From henk@ripe.net Fri Aug 1 06:42:30 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] The vulnerability cycle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Gordon Bower wrote: > 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. Yes, this was different in the 1975 laws, where the number determined the vulnerability and thus on board #2, NS were vulnerable even if the board said otherwise. There even was a appeal about it here, with a player sacreficing on a board where he knew he was NV, even though the markings said otherwise. For the board with the wrong markings: As soon as you notice it, fix it. It is mainly inconvenient: Many scoring programs "know" the vulnerability and will reject impossible scores like "+420" on a board where one is vulnerable. Also, if this board is used in a game scored accross the field, it will cause problems. > But would the ACBL / WBF / Bridge Police actually do something about it > if someone used nonstandard boards as a regular thing? Not sure about the ACBL and WBF, but the Amsterdam police certainly has higher priorities :-) 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 1 02:11:23 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 02:11:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <000601c357f5$94c2bc20$5bc4193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > However, Brighton looms and we had best be > prepared. I can't find the answers in the OB/Laws > o here are the questions? > > Under what law/regulation is a TD/AC permitted > award an ArtAS for illegal convention use on a hand > which a result has been obtained? Indeed under > at law could a TD assign any adjustment at all (I guess > L84e, but am not sure)? > +=+ I would think a regulation under Law 40D. (For example see OB 9.1.1 through 15.1.2)+=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 1 07:33:40 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:33:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] The vulnerability cycle References: Message-ID: <001801c357f7$06feb400$5bc4193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The vulnerability cycle > > For the board with the wrong markings: As soon > as you notice it, fix it. > +=+ If such a board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session." (Law 2) +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Aug 1 08:27:05 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:27:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> Message-ID: <005a01c35800$33529400$4fec7f50@Default> David > 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. I think you got that one wrong. Spoken language tends to be unbelievable rude from times to time, but it has all kind of non verbal components to enhance, modify, or ridiculize it's meaning. At post mortem talk it is quite normal to hear phrases like or 'the idiot did ...' just refering to a random opponent whos only crime might well be to have done something clever or something that turned out well for him. What makes internet so different is that lack of non verbal enhancement. David: > even people who dislike me a lot, I neither like or dislike you (holds true for almost anyone on this list) because I simply don't know you well enough to develop that kind of feelings. But I sometimes like or dislike (and sometimes a lot either way) your views and opinions on this list (holds true for almost anyone). And I guess that is what this list is all about. BLML is not a dating service. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > 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 ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Aug 1 09:00:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:00:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001801c35803$a37a18e0$271de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT --------------------- > > Grattan Endicott writes > > > 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? > +=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in 12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book definition. +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Aug 1 11:09:14 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:09:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC46@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Grattan Endicott > Grattan Endicott writes > > > 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? > +=3D+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in=20 12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to=20 regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book=20 definition. +=3D+ I have the same question about a 1NT overcall: if a pair agree that a = 1264 shape is normal for a 1NT overcall, then it isn't balanced or = semi-balanced. Is it alertable? Are they permitted to play any = conventions thereafter in England? (I meant to ask this earlier but got bogged down in the difference = between 'not natural' and 'conventional' as well as forgetting 5422s). From tom.cornelis@pi.be Fri Aug 1 19:28:27 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 20:28:27 +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$0a13e150@endicott> <000901c35623$a0662a40$a1ed7f50@Default> <002b01c35633$3a6f4f40$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F279ADD.3000706@vwalther.de> <005101c35694$93da1f40$359868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000f01c3585a$be5e5520$8dd1eb3e@cornelis> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > 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. Is there any initiative to end local law-making, e.g. transparent alert rules, a straightforward system policy, etc? > Bridge law is frighteningly "Heath Robinson". > (: Its OK, he's dead, so he can't sue :). I'm sure he can't, but a person's rights can be inherited. Best regards, Tom. From David Stevenson Sat Aug 2 01:03:43 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:03:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just checking In-Reply-To: <005a01c35800$33529400$4fec7f50@Default> References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> <005a01c35800$33529400$4fec7f50@Default> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >David >> 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. > >I think you got that one wrong. Spoken language tends to be unbelievable >rude from times to time, but it has all kind of non verbal components to >enhance, modify, or ridiculize it's meaning. At post mortem talk it is quite >normal to hear phrases like or 'the idiot did ...' just refering to a random >opponent whos only crime might well be to have done something clever or >something that turned out well for him. What makes internet so different is >that lack of non verbal enhancement. Maybe: but they are not that rude to each other. On tones down comments to other people, especially ones who are not close friends. I might say "You cannot follow suit" to Ron Higgins, a very close friend, or to Grattan Endicott, a former regular partner, because they know me and understand me. But I would not say it to a total stranger without making it clear in some other way that I did not mean it, >David: >> even people who dislike me a lot, > >I neither like or dislike you (holds true for almost anyone on this list) >because I simply don't know you well enough to develop that kind of >feelings. But I sometimes like or dislike (and sometimes a lot either way) >your views and opinions on this list (holds true for almost anyone). And I >guess that is what this list is all about. BLML is not a dating service. One of the ways that humans have shown themselves as above animals is in the way they have developed politeness so that there is no need to upset people unnecessarily. It should not be completely impossible for humans to take this trait into internet communication. -- 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 Sat Aug 2 01:05:25 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:05:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal In-Reply-To: <000a01c3575c$8a811930$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000a01c3575c$8a811930$724726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela writes >Why not 'must'? That would be stronger than the rest of the regulation. >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David >Stevenson >Adam Wildavsky writes > >>======== >>Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing >>the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, >>and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until >>the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed >>hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the >>Stop card has been used correctly.) >>======== > > I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sat Aug 2 01:09:24 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:09:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <001801c35803$a37a18e0$271de150@endicott> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <001801c35803$a37a18e0$271de150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "You can do anything in this world if you > are prepared to take the consequences." > - William Somerset Maugham. >================================ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:48 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > --------------------- >> >> Grattan Endicott writes >> >> > Incidentally, I am intrigued >> >by 'only' in OB 12.5.1. A 1NT opener may express a >> >"willingness to play in the denomination named" (so is >> >not conventional) but be of a shape not "balanced or >> >semibalanced"; in which situation the OB seems not to >> >offer any guidance, although it does when the INT >> >opener is on fewer that 10 HCP. >> >> Only? What other use is available for a 1NT opening >> at L2? >> >+=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven >card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, > if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in >12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to >regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book >definition. +=+ Dear me. We would treat it as an illegal agreement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sat Aug 2 01:16:32 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:16:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >I should tend to rule inferior play and not misinformation. You have rules about ***inferior play*** !!!!! OH MY GAWD !!!!!! I daren't go to Norway now - I will be ruled against twenty times a session !!!!! Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is misinformation. -- 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 Sat Aug 2 01:32:57 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:32:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <010501c35114$9340d040$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030723075519.00a649b0@pop.starpower.net> <010501c35114$9340d040$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >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. No doubt it is true that falling asleep is one cause, but does that not mean that MI could cause damage? When you have information from more than one source does that mean you cannot be damaged? --------- Ron Johnson writes >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. Exactly. -------- Steve Willner writes >> 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. Agreed. The Law book refers to damage from MI. Now, you often get multiple causes of things [BLML being a case in point: would it have started if the only problem with the Laws was L6?]