identify those situations. The opponents can speculate or question further if they need additional information. -Ted. From adam@irvine.com Mon Jul 28 18:40:07 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:40:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bananas In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:51:14 +0200." <001701c35353$2751d050$27d3eb3e@cornelis> Message-ID: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> Tom wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > Partner Me > > 1H 2C > > 3H 4NT > > 4H [snip] > > Back then, there was no Law 16C either, so the information that > > partner had to withdraw a call was not considered UI for me (even > > though I treated it as UI on my own initiative). It is now, and > > perhaps problems such as the above could be solved simply by relying > > on 16C; but resolving alleged UI problems are more difficult for TD's, > > and I think the WBF was absolutely right to add a rule that would > > solve problems like this mechanically. > > This kind of UI is not alleged, the TD can establish the UI quite clearly. > But perhaps you are writing about its misuse. > In any case, the WBF is certainly not right to solve problems mechanically > allowing for easier TD decisions. The aim of the Laws is to solve problems - > which aren't always the players' fault, I might add. In the aforementioned > case I think it would be very _unjust_ to disallow your partner to show his > aces. > You only should be warned not to misuse the UI, derived from the 4H bid. > It is true that UI cases are harder to deal with. But there's no arguing > that > it would be right to solve a certain kind of UI problems mechanically, when > the other UI problems can be solved mechanically as well. The reason for > having Laws is to do justice, not to execute penalties. It is up to the TD > to > judge each case properly, and the players have the right to appeal his > decision when they doubt it. So I see no reason to make life easier for TDs > with Laws that would prohibit justice to be served. I suspect that just about every TD on this list would disagree with you. :) In a perfect world, you'd be right---it would be best to simply let the insufficient bidder correct to whatever he pleases, and let the UI rules take care of the inferences that offender's partner may draw from the insufficient bid. Same for calls and plays out of rotation---have the offender put his call or play back, let everyone bid or play as they please, and have the UI rules deal with any inferences offender's partner may draw from the withdrawn call or play. As for revokes, get rid of revoke penalties, and apply Law 12C2 to ensure the non-offending side isn't damaged. This sort of idea has been discussed at least once on BLML and r.g.b, and it does have a certain mathematical perfection that makes it appealing. But, according to the TD's who respond (note: I'm not a TD), it's just not practical. Mechanical errors (insufficient bids, calls and leads out of turn, and revokes) are much more common than other kinds of infractions; and changing the rules to base everything on "equity" or "justice" would greatly multiply the amount of work they would have to do. Now maybe there are a few TD's who spend most of their time sitting on their butts, and they could stand to have additional work assigned to them. But I doubt that this is the case with most TD's. The result of the kind of rules you prefer would probably be that more TD's would be required, and more likely than not these additional TD's would want to be paid, and I personally think entry fees are too high already. So I believe the current situation is quite acceptable. If nothing else, penalizing offenders more than is "just" should encourage them to pay attention to the *#$& game and not commit dumb mechanical infractions. This makes the game better for everyone. -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 28 19:08:37 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:08:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > This sort of idea has been discussed at least once on BLML and r.g.b, > and it does have a certain mathematical perfection that makes it > appealing. But, according to the TD's who respond (note: I'm not a > TD), it's just not practical. Mechanical errors (insufficient bids, > calls and leads out of turn, and revokes) are much more common than > other kinds of infractions; and changing the rules to base everything > on "equity" or "justice" would greatly multiply the amount of work. As Jeff Rubens espouses. Not to mention that the task is impossible. TDs do not have crystal balls to determine what would have happened if an irregularity had not happened, nor (for many, or for many cases) would it be possible for them to come up with a good approximation of that. What we need in this game is justice (break the law, pay the penalty), not equity. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 28 20:28:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:28:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <007301c3550b$69c930e0$df2b4451@Default> Message-ID: On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 08:59 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > I checked on Pas-de-Calais. > > You are right, it is the equivalent of the Straits of Dover. But it is > not a > normal name in French in the sense that some French I asked were not > sure > about it or even did not know. Which explained I got lost in the first > place. Sorry about that. Heh. Americans are often accused of being ignorant of various things about other countries (and even their own), including geography. Nice to find that some French are in a similar boat. I have "always known" that the Pas de Calais is the French name for what the English call the Straits of Dover. How? I dunno. I suppose I learned it when I studied the French language in school, ca. 50 years ago. It's interesting, however, to look at a map. I see that on the English side of the "Straits of Dover" is the town (and the famous white cliffs, if I'm not mistaken) of Dover, while on the French side is the city of Calais. It would seem natural for the English to name the strait after their town, and for the French to do the same. Anyway, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, I just wanted to throw my two cents into the pot. :-) From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Jul 28 20:30:11 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:30:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) In-Reply-To: <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Luis wrote: >We use predealt boards here in Argentina :-) and we are not advanced >at all and >we have a big problem since imported resources are really >expensive a BigMac combo costs here U$S 2. >I'm playing a national pairs tournament with predealt boards and I >would have really hated to deal them... > I don't know what a Big Mac combo is in Argentina, but a plain Big Mac costs U$S2.29 at the Macs in Concordia, MO. Makes Argentina look low priced. Sorry about being so slow in posting this, but I don't eat Big Macs, so my chance of getting price information has be limited. (By the way, a Senior Coffee is US 38 cents there. Limited to us old folks.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 28 20:32:26 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:32:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3p7cmuA4sUJ$EwJB@asimere.com> Message-ID: <37EDE206-C132-11D7-B90F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 12:11 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > You want it should be run like a > Sunday School or a Posy Simmons picnic?. Posy who? Any relation to Richard Simmons, the "fitness guru" (God, I hope not)? :-) From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 28 22:03:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <200307281737.h6SHbMRd020382@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Ted wrote: > So, I don't think this is a case of UI. However, it could be > a case of MI (which I think it was). South should have correctly > told the opponents that they had no agreement. If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed was correct then South, by not alerting, *has* correctly informed opponents that there is no agreement. No MI. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 28 22:03:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <200307281348.h6SDmB2N029807@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > While I agree completely with Eric in principle, in the original > message we were told: > > > >Over 1NT(opening by them) DBL N/S play system > > >on (stayman, 4 way transfers etc). Over 1x(opps) 1NT P N/S play > > >system on. > > If I were EW, I would feel entitled to be told these facts. Had EW *asked* (or looked at the CC) they would be entitled to be told these facts. I do not think South should volunteer these things unasked in an undiscussed auction. > In fact, > it seems to me that these auctions where NS _do_ have an alertable > agreement are close enough to the actual auction to require an alert, > even if there is no explicit agreement for the actual auction. The key difference, in South's view (and mine) is that only in the (1x)-1N-(x) auction have opps confirmed that they, not you, hold the balance of power. While I am aware the OB does not apply directly in Ireland the guidance there is 5.1.4 Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning. 5.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable category. I'd not expect South to alert if playing under similar rules. > It's also amusing that here North assumes a balanced hand for South's > 1NT overcall and corrects the contract to his six-card suit. Surely North, being ethical, has asked himself "Is passing 2Dx an LA given that pard has shown 5+ good diamonds and Heart shortage?". Like others I feel the 5 card disparity in suit lengths is enough to judge that it isn't (I would rule otherwise in the ACBL). > In the > previous hand, several people were saying that North could tell from > the (similar but not identical) auction that the notrump overcaller > must be offshape, and it was OK not to bid the six-bagger. Of course on the other hand the 6 bagger was Jxxxxx and the hand offered two possible ruffs in the enemy suit. Which, in my view, made it a close decision too. Tim > These > positions are, of course, a lot easier to get right with a little black > magic. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 28 23:40:39 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:40:39 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bananas > > What we need in this game is justice (break > the law, pay the penalty), not equity. > +=+ Then you do not mean justice, since justice demands equity, but rather punishment by the law. However, "With righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity". ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 28 23:49:51 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:49:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <003101c3555a$aaf7f3e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Luis Argerich" ; Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:30 PM Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) >> > (By the way, a Senior Coffee is US 38 cents there. > Limited to us old folks.) > +=+ But how old is a Senior Coffee? +=+ From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 29 03:38:20 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:38:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] embarrassed to ask In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030728142503.03137508@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030728142503.03137508@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20030728142503.03137508@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >I know I should have paid attention in class when it >has been discussed so many times but; > >Declarer has two winning trumps and the Ace of spades. >Defenders lead the King of spades, declarer ruffs and >claims. Has the revoke been established? yep. because it's not the twelfth trick. A claim by the offending side establishes the revoke. > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 29 05:57:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:57:31 -0700 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Grattan wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > > What we need in this game is justice (break > > the law, pay the penalty), not equity. > > > +=+ Then you do not mean justice, since justice > demands equity, but rather punishment by the > law. However, "With righteousness shall he > judge the world, and the people with equity". Over here we look for equity in civil cases, figuring out who should get what. Lawbreakers end up in criminal court, where justice is dished out in accordance with sentencing guidelines. That's what I had in mind. Equity in bridge is too difficult to nail down. Justice is simpler, and more in the spirit of the game. Two tricks for a revoke, that's it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 29 08:08:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:08:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANC Bulletins Message-ID: Bulletins from the Australian National Championships in Darwin are now available at: http://www.ntba.com.au/bulletins/Bulletins.htm Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 29 09:44:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> Message-ID: John Probst wrote: > > Further grist to the mill. Max Bavin thinks AJ9x Ax xxxx xxx is an > opener in 3rd seat nv. Of course he does, he knows a bit about the game. Does he think it is legal opener with a regular partner though? I notice that Andrew Kambites writing in Bridge Plus (a UK based publication) tells us that he will open AJT74,AT74,75,62 "without hesitation" first in hand non-vul. While I admire his ability not to break tempo perhaps he should be warned:) Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 29 10:30:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:30:13 +0200 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004d01c355b4$19d26940$6fec7f50@Default> Marvin: > Over here we look for equity in civil cases, figuring out who should get > what. Lawbreakers end up in criminal court, where justice is dished out in > accordance with sentencing guidelines. That's what I had in mind. Even in Europe it works like that although sentencing guidelines tend to be much more gentle than in the USA. But that is politics and has little to do with equity. Marv: > Equity in bridge is too difficult to nail down. Justice is simpler, and more > in the spirit of the game. Two tricks for a revoke, that's it. Of course that is the only way to run the game. There are already way to many problems we cannot (easily) approach like that. I know we will never agree buth sometimes I wonder if Grattan and Ton and the like want do discard all rules (and TD's !?) and we will do everything in AC judging by the holy grail of equity whatever that is supossed to be. Who said a couple of days ago 'you break the rules, you pay the price' ? Anyway, the price is open to discussion, but the principle should not be. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:57 AM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > Grattan wrote: > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > What we need in this game is justice (break > > > the law, pay the penalty), not equity. > > > > > +=+ Then you do not mean justice, since justice > > demands equity, but rather punishment by the > > law. However, "With righteousness shall he > > judge the world, and the people with equity". > > Over here we look for equity in civil cases, figuring out who should get > what. Lawbreakers end up in criminal court, where justice is dished out in > accordance with sentencing guidelines. That's what I had in mind. > > Equity in bridge is too difficult to nail down. Justice is simpler, and more > in the spirit of the game. Two tricks for a revoke, that's it. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 29 10:47:59 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:47:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: Message-ID: <006f01c355b6$83b08b60$6fec7f50@Default> Tim: > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed was correct then > South, by not alerting, *has* correctly informed opponents that there is > no agreement. No MI. This kind of mixup happens quite often. Whether or not someone has once said something about the sequence some years ago. Anyway what exactly constitutes an agreement ? But to keep it simple, I would be loathe to protect EW whatever the TD's judgement. Doubling 2D with 5D and 2H is kind of silly. If the 2D bidder has no hearts why is partner not bidding them, or bidding 2S, or why did the 1NT guy not make a TO double. Yes I know I can construct a hand were the bidding might just be possible. But whatever the explanation and whoever the opponents it is for me an extremely safe bet that opponents just had a mixup and with this vuln there is nothing to protect anyway. And doubling 2H after that with two small is insane, if partner has some hearts he can double himself. So even if you want to correct the NS score EW should keep what they deserve. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > Ted wrote: > > > So, I don't think this is a case of UI. However, it could be > > a case of MI (which I think it was). South should have correctly > > told the opponents that they had no agreement. > > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed was correct then > South, by not alerting, *has* correctly informed opponents that there is > no agreement. No MI. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 29 08:57:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:57:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: Message-ID: <005701c355f8$3f7ec9b0$0a13e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > Ted wrote: > > > So, I don't think this is a case of UI. However, it could be > > a case of MI (which I think it was). South should have > > correctly told the opponents that they had no agreement. > > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed > was correct then South, by not alerting, *has* correctly > informed opponents that there is no agreement. No MI. > > Tim > +=+ ... unless, of course, the regulations call for an alert of any call the meaning of which is undiscussed..... well, :-), isn't it Ireland we are talking about ? ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jul 29 09:05:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:05:43 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005801c355f8$405a0e80$0a13e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:57 AM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > Equity in bridge is too difficult to nail down. Justice > is simpler, and more in the spirit of the game. Two > tricks for a revoke, that's it. > +=+ So, if by revoking you can save three tricks the law will work for you? 'Justice' not equity, an extra dimension. ~ G ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Jul 29 20:09:43 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:09:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <005701c355f8$3f7ec9b0$0a13e150@endicott> Message-ID: > Ted wrote: > > > So, I don't think this is a case of UI. However, it could be > > a case of MI (which I think it was). South should have > > correctly told the opponents that they had no agreement. > > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed > was correct then South, by not alerting, *has* correctly > informed opponents that there is no agreement. No MI. > > Tim > +=+ ... unless, of course, the regulations call for an alert of any call the meaning of which is undiscussed..... well, :-), isn't it Ireland we are talking about ? ~ G ~ +=+ +++ I'm sure my posts to date have not been very positive on the Irish bridge scene in general and (with the exception of Ferghal) the general tournament directing level, appeal decisions (I'm in there :>>) and just general playing level in Ireland is pretty bad. Having said that steps, slow ones to be sure but none the less steps, are being made to rectify the TD end of things (once again mainly due to Paul porteous (CBAI secretary) and Ferghal). Anyway ... certainly in Ireland, any undiscussed bid does definitely not require an alert (god help us its bad enough as it is) ... but we're abit behind modern trends. No doubt we'll catch up with our English neighbours and follow it their foot steps. Their record to date, their education system, Transparent politics, Nuclear energy all speak for their forward going quest for betterment. K. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Jul 29 20:10:37 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <006f01c355b6$83b08b60$6fec7f50@Default> Message-ID: > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed was correct then > South, by not alerting, *has* correctly informed opponents that there is > no agreement. No MI. +++ Well i believed this N/S but as I'm not equiped with a lie detector or would find it hard to ascertain if North was actually correct and South wrong .... This kind of mixup happens quite often. Whether or not someone has once said something about the sequence some years ago. Anyway what exactly constitutes an agreement ? But to keep it simple, I would be loathe to protect EW whatever the TD's judgement. Doubling 2D with 5D and 2H is kind of silly. If the 2D bidder has no hearts why is partner not bidding them, or bidding 2S, or why did the 1NT guy not make a TO double. Yes I know I can construct a hand were the bidding might just be possible. But whatever the explanation and whoever the opponents it is for me an extremely safe bet that opponents just had a mixup and with this vuln there is nothing to protect anyway. And doubling 2H after that with two small is insane, if partner has some hearts he can double himself. So even if you want to correct the NS score EW should keep what they deserve. Jaap +++ whowwww there. Now in the previous post I wanted E/W to keep their score for similar "Bridge" reasons and appalling defence but everyone was too busy hanging N/S. No-one seemed to think E/W were anything but saintly. Now in this case, while I agree with your reasons, Jaap (in fact I'll admit those very reasons you've stated gave me extra impetutus to leave the score stand, wrongly or rightly) ... am I allowed by EBL/WBF law, to give a split score because in my bridge judgement the NOS dont deserve an adjusted one ?? The original reply by Ed seems to indicate I forget about using any local knowledge or judgement and mechanically rule MI and proceed. K. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Jul 28 06:56:21 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:56:21 +1200 Subject: [blml] I am perplexed Message-ID: <002001c354cc$fb88bd50$f92d37d2@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C35531.90BD9D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can a Green (natural) system include any non natural bids. "WBF system policy definition: ... Natural a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws) ... Section 2.3 - Classification of Systems In order to facilitate recognition and handling, systems material will be identified by one or more of the following: i) a WBF coloured sticker; ii) the appropriate name (hand printed or typed) colour; iii) a check mark on a convention card next to the appropriate colour - in keeping with the following descriptions: Green Natural ..." That is the extent of the definitions. If it helps the other classifications are: "Blue Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong Red Artificial: this category includes all artificial systems that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see 'Blue'). Examples would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multi-meaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet Yellow Highly Unusual Methods ('HUM') as defined above. " If some conventions (non-natural bids) are allowed in a Green system when do you become a Red system? This is not at all clear to me. Do these regulations just refer to the opening bid? Or do they also refer to the responses? TIA Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C35531.90BD9D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Can a Green=20 (natural) system include any non natural bids.
 
"WBF system=20 policy definition:
...
Natural a=20 call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)=20
...
Section 2.3=20 - Classification of Systems 
In order to facilitate recognition = and=20 handling, systems material will be identified by one or more of the=20 following: 
i) a WBF coloured sticker;
ii) the appropriate = name=20 (hand printed or typed) colour;
iii) a check mark on a convention = card next=20 to the appropriate colour - in keeping with the following = descriptions: =20
Green=20 Natural
..."
That is the=20 extent of the definitions.
 
If it helps=20 the other classifications are:
 
"Blue Strong=20 Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong
Red = Artificial: this category includes all artificial systems that do not = fall under=20 the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition = below],=20 other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see 'Blue'). =
 Examples=20 would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural = club suit,=20 a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a = system in=20 which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according = to=20 position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional = 'weak'=20 or 'multi-meaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in = potentially=20 contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the = WBF=20 Convention Booklet
Yellow Highly Unusual Methods ('HUM') as defined=20 above.  "
 
If some=20 conventions (non-natural bids) are allowed in a Green system when do you = become=20 a Red system?
 
This is not=20 at all clear to me.
 
Do these=20 regulations just refer to the opening bid?
 
Or do they=20 also refer to the responses?
 
TIA
 
Wayne

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C35531.90BD9D50-- From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 29 22:23:19 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:23:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <200307281348.h6SDmB2N029807@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200307281348.h6SDmB2N029807@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200307281348.h6SDmB2N029807@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Eric Landau >> What usually creates problems at this level is a misguided tendency to >> try to be helpful by basing one's alerts and explanantions on a >> presumed or hoped-for meaning, which the opponents take to be a >> description of a partnership agreement, when in fact there is no >> agreement. Misunderstandings are exacerbated when the call in question >> is one (as in Karel's example) for which we wouldn't normally expect >> players at that level to have an explicit agreement, especially if we >> get the sense that the opponents really should know that (or do know >> that, and are "bridge lawyering"). > >While I agree completely with Eric in principle, in the original >message we were told: > >> >Over 1NT(opening by them) DBL N/S play system >> >on (stayman, 4 way transfers etc). Over 1x(opps) 1NT P N/S play >> >system on. > >If I were EW, I would feel entitled to be told these facts. In fact, >it seems to me that these auctions where NS _do_ have an alertable >agreement are close enough to the actual auction to require an alert, >even if there is no explicit agreement for the actual auction. > >It's also amusing that here North assumes a balanced hand for South's >1NT overcall and corrects the contract to his six-card suit. In the >previous hand, several people were saying that North could tell from >the (similar but not identical) auction that the notrump overcaller >must be offshape, and it was OK not to bid the six-bagger. These >positions are, of course, a lot easier to get right with a little black >magic. > the suction is entirely different. There's no black magic involved at all. cheers John >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 29 22:27:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:27:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <37EDE206-C132-11D7-B90F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3p7cmuA4sUJ$EwJB@asimere.com> <37EDE206-C132-11D7-B90F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <37EDE206-C132-11D7-B90F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 12:11 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst >wrote: > >> You want it should be run like a >> Sunday School or a Posy Simmons picnic?. > >Posy who? Any relation to Richard Simmons, the "fitness guru" (God, I >hope not)? :-) > > In the 80's there was a cartoon strip about a Politically Correct wimmin in one of the left wing broadsheets. The strip was called Posy Simmons - it could still be running for all I know, I don't read left wing broad sheets as you might have deduced by now, and I'm certainly not Politically Correct, which is just obvious :) her friends used to eat quiche and have picnics. cheers john. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 29 22:29:36 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:29:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) In-Reply-To: References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: In article , Robert E. Harris writes >Luis wrote: > >>We use predealt boards here in Argentina :-) and we are not advanced >>at all and >>we have a big problem since imported resources are really >>expensive a BigMac combo costs here U$S 2. >>I'm playing a national pairs tournament with predealt boards and I >>would have really hated to deal them... >> > >I don't know what a Big Mac combo is in Argentina, but a plain Big >Mac costs U$S2.29 at the Macs in Concordia, MO. Makes Argentina look >low priced. > >Sorry about being so slow in posting this, but I don't eat Big Macs, >so my chance of getting price information has be limited. > >(By the way, a Senior Coffee is US 38 cents there. Limited to us old folks.) > presumably the cup is labelled "Contains hot drink" :) >REH > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Jul 29 23:49:07 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:49:07 +0200 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005801c355f8$405a0e80$0a13e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000901c35623$a0662a40$a1ed7f50@Default> Grattan: > +=+ So, if by revoking you can save three tricks the > law will work for you? 'Justice' not equity, an extra > dimension. ~ G ~ +=+ Come on Grattan, this is silly obstruction. Do you really need me to quote you the law? The mechanical law says revoke = 2 tricks (with some exceptions, the current version is to complicated by the way). Then we have a meta law that says that if the two tricks is not enough (and or some other conditions) then we will adjust anyway. I agree that the meta law is not mechanical. Probably all mechanical laws need some meta law. But the mechanical law handles 99% of the cases. Still for me this is applying 'justice' and it has IMHO nothing to do with equity. I would not mind changing that meta-law from the current 'OS can not gain' to 'OS always loses at least one trick'. By the way, does the concept of equity exist in any Penal Code (other than the bridge laws)? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Speak in French when you can't think > of the English for a thing." > C.L Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:57 AM > Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > > > > > Equity in bridge is too difficult to nail down. Justice > > is simpler, and more in the spirit of the game. Two > > tricks for a revoke, that's it. > > > +=+ So, if by revoking you can save three tricks the > law will work for you? 'Justice' not equity, an extra > dimension. ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 30 00:21:53 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:21:53 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005801c355f8$405a0e80$0a13e150@endicott> <000901c35623$a0662a40$a1ed7f50@Default> Message-ID: <003701c3562a$ba3f6d80$c114e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:49 PM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > Grattan: > > +=+ So, if by revoking you can save three tricks the > > law will work for you? 'Justice' not equity, an extra > > dimension. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Come on Grattan, this is silly obstruction. Do you really > need me to quote you the law? > > The mechanical law says revoke = 2 tricks (with some > exceptions, the current version is to complicated by > the way). Then we have a meta law that says that if the > two tricks is not enough (and or some other conditions) > then we will adjust anyway. > +=+ 1. Yes. The current law is too complicated. We are moving to simplify it. 2. My underlying point was that there is a need for the equity back-up in the revoke law. It cannot be simply a mechanical law as it seemed Marv had implied. ~ G ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Wed Jul 30 01:21:24 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:21:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> Message-ID: In article , Tim West-Meads writes >John Probst wrote: >> >> Further grist to the mill. Max Bavin thinks AJ9x Ax xxxx xxx is an >> opener in 3rd seat nv. > >Of course he does, he knows a bit about the game. Does he think it is >legal opener with a regular partner though? yes, that's the point. He used the offensive *J* word. > I notice that Andrew Kambites >writing in Bridge Plus (a UK based publication) tells us that he will open >AJT74,AT74,75,62 "without hesitation" first in hand non-vul. While I >admire his ability not to break tempo perhaps he should be warned:) That's an ok rule of 18. Still ok at level 3 if we can use the *J* word. > >Tim > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 30 01:35:19 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:35:19 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005801c355f8$405a0e80$0a13e150@endicott> <000901c35623$a0662a40$a1ed7f50@Default> Message-ID: <002b01c35633$3a6f4f40$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] By the way, does the concept of equity exist in any Penal Code (other than the bridge laws)? [Nigel Guthrie] Justice demands equal treatment for all under the law. That is why, by and large, objective laws tend to be equitable and subjective laws tend to be inequitable. The problem with Bridge (as with real-life) Law is that it is hard to treat cronies and compatriots the same as enemies and foreigners. The current law encourages subjective judgement which allows TDs and ACs to rationalise such bias. ): Witness TD and AC decisions ad infinitum :( Subjective assessment may be sensible when deciding redress; but IMO the law should be as objective as possible when deciding whether an alleged infraction has really occurred. Justice is even worse served by laws that are so complex and obfuscatory that not even TDs and their authors can agree on their meaning, in the simplest applications. It is a hard enough task to phrase simple comprehensive objective laws, consistently; with complex incomplete subjective laws, paradox is almost inevitable. :) Witness BLML controversies ad infinitum :( Anyway, in an (oversimplified) nutshell... Simple objective law == Equity This is not a theoretical problem, IMO, the legal quagmire is the single biggest deterrent to would-be duplicate bridge players. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 30 02:03:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 02:03:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> Message-ID: <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West Meads quotes] Max Bavin thinks AJ9x Ax xxxx xxx is an opener in 3rd seat nv. Andrew Kambites in Bridge Plus (UK publication) tells us that he will open AJT74,AT74,75,62 "without hesitation" first in hand non-vul. While I admire his ability not to break tempo perhaps he should be warned:) [John Probst] That's an ok rule of 18. Still ok at level 3 if we can use the *J* word. [Nigel] (: Strange :) the Orange Book specifies "Rule of 19" at level three and makes no mention of subjective "Judgement" in this context. Still, I suppose that Andrew Kambites, Max Bavin, and David Stevenson outvote David Burn by 3-1. Can we puzzled players safely ignore all the diktats in the Orange Book? Or must we also call the right TD? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 29 10:13:32 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:13:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <003101c3555a$aaf7f3e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000001c35678$623c7760$20d74c51@pc> It's not really age that counts, any has bean will do. lnb > +=+ But how old is a Senior Coffee? +=+ From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 30 10:37:38 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:37:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3p7cmuA4sUJ$EwJB@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000001c3567e$38321460$2a4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> [snip] >some of the best bridge brains and some of the best TD brains and some of the best AC brains and some of the best L&E brains lurk here. Furthermore they're willing to educate the pond life. That's why I am here, but reading a 200+ long thread full of invective is not a productive way to spend my life! regards, Noel and/or Pamela From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 30 10:37:38 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:37:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> Message-ID: <000101c3567e$39bf6b20$2a4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> [Snip] >And one thought on Noel and Pamala. They complain in rather rude = language about a two week old message just after I disagreed with them on a completely unrelated thread. 1. If they really worry about 'polluting mailboxes' and all that, it makes more sense to do it in a decent way = rather than to do excactly that what they are accusing me of. 2. The timing = stinks. If they dislike that two week old message so much (but come on it was = far from the worst I have ever posted) why it took them so long to say so. = If they disagree with me in another thread why don't they say so. Good = manners and so is more than just the way you use language. You so sensitive new age guy you! I don't recall you disagreeing with me on any substantive point on = another thread, but if you did, I didn't respond, so I must have either accepted what you said or decided it had gone far enough. Mind you, if I had = agreed I would have said so - at least I have the manners to do that! Some of us have REAL jobs and only get to read this stuff - 1000 = messages at a time - generally once a month or so, so of course I respond 2 weeks = late - so don't waste my PRECIOUS time with invective when it is not called = for. I want to learn here, I didn't pay for the abuse. My problem with you mate is that you continually say "Sorry, I am not a native English speaker, I don't know the impact of what I am saying = ...." when in fact, and your response proves it, you know perfectly well what = you are doing. =20 regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Jaap van der Neut Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:23 PM To: Marvin French; 'blml' Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking Marvin Don't worry. I'll adapt. I got some valuable advice by Gordon Rainsford = on that. Anyway part of it is my style which indeed I should 'adapt'. But = part is getting through layers of defence by certain people which has been interesting and useful at times. Certain contributors can be quite = insulting and humilating (and worse dodging the issue) using only perfectly = correct language. But then it is their native language, not mine, so at times I get/got out of bounds trying to level the playing field a little. But why sorry to David. I am sure he was rather pleased by your mail. = Anyway there is nothing I like better on blml than a good flame by David Burn. And one thought on Noel and Pamala. They complain in rather rude = language about a two week old message just after I disagreed with them on a completely unrelated thread. 1. If they really worry about 'polluting mailboxes' and all that, it makes more sense to do it in a decent way = rather than to do excactly that what they are accusing me of. 2. The timing = stinks. If they dislike that two week old message so much (but come on it was = far from the worst I have ever posted) why it took them so long to say so. = If they disagree with me in another thread why don't they say so. Good = manners and so is more than just the way you use language. Anyway e-mail discussion poses an interesting cultural challenge. For = some people it tends to be the equivalent of a formal letter, in this context = I and some others should be banned, executed or whatever. For others it = tends to be the equivalent of spoken language and we all know that is far = worse than anything which has ever appeared on blml. I guess we'll have to = find some middle ground. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > > From: "Noel and Pamela" < > > >I would suggest 'adapt a little' should change to 'adapt a lot' [or=20 > >'shut > up' even] because if this continues, I for one, will no longer pollute = > my email by subscribing to this list... > > >I want to learn about Directing a Bridge Tournament - not how to=20 > >insult > people. > > Re-reading more carefully, I see that this was aimed at Jaap, not=20 > David. > > Sorry, David. > > Jaap, please adapt. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bridge@vwalther.de Wed Jul 30 11:15:57 2003 From: bridge@vwalther.de (volker walther) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:15:57 +0200 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas In-Reply-To: <002b01c35633$3a6f4f40$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005801c355f8$405a0e80$0a13e150@endicott> <000901c35623$a0662a40$a1ed7f50@Default> <002b01c35633$3a6f4f40$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F279ADD.3000706@vwalther.de> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > ... > Justice is even worse served by laws that are so > complex and obfuscatory that not even TDs and > their authors can agree on their meaning, in the > simplest applications. > ... I heartly agree to that. Here in Germany there are some complex limitations to the strength of weak openings for club-tournaments(see full german text below). The idea was to protect low-level players against openigs with a large variability of strength. While the intention was honest it lead to a poor result: The low level players do not know this law very well, so they dont call the director if it's infracted. Only more experienced players know their rights and call for redress if the innocent fools violate them. e.g.: The german law says: You must not open 2/3/4Hearts (weak) with Q AKQ65432 32 32 because this hand is to strong Greetings, Volker 2. Sperr-Eröffnungen auf 2er- oder höherer Stufe müssen systemgemäß unter der normalen Figurenpunkt-Stärke einer Farberöffnung auf 1er-Stufe liegen (d.h. weniger als 11 Figurenpunkte) dabei jedoch entweder die 18-er Regel erfüllen oder eine gute oder lange Farbe beinhalten, die folgenden Kriterien genügt: a) für schwache Einfärber auf 2er-Stufe in der gebotenen Farbe: aa) eine beliebige 7er-Länge; ab) eine 6er-Länge mit 3 Karten aus AKDB109; ac) eine 6er-Länge mit 2 Karten aus AKDB oder ad) eine 5er-Länge mit 3 Karten aus AKDB10. b) für schwache Einfärber auf 3er-Stufe in der gebotenen Farbe: ba) eine beliebige 7er-Länge; bb) eine 6er-Länge mit 3 Karten aus AKDB10. c) für schwache Einfärber ab 4er-Stufe in der gebotenen Farbe: ca) eine beliebige 8er-Länge; cb) eine 7er-Länge mit 3 Karten aus AKDB. d) für schwache Zweifärber auf zweier oder höherer Stufe müssen beide Farben die Bedingungen des lit. a erfüllen. Beispiele: S: K D 10 5 3, H: 8 4, D: 5, C: D 8 6 3 2 darf wegen der guten S-Farbe mit Weak-Two (oder 2 D-Multi), jedoch nicht mit 2 S (= Zweifärber mit und Unterfarbe) - wegen der schlechten C-Farbe eröffnet werden. S: B 8 5 4 3 2, H: D 5, D: K 4 3, C: B 5 darf nicht mit Weak-Two oder 3 S eröffnet werden, da sowohl die S-Farbe zu schlecht ist, als auch die 18er-Regel nicht erfüllt wird (7+6+3=16). S: 3, H: 6 4, D: D B 10 8 7, C: D B 10 6 5 darf mit 2 SA (für beide Unterfarben) eröffnet werden, da die Anforderungen der Nr.2 lit. d erfüllt werden. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 30 13:17:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:17:41 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <200307281740.KAA03187@mailhub.irvine.com> <005301c35533$4582d100$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35559$f71b07e0$e85c87d9@4nrw70j> <008801c3558d$eca21220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005801c355f8$405a0e80$0a13e150@endicott> <000901c35623$a0662a40$a1ed7f50@Default> <002b01c35633$3a6f4f40$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F279ADD.3000706@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <005101c35694$93da1f40$359868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Volker Walther] I heartly agree to that. Here in Germany there are some complex limitations to the strength of weak openings for club-tournaments ... The idea was to protect low-level players against openings with a large variability of strength. While the intention was honest it led to a poor result: The low level players do not know this law very well, so they dont call the director if it's infracted. Only more experienced players know their rights and call for redress if the innocent fools violate them. [Nigel Guthrie] Yes. This is a result of the obscurity and incompleteness of WBF Law: The WBF encourages each local jurisdiction to remedy some of the deficiencies by cobbling on idiosyncratic local rules. Poor players have to cope with the disastrous consequences such as your example (or our Orange Book, American Alert rules, and so on). It is horrendous for locals but just imagine how foreigners suffer. Its like a Chess competition where you are unsure whether the rules are Western, Chinese, or some strange new "Fairy" chess. Officials are only a little better informed than you. They enforce affected laws rarely and capriciously. Unfortunately what Volker says about the Babel tower of local Bridge variations is also true of the original Bridge WBF Law. Legal expertise becomes almost as important as skill in bidding or play. The law victimises those whom it is meant to protect. At base, Bridge must be a superb game to be able to support its tottering expanding legal superstructure and still keep any players. Bridge law is frighteningly "Heath Robinson". (: Its OK, he's dead, so he can't sue :). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Wed Jul 30 10:26:26 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:26:26 +0400 Subject: [blml] test In-Reply-To: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> References: <001d01c3553b$e4534640$8eb74351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3F278F42.50304@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all - and sorry for bothering - it is just test cause there were no messages and domain rtflb.org could no be found... Vitold From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 30 13:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <005701c355f8$3f7ec9b0$0a13e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed > > was correct then South, by not alerting, *has* correctly > > informed opponents that there is no agreement. No MI. > > > +=+ ... unless, of course, the regulations call for an alert > of any call the meaning of which is undiscussed..... > well, :-), isn't it Ireland we are talking about ? You are right, and I didn't even consider that possibility - just goes to show how hard it is to approach these things with an open mind. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 30 14:09:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > yes, that's the point. He used the offensive *J* word. But sir, I'm not allowed to use the J word - Mr Burn said so. Actually I'm pretty sure he also said I don't have any J to use so perhaps it won't be a problem. Tim From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Jul 30 14:13:59 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:13:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: >From: "Nigel Guthrie" ... >Still, I suppose that Andrew Kambites, Max Bavin, >and David Stevenson outvote David Burn by 3-1. I wouldn't bet on that... >Can we puzzled players safely ignore all the >diktats in the Orange Book? > >Or must we also call the right TD? Not only call the right TD, but also fall before the right Appeals Committee. Which is what, (I think), David Burn is really arguing against. The Law (including local regulations) is The Law. It doesn't matter what you, I, David Stevenson, Herman DeWael or Uncle Tom Cobbleigh of blessed memory thinks. The Law should be written down in words of one syllable so as to be easily interpreted by referee and player alike. The existence of this mailing list suggests that either laws, rules etc. are not written down in this manner, or that there are people who delight in finding ambiguity where there is none. Agitating for changes in laws is perfectly legitimate, although agitation is all it is on BLML, a 'body' of no power and little influence. So often, however, such agitation seems to represent a very small constituency that an agitator has deluded himself into thinking is "what everybody wants". No wonder discussions go on for weeks, and around in circles. To return to Burn, briefly, he has iterated frequently the fact that there is no Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List (no-one has, as far as I know, checked this, but I am willing to take his word for it). There shouldn't really be one for Bridge, but there is. And it shouldn't matter which TD you call, or which AC sits in judgement upon you. But it does. Still, never mind, eh? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jul 30 14:42:36 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:42:36 +0100 Subject: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046608@hotel.npl.co.uk> Google reveals: Croquet Laws Mailing List Mailing List go-rules There are also many mailing lists for real laws, and some less obvious hits: Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (SLAC) Bulletin (a mailing list) Real Exotic Animal Laws (REAL) mailing list We are not alone. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Norman Scorbie [mailto:normanscorbie@hotmail.com] Sent: 30 July 2003 14:14 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] HCP >From: "Nigel Guthrie" ... >Still, I suppose that Andrew Kambites, Max Bavin, >and David Stevenson outvote David Burn by 3-1. I wouldn't bet on that... >Can we puzzled players safely ignore all the >diktats in the Orange Book? > >Or must we also call the right TD? Not only call the right TD, but also fall before the right Appeals Committee. Which is what, (I think), David Burn is really arguing against. The Law (including local regulations) is The Law. It doesn't matter what you, I, David Stevenson, Herman DeWael or Uncle Tom Cobbleigh of blessed memory thinks. The Law should be written down in words of one syllable so as to be easily interpreted by referee and player alike. The existence of this mailing list suggests that either laws, rules etc. are not written down in this manner, or that there are people who delight in finding ambiguity where there is none. Agitating for changes in laws is perfectly legitimate, although agitation is all it is on BLML, a 'body' of no power and little influence. So often, however, such agitation seems to represent a very small constituency that an agitator has deluded himself into thinking is "what everybody wants". No wonder discussions go on for weeks, and around in circles. To return to Burn, briefly, he has iterated frequently the fact that there is no Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List (no-one has, as far as I know, checked this, but I am willing to take his word for it). There shouldn't really be one for Bridge, but there is. And it shouldn't matter which TD you call, or which AC sits in judgement upon you. But it does. Still, never mind, eh? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 30 15:28:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:28:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multi 4th References: <003601c34156$1b98d6a0$619868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <010a01c356a6$ddf6ba40$359868d5@tinyhrieuyik> On 3-July, I posted a seemingly unanswerable query which I will now reformulate as: "In EBU events, vulnerable against not, in 4th seat, playing "Multi 2D", is it legal to agree to pass with a good six card major and 8 HCP?" The Orange Book specifies as a compulsory Multi option... "A weak unspecified 5+ card major which must have a defined range of no more than 5 HCPs, a minimum strength of 4 HCPs and a maximum of 12 HCPs" For the sake of argument, let's say our partnership agreement is 6-10. The Orange Book mandates that [The multi] "may not be 'treated' at all". Narrowing the agreed HCP range is part of the Orange Book's definition of "Treatment". Or may we flout this rule as well as the rest of the Orange Book? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jul 30 15:34:25 2003 From: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046608@hotel.npl.co.uk> from "Robin Barker" at Jul 30, 2003 02:42:36 PM Message-ID: <200307301434.h6UEYQj12490@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> > -----Original Message----- > From: Norman Scorbie [mailto:normanscorbie@hotmail.com] > > To return to Burn, briefly, he has iterated frequently the fact that > there is no Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List (no-one has, as far as I know, > checked this, but I am willing to take his word for it). In fact there is one for NHL officals (only). Closed list administered by the referee in chief. Membership is mandatory for all NHL officials. According to the news stories I've seen on it, the purpose is to in effect become an interactive case book. Like BLML there are apparently lots of discussions about judgement calls. However the purpose of their discussions is to make clear to the officials how the league wants those calls to go. -- Ron From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 30 16:31:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:31:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Multi 4th In-Reply-To: <010a01c356a6$ddf6ba40$359868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <003601c34156$1b98d6a0$619868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030730165610.01d23840@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:28 30/07/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >On 3-July, I posted a seemingly unanswerable >query which I will now reformulate as: > >"In EBU events, vulnerable against not, in >4th seat, playing "Multi 2D", is it legal to >agree to pass with a good six card major and >8 HCP?" > >The Orange Book specifies as a compulsory >Multi option... > >"A weak unspecified 5+ card major which must >have a defined range of no more than 5 HCPs, >a minimum strength of 4 HCPs and a maximum >of 12 HCPs" > >For the sake of argument, let's say our >partnership agreement is 6-10. > >The Orange Book mandates that [The multi] >"may not be 'treated' at all". > >Narrowing the agreed HCP range is part of >the Orange Book's definition of "Treatment". > >Or may we flout this rule as well as the >rest of the Orange Book? AG : this seems very much like a non-problem. a) yiou *are* allowed to modify the definition given above. For example, you are allowed to restrict the Multi opening to a 6-card major, which many will do. b) narrowing a range is a treatment when you change the range as is described in the definition (which wouldn't be a problem there, as you're given a choice), *not* when you narrow the range according to circumstances, like opening a weak NT but agreeing to pass bad 12-counts when vul. c) the fact that a hand pertains to the interval you mention (and which must conform to the restrictions above) does not mean that you have to open all such hands with 2D. (please note that "good 6-card major" is your interpretation and isn't written anywhere in the orange book) Very few would open the following hands 2D, any seat : AKxxx - QJxxxx - void - xx KJ10xxx - void - void - AJxxxxx ... but they would write on their CCs "weak 6-card major 7-11, or ..." so, WTP ? I presume, however, that you would not be allowed to open a Multi 2D outside of the 4-12 range ATV. (In Belgium, we are) Best regards, Alain. From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jul 30 09:19:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:19:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > (: Strange :) the Orange Book specifies "Rule > of 19" at level three and makes no mention of > subjective "Judgement" in this context. > > Still, I suppose that Andrew Kambites, Max Bavin, > and David Stevenson outvote David Burn by 3-1. > > Can we puzzled players safely ignore all the > diktats in the Orange Book? > > Or must we also call the right TD? < +=+ 1.At an EBU tournament the ruling you would receive would be the consensus view of a number of TDs. Stevenson could well be present in his role of Consultant TD in which he adopts the committee position, whatever it may be. 2. Andrew K. is not a member of the committee that decides such matters. Those who attend and have a vote are: Burn (Chair), Martin Pool (Vice) Steve Barnfield, Richard Fleet, David Martin, Jeff Smith, Stevenson and (ex officio) Bavin. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 30 18:49:47 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:49:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multi 4th References: <003601c34156$1b98d6a0$619868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.1.0.14.0.20030730165610.01d23840@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c356c3$007cdba0$989468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Alain Gottcheiner] This seems very much like a non-problem. a) you *are* allowed to modify the definition given above. For example, you are allowed to restrict the Multi opening to a 6-card major, which many will do. [Nigel] Well, it is symptomatic of many small problems. Sorry Alain I did not quote the whole definition of the Multi. As you say, the Orange Book provides several relevant *options* and does allow you to insist on a 6 card suit. To narrow the argument, I specified *one* of the compulsory alternatives. I should have made it crystal clear that it is only *after* you have selected one set of Multi options from those in the Orange Book's menu, that any further "treatment" is forbidden. [Alain] b) narrowing a range is a treatment when you change the range as is described in the definition (which wouldn't be a problem there, as you're given a choice), *not* when you narrow the range according to circumstances, like opening a weak NT but agreeing to pass bad 12-counts when vul. [Nigel] IMO, treating hands differently in different circumstances (in this case narrowing/increasing the range requirements for a bid when vulnerable) is a treatment by the Orange Book definition. Ideally, IMO, it should be mentioned on your CC. Certainly, it should be disclosed to opponents on request. Anyway you are allowed to vary notrump ranges, whereas, varying the range for the Multi seems to be explicitly forbidden. But I quite agree that yours is as good guess as any as to what the author intended. [Alain] c) the fact that a hand pertains to the interval you mention (and which must conform to the restrictions above) does not mean that you have to open all such hands with 2D. [Nigel] IMO that statement begs the question as to whether you may treat the Multi. (We already know we are allowed to treat most other agreements). [Alain] (please note that "good 6-card major" is your interpretation and isn't written anywhere in the orange book) [Nigel] Again, I was just providing a typical middle of the range example, to avoid quibbles about borderline decisions or peculiar hands like... [Alain] Very few would open the following hands 2D, any seat: AKxxx - QJxxxx - void - xx KJ10xxx - void - void - AJxxxxx ... but they would write on their CCs "weak 6-card major 7-11, or ..." so, WTP ? [Nigel] I would not want to open a Multi on your example hands; and I take your point that if I pursue my argument to its logical conclusion, I might have to do so. But a rule-book has more space for a definition than a CC. When I define Multi on my CC and carelessly write "6-10 5+H/S" then a TD may perhaps excuse me for forgetting to explicitly include or exclude such two suiters. But IMO, an official book of Rules should explicitly state what is or is not included in its definitions. Obviously, there is no problem, if narrowing the range from 6-10 to insist on a good 10, say, is not a treatment. i.e. You are allowed to treat the hand differently, depending on vulnerability and your seat at the table. [Alain] I presume, however, that you would not be allowed to open a Multi 2D outside of the 4-12 range ATV. (In Belgium, we are) [Nigel] Well to illustrate the extremes of interpretation: I had better admit that David Stevenson opines that you might well be allowed bump up the range, fourth in hand. IMO, we have so long been encouraged to adopt a subjective approach to the Bridge Law that we use our "judgement" to interpret Orange Book definitions as simple as "A=4 HCP". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 From john@asimere.com Wed Jul 30 19:50:10 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:50:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[Tim West Meads quotes] > >Max Bavin thinks AJ9x Ax xxxx xxx is an opener >in 3rd seat nv. > >Andrew Kambites in Bridge Plus (UK publication) >tells us that he will open AJT74,AT74,75,62 >"without hesitation" first in hand non-vul. >While I admire his ability not to >break tempo perhaps he should be warned:) > >[John Probst] >That's an ok rule of 18. Still ok at level 3 >if we can use the *J* word. > >[Nigel] > >(: Strange :) the Orange Book specifies "Rule >of 19" at level three and makes no mention of >subjective "Judgement" in this context. > >Still, I suppose that Andrew Kambites, Max Bavin, >and David Stevenson outvote David Burn by 3-1. > >Can we puzzled players safely ignore all the >diktats in the Orange Book? > >Or must we also call the right TD? those 3 and I are TD's. You have to make sure it doesn't get to appeal where DALB will see it :) > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system >(http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: >24/07/2003 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 30 22:04:43 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:04:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: References: <005701c355f8$3f7ec9b0$0a13e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030730164812.00ab88a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:55 AM 7/30/03, twm wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed > > > was correct then South, by not alerting, *has* correctly > > > informed opponents that there is no agreement. No MI. > > > > > +=+ ... unless, of course, the regulations call for an alert > > of any call the meaning of which is undiscussed..... > > well, :-), isn't it Ireland we are talking about ? > >You are right, and I didn't even consider that possibility - just goes to >show how hard it is to approach these things with an open mind. In every jurisdiction, if you have an agreement about partner's call, you either must or must not alert depending whether the meaning is alertable. Nobody has any problem with this. So what happens when you have no agreement -- understanding that virtually any call made without an agreement *could* have an intended meaning which would be alertable? In some jurisdictions you alert; in others you don't. Either should work (although the latter is, IMO, much better, as it avoids situations in which pick-up pairs alert every call only to disclose that the partnership has no agreement about it). But the reality on the ground is that neither works. The inexperienced "player on the street", faced with a call about which his partnership has no agreement, "guesses" what its intended meaning is (planning to reply to that intention), and then either alerts or doesn't depending on whether his guess, if it were an agreement, would or wouldn't be alertable. There is no jurisdiction where this is proper, but I'd be surprised if there's any jurisdiction that has alerts where it doesn't occur all the time. IOW, everyone's alert procedure works when a pair has an agreement about a call, but breaks down one way or another when they don't -- to the point where the players, not knowing what to do about "no agreement" positions, will instinctively "find" an "agreement" that doesn't really exist just to resolve the dilemma of what to do about alerting. Alas, I have no solution to offer to this. But it is what seems to cause the most and trickiest MI problems. One needs to understand the problem to be able to work towards a solution. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 30 22:12:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:12:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] In-Reply-To: <200307301434.h6UEYQj12490@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046608@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030730170804.023a1b50@pop.starpower.net> At 10:34 AM 7/30/03, Ron wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Norman Scorbie [mailto:normanscorbie@hotmail.com] > > > > To return to Burn, briefly, he has iterated frequently the fact that > > there is no Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List (no-one has, as far as I know, > > checked this, but I am willing to take his word for it). > >In fact there is one for NHL officals (only). Closed list >administered by the referee in chief. Membership is mandatory >for all NHL officials. > >According to the news stories I've seen on it, the purpose is >to in effect become an interactive case book. > >Like BLML there are apparently lots of discussions about judgement >calls. However the purpose of their discussions is to make clear >to the officials how the league wants those calls to go. But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players on all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL teams (the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to those granted by our L80? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 30 22:23:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott > (: Strange :) the Orange Book specifies "Rule > > of 19" at level three and makes no mention of > > subjective "Judgement" in this context. > > > > Still, I suppose that Andrew Kambites, Max Bavin, > > and David Stevenson outvote David Burn by 3-1. > > > > Can we puzzled players safely ignore all the > > diktats in the Orange Book? > > > > Or must we also call the right TD? > < > +=+ 1.At an EBU tournament the ruling you would > receive would be the consensus view of a number > of TDs. There would be no requirement for the TD to consult. This is not a judgement ruling per se but a ruling on whether judgement is permitted. > Stevenson could well be present in his role > of Consultant TD in which he adopts the committee > position, whatever it may be. Aye, there's the rub. What is the committee position. > 2. Andrew K. is not a member of the committee > that decides such matters. Whatever the judgement rendered by one (or more) TDs on a ruling it could well go to appeal. The appeal committee (rather than the L&E committee) would give a judgement. I assume AK could sit on such an AC. > Those who attend and > have a vote are: Burn (Chair), Martin Pool (Vice) > Steve Barnfield, Richard Fleet, David Martin, Jeff > Smith, Stevenson and (ex officio) Bavin. The L&E committee thus far is revealed as No judgement 1, Judgement 1+1 ex-officio I notice that Richard Fleet has just written a long and complex article (Bridge plus, same issue) predicated on the concept that the EBU regulates 1NT openings which are not conventional. He ends by invoking the fifth amendment as to whether he indulges in such despicable shenanigans himself. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 31 02:03:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:03:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <000701c35700$c1470760$1630e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Grattan Endicott > Whatever the judgement rendered by one > (or more) TDs on a ruling it could well go to > appeal. The appeal committee (rather than > the L&E committee) would give a judgement. > I assume AK could sit on such an AC. > +=+ Andrew is an EBU panel Tournament Director. He would not sit on an AC if present in that capacity; I am unsure whether the current practice would allow him to do so if he were there as a player, but I suspect that the priority, at least, would be to ask others. An AC would be instructed as to the interpretation of the regulation by the Director. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 31 02:54:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:54:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <009b01c35706$af6a37a0$249868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John (MadDog) Probst] Those 3 and I are TD's. You have to make sure it doesn't get to appeal where DALB will see it :) [Nigel] The AC rule may well against me :( Obviously, according to the rules, they should :( But, when so many eminent EBU law-makers confess publicly, in print, that they righteously and routinely flout the Orange book rules, the AC can hardly, in conscience, keep my deposit :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003 From David Stevenson Thu Jul 31 02:30:36 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:30:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] I think I broke the law (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004e01c34b6d$ca199ae0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <002701c34656$0f26f910$1c30e150@endicott> <000b01c34708$0f4b7620$4439e150@endicott> <004c01c34780$c75b20d0$63ebf1c3@LNV> <+z0O9WDC0tD$EwJG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c347d7$78660b00$754127d9@pbncomputer> <004e01c34b6d$ca199ae0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5cqwXcB8EHK$Ewj3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Jaap van der Neut writes >There is a much better solution for this one. > >The problem is that the guy who has to take a blind shot knows his partner >has passed out of turn. To apply also UI-LA logic against him makes the >situation completely impossible. But if you reverse the penalty (the other >one is barred for one round) you don't have the UI problem. >From: "David Stevenson" >> A well worded comment based on L73C will be more helpful that a >> comment bristling with logical alternatives and the like. It may be better your way, but that is not the Law. My comment was based on the current Laws. Please do not top post: it really does not help the flow of dialogue. -- 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 Jul 31 03:30:57 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:30:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: References: <4jbPJhD$$tD$Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford writes >On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 05:04 PM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> By playing the same hands at the same time the only security issues >> are those that apply in pair games, over-hearing another table, >> chatting >> to each other in the toilet. There is no problem with people talking >> together between matches. > >I've just been looking at Marc Smith' s write-up of the Spring >Foursomes in the new August issue of Bridge Magazine, in which he >writes: "For security reasons, the hands at this event are still dealt >at the table". The Spring foursomes is neither a pair game, nor a Swiss Teams. Obviously different events have different problems. There are no particular security issues in events played at the same time: it does not seem relevant to compare with events that do not get played at the same time. The Spring Foursomes has always run at varied times. -- 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 Jul 31 03:33:29 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:33:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <000601c34bc4$6b2313c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <01aa01c34bbe$94230ba0$931e27d9@pbncomputer> <000601c34bc4$6b2313c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >Yes, your answer "opens my eyes", I realize that this event is not a series >type event (like Swiss or round robin) where it is essential that the >matches are balanced in the way that they are likely to produce the same >amount of IMP swings. (I should have noticed already from the mentioning of >quarter-finals etc.) > >The schedule then consists of completely independent (K.O.)matches with the >only requirements being that they start after some time, are finished before >some time and the rest is more or less left for the teams to decide. Up to a point. There are limits to the time allowed per stanza, as one team found to its cost this year by severe over-running leading to a PP that changed the winners. However, there have always been some matches played extremely fast. Players would not be happy to be told to wait each stanza for a published start time. -- 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 Jul 31 03:33:38 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:33:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Use of Duplimates for large-scale team events. In-Reply-To: <01aa01c34bbe$94230ba0$931e27d9@pbncomputer> References: <000401c34bb9$57908d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> <01aa01c34bbe$94230ba0$931e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn writes >This informality is largely welcomed by the players. But it obviously >means that the three matches cannot play the same boards. It could >easily happen that Robson, who has played eight boards, will emerge into >the area where players gather to meet team-mates and score, and hear >someone say to his own team-mates (who have played sixteen boards) "Did >you bid the grand slam on board fourteen?" > >Now, this does not of course mean that boards should be dealt at the >table. Each match should have its own set of pre-dealt boards, together >with hand records. When I suggested this to Max Bavin, he seemed to >think it was a good idea, and wondered why no one had thought of it >before. I think Max must be having a little fun at your expense. It has certainly been suggested before, a number of times. There have been a number of reasons why it has been turned down in the past, but since none of them seem relevant today with ease of access to duplimate facilities perhaps it is merely inertia that it has not happened. Give the EBU Tournament Committee a kick - err - I mean suggest it to our revered EBU Tournament Committee. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 31 07:25:35 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <009b01c35706$af6a37a0$249868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000d01c3572c$a92297e0$b2a9193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > [John (MadDog) Probst] > > Those 3 and I are TD's. You have to make sure it > doesn't get to appeal where DALB will see it :) > > [Nigel] > > The AC rule may well against me :( > > Obviously, according to the rules, they should :( > > But, when so many eminent EBU law-makers confess > publicly, in print, that they righteously and > routinely flout the Orange book rules, the AC > can hardly, in conscience, keep my deposit :) > +=+ What case will you make to the AC? Ignorance of the law? +=+ From David Stevenson Thu Jul 31 04:55:55 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:55:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] I am perplexed In-Reply-To: <002001c354cc$fb88bd50$f92d37d2@Desktop> References: <002001c354cc$fb88bd50$f92d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: writes > Can a Green (natural) system include any non natural bids. Yes. Stayman is permitted, and just possibly transfers. Another effort at labelling goes to pot. A Green system is a system of a certain type, which is casually referred to as natural for those who like descriptive but slightly inaccurate labels. A Green system is something like Acol, Standard American, and so on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Jul 31 04:46:47 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:46:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L25(b) question In-Reply-To: <200307151540.LAA16021@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200307151540.LAA16021@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <$iMR4FBnEJK$EwBj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner writes >> >L73B1, L12A1, L12C2. What's the problem? (I won't mention 12C3 because >> >it seems wildly unlikely you would need it, but it might be an >> >additional step in some rare case.) > >> From: David Stevenson >> L12C3 would be quite common here. You are going to adjust back to an >> unlikely contract in a poor fit. Rather than worry about whether it is >> going to take three, four, five or six tricks, L12C3 TDs will be able to >> rule much quicker by giving 25% of each. > >While I take your point, it seems to me the time is the same whether >you give a weighted score or not. At matchpoints, all of the possible >scores are zeroes, so it doesn't matter what score you give. At IMPs, >if there really is doubt about the number of tricks, just give the >worst of four scores to the OS and the second best to the NOS. If the scores are the same in effect then there is certainly no need to weight them. As for splitting scores to avoid weighting them, all I can say is "YUK!!!". -- 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 Jul 31 04:49:56 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: More on L16C2 In-Reply-To: <000601c34b26$42ffb2c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000601c34b26$42ffb2c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5SsQ0RBkHJK$EwjB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Marvin French writes >I have not been following this thread closely, so my apologies if the >following is stupid. > >The WBFLC Lille interpretation says that if you have no alternative to a >lead suggested by a penalty card, the value of the card is AI when deciding >which card of the suit to lead. You can lead low from KQJx, for instance. >You can't use the information that partner has those 4 HCP in any other way >during the defense. > >Has there been something later than Lille that changes this? WTP? The problem is that people are not prepared to accept the Lille interpretation, nor that it is what the Law book says. OK, fellas, I give up. Some of us will follow what the Law book and the WBFLC says: some of us will prove we are of good sound BLML stock. Signing off on this thread. -- 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 Jul 31 05:01:54 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:01:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030730170804.023a1b50@pop.starpower.net> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046608@hotel.npl.co.uk> <200307301434.h6UEYQj12490@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> <5.2.0.9.0.20030730170804.023a1b50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau writes >But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players on >all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL teams >(the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to those >granted by our L80? That's not a fair comparison. The NHL is equivalent to a single sponsoring organisation. Are you suggesting that L80 allows us to treat different teams in the Merseyside Bridge League in different ways? Sigh - before all the old silly comments come out I am talking of the real world - yes, it could be legal, but it will not happen. But I bet you that you will find different regulations covering ice hockey in England from North America from the South Sandwich Islands. It is normal in all sports. If you want a North America only example, compare the rules of American football in the NFL and the CFL. They are not the same in several particulars - number of downs being the most obvious. -- 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 Jul 31 05:04:14 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:04:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) In-Reply-To: References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , Robert E. Harris > writes >>(By the way, a Senior Coffee is US 38 cents there. Limited to us old folks.) >presumably the cup is labelled "Contains hot drink" :) "Do not drink if allergic to coffee." "Contents may stain clothes if poured over them." "Do not add sugar if sweet drink not desired." -- 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 31 07:33:37 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:33:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: <005701c355f8$3f7ec9b0$0a13e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030730164812.00ab88a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002501c3572d$d2b18520$b2a9193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > > > IOW, everyone's alert procedure works when a pair has an agreement > about a call, but breaks down one way or another when they don't -- to > the point where the players, not knowing what to do about "no > agreement" positions, will instinctively "find" an "agreement" that > doesn't really exist just to resolve the dilemma of what to do about > alerting. > > Alas, I have no solution to offer to this. But it is what seems to > cause the most and trickiest MI problems. One needs to understand the > problem to be able to work towards a solution. > +=+ It also helps if one can undwerstand the solution. +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Jul 31 08:23:15 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:23:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC40@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Eric Landau writes >But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players on=20 >all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL teams=20 >(the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to those=20 >granted by our L80? The way cricket is played varies between countries, and between = competitions within countries e.g. penalty for a no-ball, what the TV = umpire can rule on, how much extra play can there be after rain delays = on earlier days, (in the past) how many balls to an over. I don't understand football (US: soccer) - wrong gender - but I think I = remember some discussion about how in the world cup the referees were = instructed to apply some rule very strictly, which generally isn't done = in England. It would in some abstract way be 'nicer' if everybody round the world = played to the exactly the same laws and regulations. It would improve = life for those people who play in more than one country or in = international bridge. However for the vast majority of regular club & = tournament players, the changeover would be a big pain and -to the = players- an unnecessary one. Anyway, in real life that's not gong to = happen because the Americans wouldn't agree to anything except their = laws & regulations and the Europeans would vote against the Americans on = principle while the rest of the world would continue to do whatever they = fancy (is there anyone I haven't insulted yet?) From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 31 08:46:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:46:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <004001c3573b$0f041a80$b522e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > The L&E committee thus far is revealed as > No judgement 1, > Judgement 1+1 ex-officio > +=+ It is well established, of course, that people always vote in committee as they speak outside. :-) G ;-) +=+ < > I notice that Richard Fleet has just written a long > and complex article (Bridge plus, same issue) > predicated on the concept that the EBU regulates > 1NT openings which are not conventional. He > ends by invoking the fifth amendment as to > whether he indulges in such despicable shenanigans > himself. > +=+ However, I rate Richard a very straight guy.