. What happens if damage was caused by MI and carelessness? Easy: we do not deny redress because of carelessness so we give redress. When it is felt that a pair was the architect of their own misfortune it is not adequate to say that it was their own fault: you have to say: Was it solely their fault? If not, did they make an egregious error/WoG action/IWoG action [depending on the jurisdiction]? If the answer is no in both cases then an adjustment is still suitable. -------- Sven Pran writes >> Steve Willner >> 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". The authorities have laid down methods for dealing with a double shot, and it is not for individual TDs or ACs to go further than authorised in furtherance of a Law that is not in the Law book. There is no Law against taking a double shot. What there is is [ugh!] an interpretation of damage that is designed to stop the double shot because this mindsport deems it unsuitable. The trouble with going further than authorities demand is that a pair will take an inferior action about a thousand times as often as trying for a double shot - and penalising all such pairs does nothing for equity or fairness. -- 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 john@asimere.com Sat Aug 2 04:27:59 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 04:27:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> Message-ID: In article <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "You can do anything in this world if you > are prepared to take the consequences." > - William Somerset Maugham. >================================ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >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? +=+ I don't think I've seen him sit at a major event, Grattan. Generally we all feel it is wrong for a TD to be part of a group of peers attempting to judge an appeal. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Aug 2 07:44:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 08:44:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>> >>>Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. >>> >>+=+ I believe DWS has a special dispensation? +=+ >> > > I don't think I've seen him sit at a major event, Grattan. Generally we > all feel it is wrong for a TD to be part of a group of peers attempting > to judge an appeal. > *never* ? Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so many qualified AC members that you can afford to rule out a whole class of people who have a clear advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to sitting on an AC? I can understand that if you have DB and DWS available, it is better to put DB on the AC (completely seriously intended). But if all you have are players who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to at least tell them how the laws work? I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is slightly biased (most TD's would, maybe subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). I know that in any Belgian tournament I play in, I'm likely to be on the AC. As an illustration, I'll post the one appeal from Wroclaw (Eur.Univ.Chmps.) You'll see that it is needed that a TD is present to tell the members what the Laws (in this case the code of practice) says. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 twm@cix.co.uk Sat Aug 2 10:37:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <019001c3578e$5b36dac0$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > }: 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. The EBU lawmakers are not applying judgement to the definition. They (or at least some of them) are saying that players may be expected to apply judgement with regard to specific hands as and when such hands might arise at the table. Sorry if I was imprecise before. Mind you, if I judge it necessary to put a diamond in with my hearts in order to justify my bidding to partner I'll do that too:) Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Aug 2 10:37:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000601c357f5$94c2bc20$5bc4193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > Under what law/regulation is a TD/AC permitted > > award an ArtAS for illegal convention use on a hand > > which a result has been obtained? Indeed under > > at law could a TD assign any adjustment at all (I guess > > L84e, but am not sure)? > > > +=+ I would think a regulation under Law 40D. > (For example see OB 9.1.1 through 15.1.2)+=+ There is nothing in 9.1.1 thru 15.1.2 that tells the TD to award an adjusted score. There must be a law (or specific regulation) that enables this process. That is what I am trying to find. Obviously an SO could not write a regulation under L40d that conflicted with the Law 12 requirement to award an AssAS (rather than an ArtAS) once a result is obtained. As I said before I can find a path from L84e, via damage assessment, to L12c2. I can't find a route to L12c1 (a score was obtained) or L12A2 (the board was played normally - well OK I could try "the board has already been played so it can't be played normally now" but I don't think the punters are going to let me get away with that any more than they would if I tried it on while giving an UI adjustment). I've got my TD training coming up and I'm going to look a right idiot if I try and adjust a score without even knowing what regulations/laws I am using. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Aug 2 10:37:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <001801c35803$a37a18e0$271de150@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. > > > > Only? What other use is available for a 1NT opening > > at L2? > > > +=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven > card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, > if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in > 12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to > regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book > definition. +=+ It may not be a matter of "repeatedly", suitable hands don't often come up. More likely a function of other agreements. We open all 13 counts with 2 quick tricks. We play a weak NT. We never bid 2 card suits "naturally". A suit without an honour is not "rebiddable". Hardly outrageous agreements and they do you proud until one of you picks up Ax,AT,9875432,AJ and you realise that your systemic opening is 1NT (A,KJx,KQx,9xxxxx is another example). It's not a conventional NT, it isn't artificial, it isn't "EBU natural". It's just a run of the mill, these hands don't come up often enough to worry about, may as well bid 1N type of hand. Or at least one needn't worry about it unless some daft bugger tells you it is illegal to have the above agreements and open 1NT. It's not dissimilar from the 6421 hands Frances was talking about. Most 6421s it will be right to bid the 6 card suit, but on a few the combination of seat/vulnerability honour location etc will make a 1N overcall "feel" right. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 3 04:12:21 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 04:12:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <010701c3596d$0ee67f00$029868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] > The EBU Orange Book carefully defines HCP for > the purposes of regulation, and in particular, > as a basis for the Rules of 18/19... > > "A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1" > > It almost beggars belief that any EBU law-maker > can apply "Judgement" to this definition. [Tim West-Meads] The EBU lawmakers are not applying judgement to the definition. They (or at least some of them) are saying that players may be expected to apply judgement with regard to specific hands as and when such hands might arise at the table. Sorry if I was imprecise before. Mind you, if I judge it necessary to put a diamond in with my hearts in order to justify my bidding to partner I'll do that too:) [Nigel Guthrie] I accept your argument that you can use judgement about suit lengths instead of judgement about HCP. The Orange Book adds a hand's HCP to the length of its two longest suits to get "Rule of [whatever]". I just reckoned that no law-maker would stoop to pretend that he had put a diamond in among his hearts. But on reflection, I suppose he may also regard that as a legitimate exercise in judgement. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003 From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Aug 3 06:03:55 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 15:03:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3597c$ad2c6350$7c4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Yes? And what's wrong with that? regards, Noel and/or Pamela -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:05 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal Noel and Pamela writes >Why not 'must'? That would be stronger than the rest of the regulation. >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >David Stevenson >Adam Wildavsky writes > >>======== >>Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing the >>Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, and >>eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the >>Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed hastily >>or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the Stop card >>has been used correctly.) ======== > > I suggest "should pause" not "may pause". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 3 05:59:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 05:59:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <001801c35803$a37a18e0$271de150@endicott> Message-ID: <002f01c3597d$76990630$1387403e@endicott> > >Grattan Endicott >(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > "You can do anything in this world if you > > are prepared to take the consequences." > > - William Somerset Maugham. > >================================ > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:48 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > > --------------------- > >> > >> Grattan Endicott writes > >> > >> > 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? > >> > >+=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven > >card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, > > if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in > >12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to > >regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book > >definition. +=+ > > Dear me. We would treat it as an illegal agreement. > +=+ Dear me! Then we can't go accusing the kettle, can we, of pretending to powers it does not have? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 3 06:09:04 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 06:09:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <003101c3597d$78736b80$1387403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > There is nothing in 9.1.1 thru 15.1.2 that > tells the TD to award an adjusted score. > There must be a law (or specific regulation) > that enables this process. That is what I am > trying to find. Obviously an SO could not > write a regulation under L40d that conflicted > with the Law 12 requirement to award an > AssAS (rather than an ArtAS) once a result is > obtained. As I said before I can find a path > from L84e, via damage assessment, to L12c2. > I can't find a route to L12c1 (a score was > obtained) or L12A2 (the board was played > normally - well OK I could try "the board > has already been played so it can't be > played normally now" but I don't think > the punters are going to let me get away > with that any more than they would if I > tried it on while giving an UI adjustment). > I've got my TD training coming up and I'm > going to look a right idiot if I try and adjust > a score without even knowing what > regulations/laws I am using. > +=+ Ah! In that case you will have a copy of the EBU 'White Book'. Please consult 90.6.2 or thereabouts (with reference to "Use of an unlicensed convention") 2. There is no restriction on the nature of regulations that may be made under Law 40D other than those stated in Law 40D itself. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 3 07:18:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 07:18:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT Message-ID: <000f01c35987$333c6940$0e36e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >To: > > >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:48 PM > > >Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT > > > --------------------- > > >> > > >> Grattan Endicott writes > > >> > > >+=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven > > >card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, > > > if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in > > >12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to > > >regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book > > >definition. +=+ > > > > Dear me. We would treat it as an illegal agreement. > > > +=+ Dear me! Then we can't go accusing the kettle, can > we, of pretending to powers it does not have? +=+ < +=+ It also appears to me that if we make a 1NT bid that is not conventional but not 'natural' within the terms of OB 12.5.3 there is no requirement to alert it (OB 5.3.1[b]). Perhaps the 2003 issue of the White Book will clear up these small spots? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Aug 3 08:12:30 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:12:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030723075519.00a649b0@pop.starpower.net> <010501c35114$9340d040$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <009201c3598f$160493e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Jaap: > >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. DWS > No doubt it is true that falling asleep is one cause, but does that > not mean that MI could cause damage? When you have information from > more than one source does that mean you cannot be damaged? Of course I agree to your point. But this is not a nice reaction to what I said. You take things out of context. At the stage I reacted it was a vague abstract discussion lacking essential data. My main points were: 1. Please full seq and hand and play so far, I have seen too many disasters caused by some wise guy who thought that we/TD/AC didn't need that info. 2. A claim not to have full count by trick 12 is in itself laughable. Both points were not meant to discuss the MI issue one way or another. 'rather than lack of info' was intended as meaning that there is 'always' enough LEGAL info to get a full count by then. Anyway, the way I remembered the case it was hardly MI, it was just a case were the sequence pointed to the pair not really understandig each other (probably caused by lack of agreements) in which case normal replies to normal question about the seq normally confirm that assumption. Come on, you can/have to do something to protect yourself. To me it looked like 'stop nagging table result' but then to me even in the end it lacked essential data so I cannot really support that 'feeling' (or any other for that matter). Jaap From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Aug 3 08:13:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:13:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009301c3598f$162f4d60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Herman, > Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so many qualified AC > members that you can afford to rule out a whole class of people who > have a clear advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to > sitting on an AC? > > I can understand that if you have DB and DWS available, it is better > to put DB on the AC (completely seriously intended). But if all you > have are players who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to > at least tell them how the laws work? > > I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is slightly > biased (most TD's would, maybe subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). I agree 100% that there should be someone present who knows a lot about the laws. But this is not an argument to appoint a TD in an AC (although I have no objections at all to a TD on a AC if he meets the other criteria meaning he is OK as a player). Whenever I chair an AC I always 'keep' the TD to help us out on laws issues. Besides I love to be able to ask the TD some questions whithout the players present specially when there is a dispute about facts. I see no disadvantages. I understand you point about the TD (subconsciously) defending his ruling. First, a good TD doesn't really do that. Second, I see an AC as helping a TD rather than 'overruling' him and the other way round. Third, I am a big boy and I am quite capable of handling a TD who doesn't understand his role in the game (we all just try to reach a decent ruling you know). But yes I remember quite well some silly TD after an international appeal. He was proud and beaming and said 'I won my case'. Completely crazy of course, but I cannot really blame him for his emotion. And you might wonder who really is to blame. I probably go for an arrogant AC culture and crazy laws rather than poor TD's. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >>>> > >>>Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. > >>> > >>+=+ I believe DWS has a special dispensation? +=+ > >> > > > > I don't think I've seen him sit at a major event, Grattan. Generally we > > all feel it is wrong for a TD to be part of a group of peers attempting > > to judge an appeal. > > > > > *never* ? > > Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so many qualified AC > members that you can afford to rule out a whole class of people who > have a clear advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to > sitting on an AC? > > I can understand that if you have DB and DWS available, it is better > to put DB on the AC (completely seriously intended). But if all you > have are players who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to > at least tell them how the laws work? > > I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is slightly > biased (most TD's would, maybe subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). > > I know that in any Belgian tournament I play in, I'm likely to be on > the AC. > > As an illustration, I'll post the one appeal from Wroclaw (Eur.Univ.Chmps.) > > > You'll see that it is needed that a TD is present to tell the members > what the Laws (in this case the code of practice) says. > > > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 jaapb@noos.fr Sun Aug 3 07:48:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:48:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009001c3598f$15b22e20$a8b64351@noos.fr> DWS: > Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law > book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > misinformation. This is ridiculous logic DWS. And this is not nice to Sven, I understand perfectly what he tries to say but you nail him on a minor grammatical/phrasing error. You accuse me of being not nice enough, you might be right but do your best yourself. But of course you are right with the above silly non-statement. But it is also irrelevant if you are naked or drunk or if you are the Queen (in your 'logic' above). The point is that the simple fact the opponents did something wrong (MI in case) does not mean you can do whatever inferior/silly/crazy play you please and then go crying/whining/sobbing for the TD/AC to get some points. At the table we try to play bridge, not an abstract game called bridge laws. The whole MI problem is far too complex to approach in such a simple way. It is well within the powers of the TD/AC to rule you yourself are responsible for your (bad) result rather than the infraction of the opponents. Jaap From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Aug 3 07:51:39 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:51:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just checking References: <000001c35415$8738aa30$344726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000e01c354a4$cb7c5a40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007401c3550b$6ac4f600$df2b4451@Default> <005a01c35800$33529400$4fec7f50@Default> Message-ID: <009101c3598f$15d23940$a8b64351@noos.fr> DWS > One of the ways that humans have shown themselves as above animals is > in the way they have developed politeness so that there is no need to > upset people unnecessarily. POLITENESS. Politeness depends on culture and Brits have a rather special culture on that. It might be an exception rather than the rule. Your "You cannot follow suit" seems correct but probably is an insult because of that weird British understatement thing. In other countries/cultures the statement in a similar situation might well be 'you are out of your mind' or worse. Having excactly the same cultural meaning as your 'polite' English phrase. Ever tried a post-mortem with a group of French or any Latin people for that matter? They are really not more or less polite than a similar group of Brits, they just have a different way of expressing themselves. I know you might well not agree on that but don't look at everything from just a British point of view. UPSETTING. Why do you play bridge. It comes close to upsetting yourself and other people continiously. In the end it is a game of outsmarting the other by if not any quite a lot of possible means. Not surprising some of it carries over to discussion about the game and its laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just checking > Jaap van der Neut writes > >David > >> 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. > > > >I think you got that one wrong. Spoken language tends to be unbelievable > >rude from times to time, but it has all kind of non verbal components to > >enhance, modify, or ridiculize it's meaning. At post mortem talk it is quite > >normal to hear phrases like or 'the idiot did ...' just refering to a random > >opponent whos only crime might well be to have done something clever or > >something that turned out well for him. What makes internet so different is > >that lack of non verbal enhancement. > > Maybe: but they are not that rude to each other. On tones down > comments to other people, especially ones who are not close friends. I > might say "You cannot follow suit" to Ron Higgins, a very close friend, > or to Grattan Endicott, a former regular partner, because they know me > and understand me. But I would not say it to a total stranger without > making it clear in some other way that I did not mean it, > > >David: > >> even people who dislike me a lot, > > > >I neither like or dislike you (holds true for almost anyone on this list) > >because I simply don't know you well enough to develop that kind of > >feelings. But I sometimes like or dislike (and sometimes a lot either way) > >your views and opinions on this list (holds true for almost anyone). And I > >guess that is what this list is all about. BLML is not a dating service. > > One of the ways that humans have shown themselves as above animals is > in the way they have developed politeness so that there is no need to > upset people unnecessarily. > > It should not be completely impossible for humans to take this trait > into internet communication. > > -- > 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 bruff@email.com Sun Aug 3 13:31:03 2003 From: bruff@email.com (bruff@email.com) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:31:03 +0900 Subject: [blml] Re: hi Message-ID: <20030803113028.424442B99B@rhubarb.custard.org>
DON'T LOSE ANY MORE MONEY ON YOUR EXISTING HOME LOAN!

hey there, i thought you'd like to check this out

not only that but you just owe it to yourself AND your family,
I personally couldnt have got out of the mess I was in without this site

From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 3 14:42:02 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:42:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <010701c3596d$0ee67f00$029868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002f01c359c5$10ab5880$0a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] The EBU lawmakers are not applying judgement to the definition. They (or at least some of them) are saying that players may be expected to apply judgement with regard to specific hands as and when such hands might arise at the table. Sorry if I was imprecise before. [Nigel Guthrie] Tim, I apologise for my original reply to this. I misrepresented you when I implied that you were explicitly sanctioning judgement about suit lengths. But IMO, implicitly, you are implying just that. For example, for legal purposes, to judge that a hand is "rule of 20" rather than "rule of 19", you must subjectively increase its ... HCP and/or ... suit lengths. The Orange Book carefully defines HCP and the length of a suit isn't a matter of opinion. --- 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 Sun Aug 3 19:42:31 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 19:42:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>>>> >>>>Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. >>>> >>>+=+ I believe DWS has a special dispensation? +=+ >>> >> >> I don't think I've seen him sit at a major event, Grattan. Generally we >> all feel it is wrong for a TD to be part of a group of peers attempting >> to judge an appeal. >> > > >*never* ? > >Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so many qualified AC >members that you can afford to rule out a whole class of people who >have a clear advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to >sitting on an AC? In a word. Yes. > >I can understand that if you have DB and DWS available, it is better >to put DB on the AC (completely seriously intended). But if all you >have are players who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to >at least tell them how the laws work? That is the job of the TD who made the ruling. He is responsible for ensuring that the AC knows the relevant Laws. He should bried the AC on his ruling, the law(s) under which it was made, and the laws under which it may be varied ... ... why ... (he asks, whistling innocently) ... isn't that how it happens in Belgium ... > >I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is slightly >biased (most TD's would, maybe subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). Aww, come on Herman, it's well known that I only make "bum" rulings, and I'm always being overturned. (actually I'm 11 for 12 TD upheld this season). > >I know that in any Belgian tournament I play in, I'm likely to be on >the AC. > >As an illustration, I'll post the one appeal from Wroclaw (Eur.Univ.Chmps.) > > >You'll see that it is needed that a TD is present to tell the members >what the Laws (in this case the code of practice) says. > > >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 Sun Aug 3 19:48:38 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 19:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <009301c3598f$162f4d60$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> <009301c3598f$162f4d60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <$I2O+tAGkVL$EwK3@asimere.com> In article <009301c3598f$162f4d60$a8b64351@noos.fr>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Herman, > >> Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so many qualified AC >> members that you can afford to rule out a whole class of people who >> have a clear advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to >> sitting on an AC? >> >> I can understand that if you have DB and DWS available, it is better >> to put DB on the AC (completely seriously intended). But if all you >> have are players who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to >> at least tell them how the laws work? >> >> I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is slightly >> biased (most TD's would, maybe subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). > >I agree 100% that there should be someone present who knows a lot about the >laws. But this is not an argument to appoint a TD in an AC (although I have >no objections at all to a TD on a AC if he meets the other criteria meaning >he is OK as a player). Whenever I chair an AC I always 'keep' the TD to help >us out on laws issues. I think this is an excellent idea, as I also think the AC may wish to cross examine the TD after gathering their evidence from the players. > Besides I love to be able to ask the TD some >questions whithout the players present specially when there is a dispute >about facts. I see no disadvantages. > >I understand you point about the TD (subconsciously) defending his ruling. >First, a good TD doesn't really do that. Second, I see an AC as helping a TD >rather than 'overruling' him and the other way round. Third, I am a big boy >and I am quite capable of handling a TD who doesn't understand his role in >the game (we all just try to reach a decent ruling you know). But yes I >remember quite well some silly TD after an international appeal. He was >proud and beaming and said 'I won my case'. Ah, but that's to do with the bets the other TD's will have on the outcome. I'll always offer bets on the outcome of another TD's appeal, and even on whether his ruling is going to be appealed. (I got some profitable action at 100-30 on a Martin Lee ruling a couple of weekends ago) What else do you think we're doing when you see us in a huddle while you're trying to catch our eye for a ruling? :) > Completely crazy of course, but >I cannot really blame him for his emotion. And you might wonder who really >is to blame. I probably go for an arrogant AC culture and crazy laws rather >than poor TD's. > >Jaap > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "blml" >Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 8:44 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >>>Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. >> >>> >> >>+=+ I believe DWS has a special dispensation? +=+ >> >> >> > >> > I don't think I've seen him sit at a major event, Grattan. Generally we >> > all feel it is wrong for a TD to be part of a group of peers attempting >> > to judge an appeal. >> > >> >> >> *never* ? >> >> Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so many qualified AC >> members that you can afford to rule out a whole class of people who >> have a clear advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to >> sitting on an AC? >> >> I can understand that if you have DB and DWS available, it is better >> to put DB on the AC (completely seriously intended). But if all you >> have are players who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to >> at least tell them how the laws work? >> >> I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is slightly >> biased (most TD's would, maybe subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). >> >> I know that in any Belgian tournament I play in, I'm likely to be on >> the AC. >> >> As an illustration, I'll post the one appeal from Wroclaw >(Eur.Univ.Chmps.) >> >> >> You'll see that it is needed that a TD is present to tell the members >> what the Laws (in this case the code of practice) says. >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>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 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 tom.cornelis@pi.be Sat Aug 2 16:27:20 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:27:20 +0200 Subject: Fw: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas Message-ID: <001d01c3590e$f662a520$24d6eb3e@cornelis> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3591B.53ECC200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: HauffHJ@aol.com=20 To: tom.cornelis@pi.be=20 Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas Hi all, Most of the BMLM-addicts will support fully what Nigel Guthrie wrote. Try to publish these words in your local national bridge magazine, Im am quite sure you will not make it. We have to face the fact, that duplicate bridge is dominated by a rather small number (compared to the full national number) of hardliners. They dominate the "softliners", or by dictatorial national/regional rules or de-facto-procedures ( i.e. XYZ approved = tournaments).=20 The rules are made by the elite to please their needs, but they dont=20 serve the softliners, they need rules where players have more rights to settle minor irregulaities by themselves.=20 If my wife/partner starts to think for more than 30 seconds, she sends = to me the=20 information that she does not know what to do, and everybody at the = table will=20 smile and tolerate. In consequence, we should have a new "two section law". We should aks = our regional league/Verband /etc/... to elaborate and propose such law to = the=20 bridge public.=20 Would it be better if we end local law-making ? I do not think so. The main law maker is- or should be - the local = club, and its rights=20 are expressed in the LAW80. A local club is not forced to join any = superior body. If any aggregation of local clubs ( i.e a Union) acts, this aggregation also acts under Law 80. An one-and-only-one LAW will kill initiative and evolution.=20 The existant law was made under the conditions of the first half of the = last century,=20 and does not meet the reality of todays game in every detail.=20 But this law expresses some everlasting general rules, some of them even not expressed in words: i.e. to compare like with = like, fair play=20 and equal right s to everybody.=20 All activities of bridge - seen in a world wide context - are politcal = events, all bodies of bridge form a separate universe. The rules of this = bridge-universe and its parts obey the same rules as known for other political universes. "There is nothing more costly than a totalitarian system. Such system = will lead to loss of human resources, which will have effects for longtime after the end = of the totalitarian system. It starts with the expulsion and exodus of the best. The mentality of = the remaining elite contorts in relation to the period of time of such regime. The ability = the recognise reality diminishes and impetuosity to act rises. Only after breakdown of the totalitarian regime their effects become = known."=20 best regards Paul 2.8.03 Paul Hauff,=20 precision scoring and www.bridgeassistant.com ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3591B.53ECC200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: HauffHJ@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] = Bananas

Hi all,
Most of = the BMLM-addicts=20 will support fully what Nigel Guthrie wrote.
Try to publish these = words in=20 your local national bridge magazine,
Im am quite sure you will not = make=20 it.

We have to face the fact, that duplicate bridge is dominated = by =20 a
rather small number (compared to the full national number)=20 of
hardliners. They dominate the "softliners", or by=20 dictatorial
national/regional rules or de-facto-procedures ( i.e. = XYZ =20 approved tournaments).
The rules are made by the elite to please = their=20 needs, but they dont
serve the softliners, they need rules  = where=20 players have more rights to
settle minor irregulaities by themselves. =
If my wife/partner starts = to think for=20 more than 30 seconds, she sends to me the
information that she does = not know=20 what to do, and everybody at the table will
smile and=20 tolerate.

In consequence, we = should have a new=20 "two section law". We should aks our
regional league/Verband = /etc/... =20 to elaborate and propose such law to the
bridge public. =

Would it be=20 better if we end local law-making ?
I do not think so. The main law = maker is-=20 or should be -  the local club, and its rights
are expressed in = the=20 LAW80.  A local club is not forced to join any superior body.
If = any=20 aggregation of local clubs ( i.e a Union) acts, this aggregation
also = acts=20 under Law 80.

An one-and-only-one LAW will kill initiative and = evolution.=20
The existant law was made under the conditions of the first half of = the last=20 century,
and does not meet the reality of todays game in every = detail.=20
But this law expresses some  everlasting  general = rules,
some=20 of them even not expressed in words: i.e. to compare like with like, = fair play=20
and equal right s to everybody.