+=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jul 31 10:40:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:40:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC40@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <003c01c35747$d5ea4320$0cef7f50@Default> Frances: Anyway, in real life that's not gong to happen because the Americans wouldn't agree to anything except their laws & regulations and the Europeans would vote against the Americans on principle while the rest of the world would continue to do whatever they fancy (is there anyone I haven't insulted yet?) The problem here is that when stating the/a truth (well I don't think E. will vote against A. 'on principle') some people might take offense or might feel insulted. Still I think it is a good idea if the WBF tries to keep both the number of differences and the magnitide of the differences in check. But for that to happen they have first to state it as a policy/priority and second let the problem be handled by people who are actually capable of doing so. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:23 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] Eric Landau writes >But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players on >all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL teams >(the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to those >granted by our L80? The way cricket is played varies between countries, and between competitions within countries e.g. penalty for a no-ball, what the TV umpire can rule on, how much extra play can there be after rain delays on earlier days, (in the past) how many balls to an over. I don't understand football (US: soccer) - wrong gender - but I think I remember some discussion about how in the world cup the referees were instructed to apply some rule very strictly, which generally isn't done in England. It would in some abstract way be 'nicer' if everybody round the world played to the exactly the same laws and regulations. It would improve life for those people who play in more than one country or in international bridge. However for the vast majority of regular club & tournament players, the changeover would be a big pain and -to the players- an unnecessary one. Anyway, in real life that's not gong to happen because the Americans wouldn't agree to anything except their laws & regulations and the Europeans would vote against the Americans on principle while the rest of the world would continue to do whatever they fancy (is there anyone I haven't insulted yet?) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 31 11:04:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000d01c3572c$a92297e0$b2a9193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > Those 3 and I are TD's. You have to make sure it > > doesn't get to appeal where DALB will see it :) > > > > [Nigel] > > > > The AC rule may well against me :( > > > > Obviously, according to the rules, they should :( > > > > But, when so many eminent EBU law-makers confess > > publicly, in print, that they righteously and > > routinely flout the Orange book rules, the AC > > can hardly, in conscience, keep my deposit :) > > > +=+ What case will you make to the AC? > Ignorance of the law? +=+ The case to the AC is quite simple. "Your lordships, I have been led to believe, by a number of EBU TDs (Bavin, Stevenson, Kambites, Probst), that the use of judgement in such positions is permitted." While I agree with Nigel's statement that the AC might rule against him it is far from clear that they should. Indeed if one of the above four TDs were the instructing TD then the AC would rule in his favour. However, Brighton looms and we had best be prepared. I can't find the answers in the OB/Laws so here are the questions? Under what law/regulation is a TD/AC permitted to award an ArtAS for illegal convention use on a hand on which a result has been obtained? Indeed under what law could a TD assign any adjustment at all (I guess L84e, but am not sure)? Assuming L84e is being used which of these scenarios would lead to an adjustment under the EBU regulation? In all cases the pair concerned believes that judgement is allowed on R019/18 hands and, being a regular partnership, is deemed to have an implicit agreement to apply such judgement. Proper disclosure has been given. a) A player opens a non Ro19, a conventional call is made by his partner, the TD determines that the auction/play would have been exactly the same in the absence of an implicit agreement to open non Ro19. b) A player opens a non Ro19, no conventional calls are made by the opening side but the CC clearly indicates that the potential for such calls exists. The TD determines that the auction/play would have been exactly the same in the absence of an implicit agreement to open non Ro19. c) A player opens a non Ro19, no conventional calls are made by the opening side but the CC clearly indicates that the potential for such calls exists. The TD determines that the auction/play might have been different in the absence of an implicit agreement to open non Ro19. d) A one level suit opener is made, no conventional calls are made by the opening side but the CC clearly indicates that the potential for such calls exists. The TD determines that the auction/play would have been exactly the same in the absence of an implicit agreement to open non Ro19. e) A one level suit opener is made, a conventional call is made by his partner, the TD determines that the auction/play would have been exactly the same in the absence of an implicit agreement to open non Ro19. f) A one level suit opener is made, a conventional call is made by his partner, the TD determines that the auction/play might have been different in the absence of an implicit agreement to open non Ro19. g) A pair sits down at the table with a CC clearly indicating that conventions are used after 1 level suit openers and that they will apply judgement. Thanks, Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 31 11:04:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <004001c3573b$0f041a80$b522e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > The L&E committee thus far is revealed as > > No judgement 1, > > Judgement 1+1 ex-officio > > > +=+ It is well established, of course, that people > always vote in committee as they speak outside. > :-) G ;-) +=+ Oh yes:). However it occurs to me that the committee has never actually voted on this issue. I seriously doubt any of the three people concerned would take the positions they have in knowledge of such a vote. > < > > I notice that Richard Fleet has just written a long > > and complex article (Bridge plus, same issue) > > predicated on the concept that the EBU regulates > > 1NT openings which are not conventional. He > > ends by invoking the fifth amendment as to > > whether he indulges in such despicable shenanigans > > himself. > > > +=+ However, I rate Richard a very straight guy.+=+ I hope I didn't imply otherwise in my comment (attach a smiley at the end if offence was taken). Tim From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 31 10:49:46 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:49:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046608@hotel.npl.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20030730170804.023a1b50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c3574b$ae8f5aa0$14b287d9@pc> > >In fact there is one for NHL officals (only). Closed list > >administered by the referee in chief. Membership is mandatory > >for all NHL officials. > > > >According to the news stories I've seen on it, the purpose is > >to in effect become an interactive case book. > > > >Like BLML there are apparently lots of discussions about judgement > >calls. However the purpose of their discussions is to make clear > >to the officials how the league wants those calls to go. Law 99. On Wednesdays, fights involving more than 6 people are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. lnb From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 31 13:24:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:24:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030730170804.023a1b50@pop.starpower.net> <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046608@hotel.npl.co.uk> <200307301434.h6UEYQj12490@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> <5.2.0.9.0.20030730170804.023a1b50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030731081136.009ebec0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:01 AM 7/31/03, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players on > >all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL teams > >(the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to those > >granted by our L80? > > That's not a fair comparison. The NHL is equivalent to a single >sponsoring organisation. Are you suggesting that L80 allows us to treat >different teams in the Merseyside Bridge League in different ways? > > Sigh - before all the old silly comments come out I am talking of the >real world - yes, it could be legal, but it will not happen. > > But I bet you that you will find different regulations covering ice >hockey in England from North America from the South Sandwich Islands. >It is normal in all sports. Of course you will; that's the point. The NHL is the governing body, lawbook publisher and ultimate authority on the laws of NHL hockey (and they have an LML). I would expect England and the South Sandwich Islands to have their own governing bodies, lawbooks and ultimate authorities (and, likely, their own LML) for their versions of hockey. That's three different games, albeit quite similar ones, governed by three different sets of laws. > If you want a North America only example, compare the rules of >American football in the NFL and the CFL. They are not the same in >several particulars - number of downs being the most obvious. An apt example. The NFL and the CFL are very different. They recognize that they are not the same game. There is no WFL to which they both belong, and which constrains how they may make and interpret their version of the rules. If there were, there would be an FLML that -- what with football having even more complex and arcane rules than bridge -- would make the volume of debate on BLML look insignificant, and the poor football players would be even more confused than the bridge players are. 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 Jul 31 14:18:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:18:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] I am perplexed In-Reply-To: References: <002001c354cc$fb88bd50$f92d37d2@Desktop> <002001c354cc$fb88bd50$f92d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030731151315.01d302f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:55 31/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > writes > > Can a Green (natural) system include any non natural bids. > > Yes. Stayman is permitted, and just possibly transfers. > > Another effort at labelling goes to pot. > > A Green system is a system of a certain type, which is casually >referred to as natural for those who like descriptive but slightly >inaccurate labels. "no system can dispense with conventional bids; Bellanger, who didn't want= =20 to hear of conventions, used the take-out double, which is artificial"=20 (approximate quote from Ja=EFs-Le Dentu-Truscott, 'L'Aristocratie du= Bridge'.) Strong 2C, takeout doubles, Sputnik and responsive, Stayman 2C and 3C,=20 Baron 3C, BW and variations are all part of the simplest of green ssytems. Best regards, Alain. =20 From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 31 13:45:28 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:45:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030731081136.009ebec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c35761$9fdeaa40$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Forget Ice Hockey - only played seriously in countries with ice really! ;-) Try a real Empire game like Rugby Union or Rugby League! The international rules have for many years been very different to the individual national, provincial and in some cases city rules - though it is changing now - only the interpretations are slightly different. For years though, it's been a wonder that the players and referees with representative aspirations don't get very confused on the field. [Just like Bridge players and Directors - whoops sorry - they do!! ;-)] regards, Noel and/or Pamela -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:24 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] At 12:01 AM 7/31/03, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players > >on all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL > >teams (the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to > >those granted by our L80? > > That's not a fair comparison. The NHL is equivalent to a single >sponsoring organisation. Are you suggesting that L80 allows us to >treat different teams in the Merseyside Bridge League in different >ways? > > Sigh - before all the old silly comments come out I am talking of >the real world - yes, it could be legal, but it will not happen. > > But I bet you that you will find different regulations covering ice >hockey in England from North America from the South Sandwich Islands. >It is normal in all sports. Of course you will; that's the point. The NHL is the governing body, lawbook publisher and ultimate authority on the laws of NHL hockey (and they have an LML). I would expect England and the South Sandwich Islands to have their own governing bodies, lawbooks and ultimate authorities (and, likely, their own LML) for their versions of hockey. That's three different games, albeit quite similar ones, governed by three different sets of laws. > If you want a North America only example, compare the rules of >American football in the NFL and the CFL. They are not the same in >several particulars - number of downs being the most obvious. An apt example. The NFL and the CFL are very different. They recognize that they are not the same game. There is no WFL to which they both belong, and which constrains how they may make and interpret their version of the rules. If there were, there would be an FLML that -- what with football having even more complex and arcane rules than bridge -- would make the volume of debate on BLML look insignificant, and the poor football players would be even more confused than the bridge players are. 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 emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 31 13:40:02 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:40:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was RE: [blml] HCP] In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC40@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000101c35760$df85f140$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> No - you're doing pretty well! [Unfortunately, you're also right!] regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:23 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Re: No Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List, but ... [was = RE: [blml] HCP] Eric Landau writes >But, of course, the NHL has one set of rules for all of its players on >all of its teams. Would NHL hockey be a playable sport if NHL teams=20 >(the "member organizations" of the NHL) had powers similar to those=20 >granted by our L80? The way cricket is played varies between countries, and between = competitions within countries e.g. penalty for a no-ball, what the TV umpire can rule = on, how much extra play can there be after rain delays on earlier days, (in = the past) how many balls to an over. I don't understand football (US: soccer) - wrong gender - but I think I remember some discussion about how in the world cup the referees were instructed to apply some rule very strictly, which generally isn't done = in England. It would in some abstract way be 'nicer' if everybody round the world = played to the exactly the same laws and regulations. It would improve life for those people who play in more than one country or in international = bridge. However for the vast majority of regular club & tournament players, the changeover would be a big pain and -to the players- an unnecessary one. Anyway, in real life that's not gong to happen because the Americans wouldn't agree to anything except their laws & regulations and the = Europeans would vote against the Americans on principle while the rest of the = world would continue to do whatever they fancy (is there anyone I haven't = insulted yet?) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 31 13:40:02 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:40:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Multi 4th In-Reply-To: <001b01c356c3$007cdba0$989468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c35760$dd90b0f0$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> To take this argument to it's logical end, are you trying to say (indirectly), that some SO/NCBO somewhere could effectively outlaw you passing out in 4th seat when you don't have the correct Pierson point = count? Or have so outlawed? regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Nigel Guthrie Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:50 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Multi 4th [Alain Gottcheiner] This seems very much like a non-problem. a) you *are* allowed to modify the definition given above. For example, you are allowed to restrict the Multi opening to a 6-card major, which many will do. [Nigel] Well, it is symptomatic of many small problems. Sorry Alain I did not quote the whole definition of the Multi. As you say, the Orange Book provides several relevant *options* and does allow you to insist on a 6 card suit. To narrow the argument, I specified *one* of the compulsory alternatives. I should have made it crystal clear that it is only *after* you have selected one set of Multi options from those in the Orange Book's menu, that any further "treatment" is forbidden. [Alain] b) narrowing a range is a treatment when you change the range as is described in the definition (which wouldn't be a problem there, as you're given a choice), *not* when you narrow the range according to circumstances, like opening a weak NT but agreeing to pass bad 12-counts when vul. [Nigel] IMO, treating hands differently in different circumstances (in this case narrowing/increasing the range requirements for a bid when vulnerable) is a treatment by the Orange Book definition. Ideally, IMO, it should be mentioned on your CC. Certainly, it should be disclosed to opponents on request. Anyway you are allowed to vary notrump ranges, whereas, varying the range for the Multi seems to be explicitly forbidden. But I quite agree that yours is as good guess as any as to what the author intended. [Alain] c) the fact that a hand pertains to the interval you mention (and which must conform to the restrictions above) does not mean that you have to open all such hands with 2D. [Nigel] IMO that statement begs the question as to whether you may treat the Multi. (We already know we are allowed to treat most other agreements). [Alain] (please note that "good 6-card major" is your interpretation and isn't written anywhere in the orange book) [Nigel] Again, I was just providing a typical middle of the range example, to avoid quibbles about borderline decisions or peculiar hands like... [Alain] Very few would open the following hands 2D, any seat: AKxxx - QJxxxx - void - xx KJ10xxx - void - void - AJxxxxx ... but they would write on their CCs "weak 6-card major 7-11, or ..." so, WTP ? [Nigel] I would not want to open a Multi on your example hands; and I take your point that if I pursue my argument to its logical conclusion, I might have to do so. But a rule-book has more space for a definition than a CC. When I define Multi on my CC and carelessly write "6-10 5+H/S" then a TD may perhaps excuse me for forgetting to explicitly include or exclude such two suiters. But IMO, an official book of Rules should explicitly state what is or is not included in its definitions. Obviously, there is no problem, if narrowing the range from 6-10 to insist on a good 10, say, is not a treatment. i.e. You are allowed to treat the hand differently, = depending on vulnerability and your seat at the table. [Alain] I presume, however, that you would not be allowed to open a Multi 2D outside of the 4-12 range ATV. (In Belgium, we are) [Nigel] Well to illustrate the extremes of interpretation: I had better admit that David Stevenson opines that you might well be allowed bump up the range, fourth in hand. IMO, we have so long been encouraged to adopt a subjective approach to the Bridge Law that we use our "judgement" to interpret Orange Book definitions as simple as "A=3D4 HCP". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Jul 31 14:50:08 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:50:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] declarer Message-ID: <003c01c3576b$98949f60$67053dd4@m1q9j9> Who becomes declarer? It is only mentioned in the Definitions and not in Laws 22 and 41. Do we agree? Ben From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 31 13:09:05 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:09:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c3575c$8a811930$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Why not 'must'? regards, Noel and/or Pamela -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:14 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal Adam Wildavsky writes >======== >Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing >the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, >and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until >the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed >hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the >Stop card has been used correctly.) >======== I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 31 13:00:43 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:00:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <005701c355f8$3f7ec9b0$0a13e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c3575b$5f18b100$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Well actually, this isn't as Irish as it sounds. I've seen this quite = often by very ethical players in Aus to make sure that the Opps aren't misled = by a strange undiscussed bid by Pard - and no, they weren't trying to inform = Pard that it was undiscussed and they had no idea what it meant! If you can = walk that fine line, I take my hat off to you! regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:57 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > Ted wrote: >=20 > > So, I don't think this is a case of UI. However, it could be a case = > > of MI (which I think it was). South should have correctly told the=20 > > opponents that they had no agreement. >=20 > If the TDs judgement that the sequence was undiscussed > was correct then South, by not alerting, *has* correctly=20 > informed opponents that there is no agreement. No MI.=20 >=20 > Tim >=20 +=3D+ ... unless, of course, the regulations call for an alert of any call the meaning of which is undiscussed.....=20 well, :-), isn't it Ireland we are talking about ? ~ G ~ +=3D+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 31 15:37:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:37:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Multi 4th In-Reply-To: <000001c35760$dd90b0f0$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <001b01c356c3$007cdba0$989468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030731163450.01d1ed60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:40 31/07/2003 +1000, Noel and Pamela wrote: >To take this argument to it's logical end, are you trying to say >(indirectly), that some SO/NCBO somewhere could effectively outlaw you >passing out in 4th seat when you don't have the correct Pierson point count? >Or have so outlawed? AG: no reason to think this can't happen. SOs have put lower limits on bids ; why can't they put upper limits on passes ? (of course, this is one more argument that shows the absurdity of the former) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 31 16:27:42 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:27:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <8ZHeqJA6uEF$Ewqb@asimere.com> <003901c35636$71023a60$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <009b01c35706$af6a37a0$249868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c3572c$a92297e0$b2a9193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <005101c35778$49b9a0e0$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] =============================== "I had not known sin, but by the law." Romans ch 7. v 7. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [Nigel (1)] But, when so many eminent EBU law-makers confess publicly, in print, that they righteously and routinely flout the Orange book rules, the AC can hardly, in conscience, keep my deposit :) [Grattan] +=+ What case will you make to the AC? Ignorance of the law? +=+ [Nigel 2] I admit to ignorance of the law, in general, but I can hardly do so in this particular case. The Guthrie motto is "Sto pro Veritate" (: roughly "I stand for truth" :) So I would have to abandon myself to the mercy of the comittee. (: Unless the AC, retrospectively and repeatedly, penalise their colleagues and themselves, I presume they would rule "no damage" and refund my deposit :) :) I suppose I may still suffer the dilemma as to whether I can, in conscience, accept such a blatant fudge :( --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003 From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 31 16:59:34 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:59:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> Message-ID: In article , Tim West-Meads writes snip > >> 2. Andrew K. is not a member of the committee >> that decides such matters. > >Whatever the judgement rendered by one (or more) TDs on a ruling it could >well go to appeal. The appeal committee (rather than the L&E committee) >would give a judgement. I assume AK could sit on such an AC. Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. > >> Those who attend and >> have a vote are: Burn (Chair), Martin Pool (Vice) >> Steve Barnfield, Richard Fleet, David Martin, Jeff >> Smith, Stevenson and (ex officio) Bavin. > >The L&E committee thus far is revealed as >No judgement 1, >Judgement 1+1 ex-officio > -- 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 31 18:42:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:42:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal References: <000a01c3575c$8a811930$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000801c3578b$0da51860$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Noel and Pamela > Why not 'must'? > > Adam Wildavsky writes > > >======== > >Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing > >the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, > >and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until > >the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed > >hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the > >Stop card has been used correctly.) > >======== > > I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". > I suggest dropping the whole Stop card idea, which isn't working in ACBL-land, and instead enforce the UI provisions of L71D, Variations in Tempo or Manner: "...inferences from such variation may be appropriately drawn only by an opponent." Calls over a skip bid are a small percentage of tempo-sensitive situations, which include first-round passes and most calls made in competition. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 31 18:45:58 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:45:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] declarer References: <003c01c3576b$98949f60$67053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000f01c3578b$9ac6db20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ben Schelen" > Who becomes declarer? > It is only mentioned in the Definitions and not in Laws 22 and 41. > Do we agree? > The Definitions, in which the word "declarer" is defined, are an integral part of the Laws, WTP? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 31 19:05:09 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:05:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <019001c3578e$5b36dac0$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] The L&E committee thus far is revealed as No judgement 1, Judgement 1+1 ex-officio [Nigel Guthrie] }: I fear that Tim may be right but whither exactly are these L&E Committee members applying their "judgement"? :{ The EBU Orange Book carefully defines HCP for the purposes of regulation, and in particular, as a basis for the Rules of 18/19... "A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1" It almost beggars belief that any EBU law-maker can apply "Judgement" to this definition. Especially when the committee itself ratified it. Please, please note that the Orange Book is a Book of rules not a Treatise on hand-evaluation. Somebody once protested that "the Laws cannot prevent you from playing Bridge". :{ For better or worse, however, the Rules define what "Bridge" is }: --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003 From David Stevenson Thu Jul 31 09:16:45 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >Anyway e-mail discussion poses an interesting cultural challenge. For some >people it tends to be the equivalent of a formal letter, in this context I >and some others should be banned, executed or whatever. For others it tends >to be the equivalent of spoken language and we all know that is far worse >than anything which has ever appeared on blml. I guess we'll have to find >some middle ground. That is just not true. No-one, even people who dislike me a lot, are ever as rude in spoken language as people on the internet. -- 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 Jul 31 09:22:46 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:22:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chas Fellows writes >> From: David Stevenson > >> True, it depends on what is said. If declarer says "Spade" without >> interruption and apparently has finished speaking, then he has >> designated a card partially, and there is a Law to cover it. But if he >> is part way through a designation and dummy interrupts then he has not >> made a designation, and it can be corrected. > >I'm sorry I don't buy this - a partial designation is still a designation. >If declarer calls for a card from dummy by saying "spade..." before being >interrupted by dummy, then he has started to make a designation, whether he >intended to complete it by naming a rank (L46A) or add nothing in which case >he has called for a small spade (L46B2). If this lead is from the wrong >hand then ISTM that in either case, he has already committed an infraction >and it is too late for dummy to "attempt to prevent" that under L42B2. It is a very long standing interpretation that you cannot force anyone to complete something, and nothing has been done until it is completed. The example of this that used to be common was someone who using spoken bidding said "One ...". He has not made a call, and cannot be forced to complete what he was saying. So if it is not his turn it is not a call out of turn, though of course UI has been made available to partner. Similarly if a someone has not made a partial designation, but has been interrupted before he has finished saying whatever he is saying, then you can neither make him finish, nor assume his interrupted utterance has been finished. -- 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 Jul 31 09:30:49 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:30:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030717142719.0245ab80@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c349f2$c6a63340$a8b64351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030714161302.025695e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030717142719.0245ab80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 19:16 14/07/2003 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Alain Gottcheiner writes >> >At 12:29 