All activities of bridge - = seen in a=20 world wide context -  are politcal events,  all
bodies of = bridge=20 form a separate universe. The rules of this bridge-universe and its=20 parts
obey the same rules as  known for other political=20 universes.
"There is nothing more costly than a totalitarian = system. Such=20 system will lead to loss
of human resources, which will  have = effects=20 for longtime after the end of the totalitarian system.
It starts with = the=20 expulsion and exodus of the best. The mentality of the remaining=20 elite
contorts in relation to the period of time of such regime. The = ability=20 the recognise reality
diminishes and  impetuosity to act = rises.
Only=20 after breakdown of the totalitarian regime their effects become known."=20

best regards
Paul

2.8.03
Paul Hauff, =
precision=20 scoring and www.bridgeassistant.com
 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3591B.53ECC200-- From tom.cornelis@pi.be Sat Aug 2 16:57:59 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:57:59 +0200 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <1a8.17c4a71b.2c5cd579@aol.com> Message-ID: <001e01c3590e$f7b14530$24d6eb3e@cornelis> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C3591F.9C31BF30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul Hauff wrote: > Most of the BMLM-addicts will support fully what Nigel Guthrie wrote. > Try to publish these words in your local national bridge magazine, > Im am quite sure you will not make it. > We have to face the fact, that duplicate bridge is dominated by a > rather small number (compared to the full national number) of > hardliners. They dominate the "softliners", or by dictatorial > national/regional rules or de-facto-procedures ( i.e. XYZ approved = tournaments).=20 > The rules are made by the elite to please their needs, but they dont=20 > serve the softliners, they need rules where players have more rights = to > settle minor irregulaities by themselves.=20 > If my wife/partner starts to think for more than 30 seconds, she sends = to me the=20 > information that she does not know what to do, and everybody at the = table will=20 > smile and tolerate. This happens all the time at any level and it isn't even an infraction. = It's the (mis)use=20 of the extra information that constitutes an infraction. That shouldn't = be tolerated at lower levels. Players - especially social bridgers - will appreciate that if = you explain the rules. The only problem is that it has to be organized to allow the players to = learn those IMO important rules. One of the fallacies of bridge is that beginners get = discouraged either by=20 the amount of theory they have to learn or by the intimidation of the = "less social" players. Work is to be done on both cases. We can help in the second case, by = making better laws. > In consequence, we should have a new "two section law". We should aks = our > regional league/Verband /etc/... to elaborate and propose such law to = the=20 > bridge public. As I pointed out, there's no real need. > Would it be better if we end local law-making ? > I do not think so. The main law maker is- or should be - the local = club, and its rights=20 > are expressed in the LAW80. A local club is not forced to join any = superior body. > If any aggregation of local clubs ( i.e a Union) acts, this = aggregation > also acts under Law 80. On the contrary. The popularity and success of bridge is due to the = standardization of laws. Bridge wouldn't be played over the whle globe if it wouldn't be = played by the same=20 rules everywhere. Further standardization and simplification of the laws = might therefore popularize bridge even more so. > An one-and-only-one LAW will kill initiative and evolution.=20 > The existant law was made under the conditions of the first half of = the last century,=20 > and does not meet the reality of todays game in every detail.=20 > But this law expresses some everlasting general rules, > some of them even not expressed in words: i.e. to compare like with = like, fair play=20 > and equal right s to everybody.=20 Actually you will find that this is in fact expressed in words. = Furthermore the sole purpose of the BLML is initiative and evolution of bridge rules (for the better = of course). > All activities of bridge - seen in a world wide context - are = politcal events, all > bodies of bridge form a separate universe. The rules of this = bridge-universe and its parts > obey the same rules as known for other political universes. > "There is nothing more costly than a totalitarian system. Such system = will lead to loss > of human resources, which will have effects for longtime after the = end of the totalitarian system. > It starts with the expulsion and exodus of the best. The mentality of = the remaining elite > contorts in relation to the period of time of such regime. The ability = the recognise reality > diminishes and impetuosity to act rises. > Only after breakdown of the totalitarian regime their effects become = known."=20 There is nothing wrong with standardization. A totalitarian regime = allows no discussion. There is no comparison whatsoever with an international straightforward = law. Best regards, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C3591F.9C31BF30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Paul = Hauff=20 wrote:
 
> Most = of the=20 BMLM-addicts will support fully what Nigel Guthrie wrote.
> Try to = publish=20 these words in your local national bridge magazine,
> Im am quite = sure you=20 will not make it.
> We have to face the fact, that duplicate bridge is = dominated=20 by  a
> rather small number (compared to the full national = number)=20 of
> hardliners. They dominate the "softliners", or by = dictatorial
>=20 national/regional rules or de-facto-procedures ( i.e. XYZ  approved = tournaments).
> The rules are made by the elite to please their = needs,=20 but they dont
> serve the softliners, they need rules  where = players=20 have more rights to
> settle minor irregulaities by themselves.=20
> If my wife/partner = starts to think=20 for more than 30 seconds, she sends to me the
> information that = she does=20 not know what to do, and everybody at the table will
> smile and=20 tolerate.
 
This happens all the time at any level and it isn't even an=20 infraction. It's the (mis)use
of the extra information that constitutes an infraction. That = shouldn't be=20 tolerated at lower
levels. Players - especially social bridgers - will appreciate that = if you=20 explain the rules.
The only problem is that it has to be organized to allow the = players to=20 learn those IMO
important rules. One of the fallacies of bridge is that beginners = get=20 discouraged either by
the amount of theory they have to learn or by the intimidation = of the=20 "less social" players.
Work is to be done on both cases. We can help in the second case, = by making=20 better laws.

> In=20 consequence, we should have a new "two section law". We should aks = our
>=20 regional league/Verband /etc/...  to elaborate and propose such law = to the=20
> bridge public.
 
As I pointed out, = there's no real=20 need.

> Would it be better if we end local law-making ?
> I = do not=20 think so. The main law maker is- or should be -  the local club, = and its=20 rights
> are expressed in the LAW80.  A local club is not = forced to=20 join any superior body.
> If any aggregation of local clubs ( i.e = a Union)=20 acts, this aggregation
> also acts under Law 80.
 
On the contrary. The popularity and success of bridge is due = to the=20 standardization
of laws. Bridge wouldn't be played over the whle globe if = it=20 wouldn't be played by the same
rules everywhere. Further standardization and simplification of the = laws=20 might therefore
popularize bridge even more so.

> An one-and-only-one LAW = will=20 kill initiative and evolution.
> The existant law was made under = the=20 conditions of the first half of the last century,
> and does not = meet the=20 reality of todays game in every detail.
> But this law expresses=20 some  everlasting  general rules,
> some of them even = not=20 expressed in words: i.e. to compare like with like, fair play
> = and equal=20 right s to everybody.
 
Actually you will find that this is in fact expressed in words. = Furthermore=20 the sole purpose
of the BLML is initiative and evolution of bridge rules (for the = better of=20 course).

> All activities of bridge - seen in a world wide = context=20 -  are politcal events,  all
> bodies of bridge form a = separate=20 universe. The rules of this bridge-universe and its parts
> obey = the same=20 rules as  known for other political universes.
> "There is nothing more costly than a = totalitarian system.=20 Such system will lead to loss
> of human resources, which = will  have=20 effects for longtime after the end of the totalitarian system.
> = It starts=20 with the expulsion and exodus of the best. The mentality of the = remaining=20 elite
> contorts in relation to the period of time of such regime. = The=20 ability the recognise reality
> diminishes and  impetuosity = to act=20 rises.
> Only after breakdown of the totalitarian regime their = effects=20 become known."

There is = nothing wrong=20 with standardization. A totalitarian regime allows no discussion.
There is no comparison whatsoever with = an=20 international straightforward law.
 
Best regards,
 
Tom.

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C3591F.9C31BF30-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 3 21:31:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:31:49 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <1a8.17c4a71b.2c5cd579@aol.com> <001e01c3590e$f7b14530$24d6eb3e@cornelis> Message-ID: <000c01c359fe$56cf5760$6b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tom Cornelis] There is nothing wrong with standardization. A totalitarian regime allows no discussion. There is no comparison whatsoever with an international straightforward law. [Nigel] I agree Tom. It is hard to write clear simple comprehensive objective law, even if you can publish regular amendments to correct mistakes, to remedy ommissions, to clarify ambiguities, and to respond to innovations e.g on-line Bridge. We all feel that the WBFLC have done a magnificent job. Perhaps, however, the WBF should consider changing their remit? It is simply beyond the wit of even the clever knowledgeble WBFLC to phrase such sophisticated complex, subjective laws. Especially, if you are allowed to tinker with the result only at intervals of ten years or so. The last straw is that you must do this, incompletely, so as to leave large areas to the whims and idiosyncracies of local jurisdictions. Given the committee's impossible task, it is inevitable that so much of Bridge law is enforced sporadically, inconsistently, and capriciously. --- 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 3 22:00:40 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:00:40 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas Message-ID: <001c01c35a02$4e9c33c0$6b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Hauff HJ forwarded by Tom Cornelis] Most of the BMLM-addicts will support fully what Nigel Guthrie wrote. Try to publish these words in your local national bridge magazine, Im am quite sure you will not make it. [Nigel] Unfortunately, views like mine gather little support from TDs or BLMLers. Even some of those whose views I try to promulgate, quibble with what I write. My postings sometimes trigger a handful of private emails, most of which are supportive, but they tend to be from players rather than law-makers or law-enforcers. I once asked Elena Jeronimidis whether she would like to chair such a discussion in her Bridge Plus magazine, but she then thought it would not interest her readers; partly perhaps, because, like BLML controversies, it would be unlikely to effect an iota of change. Perhaps, I'll ask her again, since in a few years, if the WBFLC implement any changes, and many people still play Bridge, it may be more topical. --- 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 4 03:58:01 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 03:58:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c35a37$16abba00$531ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > >I can understand that if you have DB and DWS > >available, it is better to put DB on the AC (completely > >seriously intended). But if all you have are players > > who have never served, isn't DWS a valuable asset to > >at least tell them how the laws work? > > That is the job of the TD who made the ruling. He is > responsible for ensuring that the AC knows the > relevant Laws. He should brief the AC on his ruling, > the law(s) under which it was made, and the laws under > which it may be varied ... > > ... why ... (he asks, whistling innocently) ... isn't that > how it happens in Belgium ... > > > >I know, that should be the TD's task. But I think he is > > slightly biased (most TD's would, maybe > > subconsciously, "defend" their ruling). > +=+ See Code of Practice - Jurisprudence - Notes on Rulings no. 3. The CTD is responsible for telling the committee the law and regulation; he may delegate the task but remains responsible.Law 93B3. The AC takes the law/regulation as given to it and applies it to the case before it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 4 04:16:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 04:16:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c35a37$17bb7c50$531ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > In article <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >>>>> > >>>>Nope, an EBU TD *never* sits on an AC. > >>>> > >>>+=+ I believe DWS has a special dispensation? +=+ > >>> > >> > >> I don't think I've seen him sit at a major event, Grattan. > >> Generally we all feel it is wrong for a TD to be part of > >. a group of peers attempting to judge an appeal. > >> +=+ I was being a little disingenuous. As I recall, I was present at the L&E meeting when it was agreed that DWS, exceptionally to the rule, if at a tournament as a player not as TD, may be a member of an AC. I do not think this has been rescinded. The Chairmen of Committees are normally appointed from the panel of referees - a list that does not overlap with the panel of TDs.+=+ > > > > > >*never* ? > > > >Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so > >many qualified AC members that you can afford to > >rule out a whole class of people who have a clear > >advantage over the rest of the field when it comes > > to sitting on an AC? > > In a word. Yes. > > +=+ With a panel of appeals chairmen, and a raft players who are regularly called upon to serve on ACs, we have developed strong resources in this area. We do think the TD has a specialised job which tends to give him a special point of view; the role of the AC is different from that of the Director. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Aug 4 07:59:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:59:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> <000601c35a37$17bb7c50$531ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <3F2E0457.4020608@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott>> >>>Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so >>>many qualified AC members that you can afford to >>>rule out a whole class of people who have a clear >>>advantage over the rest of the field when it comes >>>to sitting on an AC? >>> >>In a word. Yes. >> > +=+ With a panel of appeals chairmen, and a raft > players who are regularly called upon to serve on > ACs, we have developed strong resources in this > area. We do think the TD has a specialised job which > tends to give him a special point of view; the role of > the AC is different from that of the Director. > ~ G ~ > +=+ OK, so the EBU *is* special. Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast experience in dealing with these matters? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Aug 4 08:38:49 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:38:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <000901c356c1$55d8e320$9f19e150@endicott> <000d01c357f5$2490f6b0$f43ae150@endicott> <3F2B5DE2.6050703@skynet.be> <000601c35a37$17bb7c50$531ae150@endicott> <3F2E0457.4020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601c35a5b$73c4b1a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Herman: > OK, so the EBU *is* special. > Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude > those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast > experience in dealing with these matters? The EBU special ? Yes and no like every NCBO. But on this point I think the EBU is rather normal. Although I think it is important that the majority of AC members have sufficient experience in relevant matters (but it can be very helpfull if some have not !!!!), and I don't object to a TD on a AC (anyway what is a TD, even I am formally a TD), I support the basic idea that in the current system AC's should not be the same people as TD's. Seems obvious to me (who guards the guards) but probably the EBU guys can explain it better than I can. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott >>> > >>>Do you have, at all tournaments in England, so > >>>many qualified AC members that you can afford to > >>>rule out a whole class of people who have a clear > >>>advantage over the rest of the field when it comes > >>>to sitting on an AC? > >>> > >>In a word. Yes. > >> > > +=+ With a panel of appeals chairmen, and a raft > > players who are regularly called upon to serve on > > ACs, we have developed strong resources in this > > area. We do think the TD has a specialised job which > > tends to give him a special point of view; the role of > > the AC is different from that of the Director. > > ~ G ~ > > +=+ > > > OK, so the EBU *is* special. > Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude > those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast > experience in dealing with these matters? > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Mon Aug 4 10:44:30 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:44:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Tim West-Meads's message of Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:37 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: [Tim] [lines deleted] > It may not be a matter of "repeatedly", suitable hands don't often come > up. More likely a function of other agreements. > We open all 13 counts with 2 quick tricks. > We play a weak NT. > We never bid 2 card suits "naturally". > A suit without an honour is not "rebiddable". > > Hardly outrageous agreements and they do you proud until one of you picks > up Ax,AT,9875432,AJ and you realise that your systemic opening is 1NT > (A,KJx,KQx,9xxxxx is another example). It's not a conventional NT, it > isn't artificial, it isn't "EBU natural". It's just a run of the mill, > these hands don't come up often enough to worry about, may as well bid 1N > type of hand. Or at least one needn't worry about it unless some daft > bugger tells you it is illegal to have the above agreements and open 1NT. I've been examining the reasoning by which: Ax AT 9875432 AJ becomes a weak 1NT opening bid and I must reassure Tim that his logic is perfectly sound. The problem is with one of the premises. Some daft bugger thinks that never rebidding a suit without an honour is not an outrageous 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 btop@gte.net Mon Aug 4 12:25:53 2003 From: btop@gte.net (btop@gte.net) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:25:53 +0900 Subject: [blml] heya Message-ID:
DON'T LOSE ANY MORE MONEY ON YOUR EXISTING HOME LOAN!

we could all use some extra money at the end of the week!