14/07/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> > >> >>Look, whatever your treatment (and there are dozens) not bidding spades one >> >>way or another on Jxxxxx K10xx xx x opposite a 'natural' NT overcall is >> >>ridiculous. >> > >> >AG : please note that a ridiculous bid is not an infraction in the strict >> >sense of the term. >> > >> > >> >>Of course partner can have a hand where another partscore is >> >>better than 2S but that would be at extremely long odds. >> >> >> >>Now this is when 1NT is natural. If it turns out they always double on >> >>balanced hands and 1NT is 'always' suit based it becomes a completely >> >>different story. Then it is normal to try to play the NT bidders suit >> >>(because you are 'sure' it exists). But in that case there is a disclosure >> >>problem. >> >> >> >>So one way or another I am going to hang them. It is simply too much (an >> >>argument we use in Holland, fielding a psych is not), north bidding 1NT >> >>natural on that hand and south not bidding 2S on a 6-4. Whatever is going >> >>on, ordinary citizens deserve protection against this kind of nonsense. >> > >> >AG : I'd say that the nonsense is caused by South's knowledge that North >> >could have a long diamond suit (eg Q - Ax - KQJxxx - AJxx) for his 1NT bid, >> >which isn't IMHO illegal - he didn't even give MI, since that's not enough >> >to make 1NT alertable. >> >> Where? Are you sure it is not alertable under Irish alerting regs? >> >> If a player bids 1NT over 1C, and his partner is not prepared to play >>in spades with a 6421 hand, then that is hardly a natural 1NT. >> >> Sure, it may be legal to play it that way, and probably is under most >>jurisdictions. But what about disclosure? > >AG : don't know about Ireland; In Belgium, if the bid shows opening values, >a well-defined range (no more than 4 HCP wide), a stopper and balanced or >semi-balanced hand (ie, no small singleton, no 7-carder), you don't have to >alert it. 6421 is semi-balanced? What is unbalanced, no suit shorter than nine cards? >> It may be fun to bid 1NT on any 6421 hand you feel like, let pd tell >>the opponents it is a normal balanced hand > >AG : seems you didn't read the hand well, David? Said hand contains a >singleton *honor*, and as such may be treated as semi-balanced. If I was >accustomed to bid 1NT on such a hand (which I don't, because I play 1NT as >a 2-suiter), partner shouldn't have to alert it. But of course he should >have to disclose it on asking. This just seems like arguments a pair that knows it has been caught use to try to get out of a fielding charge. -- 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 Jul 31 17:05:34 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:05:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: <002201c34f52$043d88c0$5249e150@endicott> References: <6.157e2241.2c4c93c3@aol.com> <002201c34f52$043d88c0$5249e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes >From: >I find it extremely difficult to feel compassion for >the second player. > >+=+ I feel even less compassion for the first player. >I feel it unjust that the one should escape scot-free >and the other be subject to penalty. So penalise him under L90A. His action has inconvenienced another contestant. But that is no reason not to deal with the second player. He should be happy that oppos are giving his partner free info: if he wishes to act in a completely stupid way why should we protect him? -- 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 Jul 31 16:48:18 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:48:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another - a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karel writes >Well, I'm certainly no expert, but... "The Director is to presume >mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of >evidence to the contrary" (Law 75). Seems to me there's no evidence to >the contrary. Ergo... :-) > >+++ Normally when someone quotes a law I take it as given and may check up >the law reference to see its context ... but the above is an eye opener ... >to a pretty common problem. Indeed L75 the example as above. Td's are >being "ordered" to assume a mistaken explanation rather than a mistaken bid. >Whow that's pretty much killing the OS if they ever have a misunderstanding >and fall on their feet. I can see the logic behind it. It throws the >burden of proof squarely on the OS side ... but it does seem to give the TD >an easy "out" option (ie) he doesn't really have to ever decide whether the >OS is genuine or not. Why not? Are you suggesting that as a TD you should ignore evidence? If a player says "I play such-and-such" that is evidence. Never confuse evidence with proof. >In this case (and again local knowledge of the players involved etc) led me >to believe they were telling the truth. Exactly: so you have used evidence, namely your knowledge of the local players. Evidence is not just words written and sealed in blood. > Infact this pair probably could >have produced evidence to support their claim (given the time to print out >some system notes etc) but for a local club game it is pretty much unheard >of, for a player to be carting around system notes. Certainly an eye opener >to find out I'm being forced to rule against my judgement. Only if you are ignoring the rest of the evidence. -- 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 Jul 31 16:48:31 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes >Let's see what the EBU have to say on the subject. > >To start with, there is a specific definition of what 'natural' means in the >context of a 1NT bid. At level 2, this is non-forcing, defined range and a >balanced or semi-balanced hand. Balanced or semi-balanced are defined elsewhere >as including only 4333, 4432, 5332 and 6322 distributions. Not according to my OB. The definition is as follows: 9.3 Definitions 9.3.1 General Definitions. Balanced: a hand of 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2 shape. Semi -balanced:: a hand with no seven-card or longer suit, nor a singleton or void. So 5422 is semi-balanced. >There is a contradiction between 5.3.1(b) and the new 13.3.1. We can ask >someone official to confirm this, but I would expect 13.13.1 (saying that a >natural 1NT that may have a singleton is alertable) to take precedence as it is >newer and more specific. True. ----------- Gordon Bower writes >On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >> Let's see what the EBU have to say on the subject. >> >> To start with, there is a specific definition of what 'natural' means >> in the context of a 1NT bid. At level 2, this is non-forcing, defined >> range and a balanced or semi-balanced hand. Balanced or semi-balanced >> are defined elsewhere as including only 4333, 4432, 5332 and 6322 >> distributions. > >This does surprise me. The EBU doesn't think 5422 is semibalanced? >(uhoh... even beginners are taught to sometimes open 1NT on that shape!) I >have heard arguments about whether 7222 is semibalanced or not, but that's >a bit different. Shall we call this new list 'EBU-semibalanced'? As mentioned above, Frances seems to have got 5422 wrong. 7222 was a deliberate decision: it was felt that it was not acceptable for a 1NT opening. Since this was the main reason for the definition of semi- balanced it was excluded therefrom. >> At level 3, a 1NT opening bid is also allowed to be 4441 >> or 5431 with a singleton honour (if you include these distributions it >> must be alerted). Let's call this 'EBU-Natural'. > >Feel free. Long as you don't equate non-EBU-natural with conventional or >regulatable. Certainly not. The reason for using the term natural is to avoid arguments over conventions. While we have failed to eliminate conventions from the OB I expect to do so to a much greater degree next time, using the term artificial call. --------------------- Grattan Endicott writes > However, it appears to me that the only conventional >responses licensed for use with a non-conventional 1NT >overcall that does not fit within the EBU description of >'natural' are those mentioned in OB 12.12.5 - and even >these may not have been intended although that is how >the regulation reads. I am not sure of the point. Since people are playing an overcall as more or less natural there is little need for a nother set of responses. > Perhaps a David will clarify. Incidentally, I am intrigued >by 'only' in OB 12.5.1. A 1NT opener may express a >"willingness to play in the denomination named" (so is >not conventional) but be of a shape not "balanced or >semibalanced"; in which situation the OB seems not to >offer any guidance, although it does when the INT >opener is on fewer that 10 HCP. Only? What other use is available for a 1NT opening at L2? -- 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 Jul 31 09:28:03 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:28:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling In-Reply-To: <200307160038.RAA22285@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <3mucYgDxwIF$Ewpu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200307160038.RAA22285@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan writes >David wrote: > >> It is your idea that something else happened. >> >> What? >> >> Your partner shows a balanced hand, you are 6-4 in the majors, and you >> play successfully in your doubleton. > >"You play successfully" may be the wrong terminology; perhaps "you are >the beneficiary of idiotic defense in your doubleton" might be more >accurate. You know what I mean - playing in your doubleton turns out to be a better idea than your "known" eight-card fit - or even your possible eight-card fit. >> What else are we to suppose? Finger signals? > >Lucky guess? Divine inspiration? Stupid mistake that happened to >work out? My opponents are always doing one of those against me. "A >cow flew by", perhaps? > >All I'm saying is that, at least over here in America, even if I saw >somebody bid as strangely as South did, I would not presume that South >did so because he read North's pause+bid as a psych, because players >over here just wouldn't expect an unfamiliar partner to psych. At >least that's what my experience would tell me. I don't know *why* >South bid that way, but I'd presume there was some reason (even one >related to bovine aviation) that would be more likely than >psych-fielding. It does depend on the characters involved, though. Of course, before any decision is made, we would ask South why he did what he did. But I doubt that even in North America, people who do not play in a known 6-2 fit, and find it happens not to be a fit, will really be able to claim to have had a couple of spades mixed up in their diamonds. OK, they can claim that, but I do not think thye will really get a way with it. -- 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 Jul 31 17:06:02 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:06:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy makes opening lead. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert E. Harris writes >Last night at one table the prospective dummy made a face-up opening >lead and her right-hand opponent played to that lead. Declairer >objected to the proceedings and the Director was called. (Not me, >thank heavens.) She made them pick up the played cards (no >penalties) and had Declairer's LHO lead. She asked me to refer this >to some more expert people, hence this message. > >It seems to me that 53C applies here, as the lead was made by an >opponent of the proper leader, and the lead should revert to >Declairer's LHO. The cards already played are withdrawn without >penalty. Right? That's more or less what Director ruled, though not >with much confidence. (She did not find 53C at the time.) There is an unwritten rule that may be deduced from the Laws that a lead is the deliberate play of the first card to a trick. L53C covers the case where someone leads having not noticed another lead, *not* where someone follows to someone else's lead. So this is not a L53C case. --------------- Sven Pran writes >In your case dummy's LHO (you wrote RHO but I assume from the context that >this was a misprint?) followed suit to the "opening lead" and the question >now is which of the following two alternatives is correct on this >irregularity: > >A: Declarer's RHO exposed one of his cards during the auction (Law 24), or > >B: Declarer's RHO made an opening lead out of turn (Law 54). > >Neither alternative is obvious and there is no way we can tell from the laws >whether we shall apply Law 24 (leading to RHO possessing a major penalty >card) or Law 53 (opening lead made face up by the wrong defender). For the reasons above B does not apply. Declarer's RHO did not mean to play the first card to a trick so you cannot treat ti as a lead. -- 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 bbickford@charter.net Thu Jul 31 20:29:24 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:29:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy's rights References: Message-ID: <01dc01c3579a$0ca62120$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's rights > > It is a very long standing interpretation that you cannot force anyone > to complete something, and nothing has been done until it is completed. > > The example of this that used to be common was someone who using > spoken bidding said "One ...". He has not made a call, and cannot be > forced to complete what he was saying. So if it is not his turn it is > not a call out of turn, though of course UI has been made available to > partner. I'm reminded of a story which you may have heard. It seems Marty Cohn was at a table (pre bidding cards) and the auction went RHO 1S, ( P), LHO 3S, (P), RHO 4. Marty sat there and finally RHO said Marty, it's your bid. Oh. I'm sorry, will you give a review of the auction. This was duly done exactly as above and Marty said 4 what? RHO said, c'mon Marty, you know 4 what; it's your bid. The director was duly called, and heard the story. He told Marty, I'm sure you know 4 what; please bid. Marty duly said 5! 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 From henk@amsterdamned.org Thu Jul 31 23:00:02 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jul 31 22:39:04 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:39:04 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The vulnerability cycle Message-ID: For a change, some lighter fare than arguing about UI or convention regulations. There are, of course, 16 possible combinations of dealer and vulnerability, and we ensure that each of these appears by cycling vulnerability according to the "ONEB NEBO EBON BONE" mnemonic directors memorize as babies. In social games, the more common unit is 4 hands, with dealer vulnerable on second and third deals. Why? The four vulnerability conditions, in rubber bridge, are not equally likely. In fact, assuming no great disparity in the players' strength, you expect to have neither side vulnerable 2/5 of the time, and the other three combinations 1/5 of the time each. Would it not have been sensible, back when the pattern was first established, to either use permutations of "OONEB", or to present the conditions in the order they can arise in a real game (the sequences OE, ON, OEB, and ONB appearing equally often)? I am not seriously suggesting there is a major deficiency in the current marking of duplicate boards... just pointing out there are reasons why a 20-board cycle instead of a 16-board cycle could have been an option. I am curious if anyone else has ever wondered about this, or considered tampering with it for a special game. For that matter... the organizer of a duplicate game "should not" use boards with nonstandard markings, but what happens to him if he does? The end of L2 tells us the game is played according to the markings on the boards in play. But would the ACBL / WBF / Bridge Police actually do something about it if someone used nonstandard boards as a regular thing? GRB From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jul 31 19:15:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:15:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > In article , Tim > West-Meads writes > > > > >Whatever the judgement rendered by one (or more) > > TDs on a ruling it could well go to appeal. The appeal > > committee (rather than the L&E committee) would give > > a judgement. I assume AK could sit on such an AC. > > Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. > > +=+ I believe DWS has a special dispensation? +=+ From walt1@verizon.net Wed Jul 2 05:34:38 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:34:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030702003137.025d1ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Don't forget that Major Major was a Captain until someone with a sense of humor promoted him so that he became Major Major Major. Walt