I refinanced my mortgage and this site got me the best financer available
I personally couldnt have got out of the mess I was in without this site

From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Aug 4 13:06:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:06:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030804080412.009ec920@pop.starpower.net> At 05:44 AM 8/4/03, Ian wrote: >[Tim] >[lines deleted] > > It may not be a matter of "repeatedly", suitable hands don't often > come > > up. More likely a function of other agreements. > > We open all 13 counts with 2 quick tricks. > > We play a weak NT. > > We never bid 2 card suits "naturally". > > A suit without an honour is not "rebiddable". > > > > Hardly outrageous agreements and they do you proud until one of you > picks > > up Ax,AT,9875432,AJ and you realise that your systemic opening is 1NT > > (A,KJx,KQx,9xxxxx is another example). It's not a conventional NT, it > > isn't artificial, it isn't "EBU natural". It's just a run of the > mill, > > these hands don't come up often enough to worry about, may as well > bid 1N > > type of hand. Or at least one needn't worry about it unless some daft > > bugger tells you it is illegal to have the above agreements and > open 1NT. > >I've been examining the reasoning by which: Ax AT 9875432 AJ becomes >a weak 1NT opening bid and I must reassure Tim that his logic is >perfectly sound. The problem is with one of the premises. >Some daft bugger thinks that never rebidding a suit without an honour >is not an outrageous agreement. It may be, but it doesn't matter. Tim's argument doesn't require that we assume such an agreement to be not outrageous, only that we assume it to be not illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Mon Aug 4 13:31:44 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:31:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT Message-ID: [me] > >I've been examining the reasoning by which: Ax AT 9875432 AJ becomes > >a weak 1NT opening bid and I must reassure Tim that his logic is > >perfectly sound. The problem is with one of the premises. > >Some daft bugger thinks that never rebidding a suit without an honour > >is not an outrageous agreement. [Eric Landau] > It may be, but it doesn't matter. Tim's argument doesn't require that > we assume such an agreement to be not outrageous, only that we assume > it to be not illegal. If the sponsoring body, as the EBU seems to, prohibits a 1NT opening on the likes of: Ax AT 9875432 AJ not to mention: 98765432 AJ Ax A then the set of agreements presented by Tim are illegal. Though I haven't found any of them compelling so far, there are arguments to be made against that position. The reasonableness of Tim's system isn't one of them, however. --- 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 David Stevenson Mon Aug 4 13:26:13 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:26:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal In-Reply-To: <000001c3597c$ad2c6350$7c4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000001c3597c$ad2c6350$7c4726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <$LlOjOAlDlL$EwqP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Noel and Pamela writes >Yes? And what's wrong with that? It just does not seem to fit to have one part at a different strength. >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David >Stevenson >Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:05 AM >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Stop Card proposal > > >Noel and Pamela writes >>Why not 'must'? > > That would be stronger than the rest of the regulation. > >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>David Stevenson > >>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". > -- 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 Aug 4 13:27:18 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:27:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <002f01c3597d$76990630$1387403e@endicott> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <001801c35803$a37a18e0$271de150@endicott> <002f01c3597d$76990630$1387403e@endicott> Message-ID: <97FOvaAmElL$EwI$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott writes > >> >Grattan Endicott> >(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > "You can do anything in this world if you >> > are prepared to take the consequences." >> > - William Somerset Maugham. >> >================================ >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >To: >> >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:48 PM >> >Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT >> > --------------------- >> >> >> >> Grattan Endicott writes >> >> >> >> > 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? >> >> >> >+=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven >> >card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, >> > if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in >> >12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to >> >regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book >> >definition. +=+ >> >> Dear me. We would treat it as an illegal agreement. >> >+=+ Dear me! Then we can't go accusing the kettle, can >we, of pretending to powers it does not have? +=+ I have no idea of what you are talking. -- 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 Aug 4 13:28:30 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:28:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: <000f01c35987$333c6940$0e36e150@endicott> References: <000f01c35987$333c6940$0e36e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Of what small spots pure white complains." > - John Donne. >================================ >> > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- >> > >From: "David Stevenson" >> > >To: >> > >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:48 PM >> > >Subject: Re: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT >> > > --------------------- >> > >> >> > >> Grattan Endicott writes >> > >> >> > >+=+ If a partnership opens repeatedly 1NT with a seven >> > >card suit, willing to play there and announced, what action, >> > > if any, do the regulations envisage? The deterrent in >> > >12.5.2 does not apply and the call is not subject itself to >> > >regulation since it is not conventional by Law Book >> > >definition. +=+ >> > >> > Dear me. We would treat it as an illegal agreement. >> > >> +=+ Dear me! Then we can't go accusing the kettle, can >> we, of pretending to powers it does not have? +=+ >< >+=+ It also appears to me that if we make a 1NT bid >that is not conventional but not 'natural' within the >terms of OB 12.5.3 there is no requirement to alert >it (OB 5.3.1[b]). Perhaps the 2003 issue of the >White Book will clear up these small spots? If you are suggesting that when someone makes a call not permitted by the EBU that the EBU should say whether it is alertable I am not sure why we should bother. -- 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 Aug 4 13:30:15 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:30:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <009001c3598f$15b22e20$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009001c3598f$15b22e20$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <0rZMrxAXHlL$Ewoj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Jaap van der Neut writes >DWS: >> Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law >> book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is >> misinformation. > >This is ridiculous logic DWS. And this is not nice to Sven, I understand >perfectly what he tries to say but you nail him on a minor >grammatical/phrasing error. You accuse me of being not nice enough, you >might be right but do your best yourself. Please do not assume that Sven does not know what he is talking about. He posts well, and shows a good understanding of the Laws and of the English language. In my view, when he says something he means 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Aug 4 14:22:35 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:22:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> In reference to the English practice of not having TDs on Appeals = Committes, Herman asked >Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude=20 >those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast=20 >experience in dealing with these matters? An AC and a TD have completely different roles. A TD's job is mainly = about running an event (skills required: calm, diplomacy, organisation, = knowledge of movements & scoring etc), secondly about applying the Laws = (skills required: diplomacy, calm, thick skin, knowledge of the Laws) = and third by a long distance applying judgement in some ruling = decisions. This last part is a quite recent addition with the sole = (successful) aim of reducing the number of appeals. Nowhere in the main = part of a TD's job is there any requirement to be any good as a bridge = player; indeed there are few EBU TDs whom I would say are at all = competent - but this is completely irrelevant to how good they are as = TDs. An AC is usually being asked to apply its bridge judgement (what are the = LAs? what is their agreement? is that play irrational? how many tricks = would that contract make? what is the most favourable result possible?) = and very rarely over-rules a director's finding of fact (was there a = hesitation?). To do this properly the AC should be at least as good at = bridge as the 4 players involved, and ideally should have a fair idea of = what peers of the players would do in similar circumstances. The AC can = use the TD to advise them of the laws, and the AC chairman is usually = someone who has some experience in these things. To give an example of why this is so important: we won an appeal a = couple of years ago (or rather, our opponents were the ones who appealed = and lost). The result at the table had been changed by the Director to = a making doubled partscore our way. The AC chairman - who is not a = very good player and didn't know us - told us on giving us the ruling, = that he couldn't see how the partscore would make but he had been = persuaded by another member of the committee (a good player) that it = would be made by my partner 100% of the time. Yes, we could have gone = through how the play would have gone at the appeal - at the time we = thought the contract was obviously making and nobody on the appealing = side or on the AC brought it up. This is also another reason why it's a good idea to have, if possible, = people who have played the board on an AC. If you ever read the = booklets provided at simultaneous pairs events, there are usually quite = a few mis-analyses of the hands: in general, an AC are more likely to = work out how many tricks a contract should make if they have played it. = And finally, just to be practical: TDs have a lot to do at a tournament = without having to serve on an AC as well. Sometimes an EBU TD turns up = just to play but in fact this seems suprisingly rare at big English = tournaments - DWS is the only person I can think of who regularly plays = as well as directs. =20 In itself, none of this answers a challenge of why you shouldn't put = not-currently-directing TDs who can also play bridge on an AC, but there = is another reason why TDs shouldn't be on ACs which Grattan hasn't = mentioned: an AC must be thought to be impartial. Just think: one TD = gives a ruling, and then their colleague(s) is/are on the AC and uphold = the ruling - won't people just think that they didn't want to over-rule = a colleague? (I don't think TDs _would_ act like that, but that isn't = the point). There are of course lots of 'county' qualified TDs around (those who can = direct local events but aren't on the official EBU list for national = ones) who often get asked to sit on ACs. Quite a few good players do = the TD courses for interest & a better understanding of the laws without = any desire to run congresses. I think we are only talking about the = people who wear burgundy jackets when it comes to not being on ACs. This system isn't perfect - if you read the EBU booklets there are = always one or two dreadful actions by ACs which would have been avoided = if the AC had understood the relevant law - but I think the solution is = more involvement of the table TD, not changing the make-up of the AC. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 16:01:10 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:01:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, A case brought before us last saturday gives more evidence about the need of some official mention of 'mini-stops' or extending the stop procedure. HdW was the TDC and we took a long, long time before giving him our decision. The main reason for this is that we didn't find any law or other official text to support our point of view. Surely there must exist some jurisprudency ? xxxx x xxx AQxxx Q10 xx Kx QJ10xxx KQxxx AJ10x KJxx 10 AKJxx Axxx x xxx North / all N E S W p p 1S p 3S* 4H X** p 4S p p X * preemptive in nature but not barren at this vulnerability ** after some time The exact tempo of South's double was contested. 10 tricks were made. They should have been 11 with proper timing, as my partner had duly demonstrated. The TD decided to correct to 4HX-2 (500) and duly informed the OS of their right to appeal, which they used.. (NB : this I don't like ; if you have to assign an adjusted score, it should be 200 according to L12C) The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : 1) fact : was there a tempo ? 2) did it transmit UI ? 3) was this UI used to some profit ? There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that South's marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise at such a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. The interesting thing is item 2 : we realized that a very spontaneous double would transmit much more UI, and that for this reason a slight pause before doubling, whatever South's exact holding, was correct behavior and shouldn't be taken as giving out UI. However, we felt uncomfortable because we couldn't back up this consideration with any written material. As a consequence, item 3 was pointless. Would you have accepted such a decision without written indications that it is sound ? Or perhaps there is some, and we overlooked it ? Best regards, Alain. From bjoeyofmylife@yahoo.com Mon Aug 4 15:52:05 2003 From: bjoeyofmylife@yahoo.com (bjoeyofmylife@yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:52:05 +0900 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Re: .. heh Message-ID:
DON'T LOSE ANY MORE MONEY ON YOUR EXISTING HOME LOAN!

hey its me again, i was wondering if you'd be interested in this site

only the banks know about this, but it will save you a fortune
With the money you save, put it towards a new car!

From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 4 16:23:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 17:23:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <0rZMrxAXHlL$Ewoj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c35a9c$5db6e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: 4. august 2003 14:30 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? >=20 > Jaap van der Neut writes > >DWS: > >> Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law > >> book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > >> misinformation. > > > >This is ridiculous logic DWS. And this is not nice to Sven, I = understand > >perfectly what he tries to say but you nail him on a minor > >grammatical/phrasing error. You accuse me of being not nice enough, = you > >might be right but do your best yourself. >=20 > Please do not assume that Sven does not know what he is talking = about. > He posts well, and shows a good understanding of the Laws and of the > English language. In my view, when he says something he means it. My turn now: What I tried to express was that after misinformation is established the non-offending side is not automatically at liberty in selecting actions = and then claim damage if their action fails. We are (at least in Norway) = very cautious when we suspect this kind of "double-shot" attempts. When this can(!) be the case the Director must be very careful weighting = the damage caused by the misinformation against the damage caused by = inferior play only, and normally only award redress for the former.=20 And (unless my memory fails me after being away from blml for some ten = days) this thread started as a case of damage caused by some unlucky play to = the twelfth trick (later corrected to the tenth which makes a lot of difference). Any player leading the wrong card to the twelfth trick shall have some = job to do before I am convinced that he was honestly misled by any misinformation, the existence of which I would expect him to have = detected before he made his lead. (And for the record: I did not feel offended by DWS). Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Aug 4 17:17:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:17:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <3F2E872E.2070004@skynet.be> OK, let's attack this piece by piece. (I'm not being especially critical, but ...) (I have to re-copy your text, because my mailer puts the quotes in one line of infinite length. Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: F:An AC and a TD have completely different roles. A TD's job is mainly about running an event (skills required: calm, diplomacy, organisation, knowledge of movements & scoring etc), secondly about applying the Laws (skills required: diplomacy, calm, thick skin, knowledge of the Laws) and third by a long distance applying judgement in some ruling decisions. This last part is a quite recent addition with the sole (successful) aim of reducing the number of appeals. Nowhere in the main part of a TD's job is there any requirement to be any good as a bridge player; indeed there are few EBU TDs whom I would say are at all competent - but this is completely irrelevant to how good they are as TDs. H: this is no reason why these cannot be the same people. F:An AC is usually being asked to apply its bridge judgement (what are the LAs? what is their agreement? is that play irrational? how many tricks would that contract make? what is the most favourable result possible?) and very rarely over-rules a director's finding of fact (was there a hesitation?). To do this properly the AC should be at least as good at bridge as the 4 players involved, and ideally should have a fair idea of what peers of the players would do in similar circumstances. The AC can use the TD to advise them of the laws, and the AC chairman is usually someone who has some experience in these things. H:OK, so the AC chairman (or at least one member) needs to know the laws. Why then disqualify TD's? F:To give an example of why this is so important: we won an appeal a couple of years ago (or rather, our opponents were the ones who appealed and lost). The result at the table had been changed by the Director to a making doubled partscore our way. The AC chairman - who is not a very good player and didn't know us - told us on giving us the ruling, that he couldn't see how the partscore would make but he had been persuaded by another member of the committee (a good player) that it would be made by my partner 100% of the time. Yes, we could have gone through how the play would have gone at the appeal - at the time we thought the contract was obviously making and nobody on the appealing side or on the AC brought it up. H: so, what does this prove regarding the use of TD's on the AC? F:This is also another reason why it's a good idea to have, if possible, people who have played the board on an AC. If you ever read the booklets provided at simultaneous pairs events, there are usually quite a few mis-analyses of the hands: in general, an AC are more likely to work out how many tricks a contract should make if they have played it. And finally, just to be practical: TDs have a lot to do at a tournament without having to serve on an AC as well. Sometimes an EBU TD turns up just to play but in fact this seems suprisingly rare at big English tournaments - DWS is the only person I can think of who regularly plays as well as directs. H: what you are now saying is that you prefer players of the event to TD's of the event. Of course. What you are also saying is that no EBU TD's usually play in events, except DWS. And the EBU rule only excludes TD's but not DWS. It seems to me as if the EBU rule doesn't do anything. F:In itself, none of this answers a challenge of why you shouldn't put not-currently-directing TDs who can also play bridge on an AC, but there is another reason why TDs shouldn't be on ACs which Grattan hasn't mentioned: an AC must be thought to be impartial. Just think: one TD gives a ruling, and then their colleague(s) is/are on the AC and uphold the ruling - won't people just think that they didn't want to over-rule a colleague? (I don't think TDs _would_ act like that, but that isn't the point). H: Now that may be a good argument. But then here is it countered: I believe there is more to be gained from having an expert on the laws on the AC rather than have the TD explain the laws to the AC. Of course some TD's won't overrule one another, but then again some might overrule a particular colleague out of habit. So your argument works both ways. F:There are of course lots of 'county' qualified TDs around (those who can direct local events but aren't on the official EBU list for national ones) who often get asked to sit on ACs. Quite a few good players do the TD courses for interest & a better understanding of the laws without any desire to run congresses. I think we are only talking about the people who wear burgundy jackets when it comes to not being on ACs. H: So again you have qualified the rule. TD's are OK, just not burgundy ones, except DWS. But since DWS is the only burgundy one who happens to also playsometimes, there is really no rule. F: This system isn't perfect - if you read the EBU booklets there are always one or two dreadful actions by ACs which would have been avoided if the AC had understood the relevant law - but I think the solution is more involvement of the table TD, not changing the make-up of the AC. H: no system is perfect. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Aug 4 17:20:21 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:20:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3F2E87C5.9080405@skynet.be> One small correction: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > A case brought before us last saturday gives more evidence about the > need of some official mention of 'mini-stops' or extending the stop > procedure. HdW was the TDC and we took a long, long time before giving I was actually the calculator, and the nominal Chairman of the AC. this appeal was done at the end of a marathon (half past two at night) and I did not want to have the final result waiting, so I asked Alain to take my AC role. > him our decision. The main reason for this is that we didn't find any > law or other official text to support our point of view. Surely there > must exist some jurisprudency ? > > xxxx > x > xxx > AQxxx > > Q10 xx > Kx QJ10xxx > KQxxx AJ10x > KJxx 10 > AKJxx > Axxx > x > xxx > > North / all > > N E S W > > p p 1S p > 3S* 4H X** p > 4S p p X > > * preemptive in nature but not barren at this vulnerability > ** after some time > > The exact tempo of South's double was contested. > 10 tricks were made. They should have been 11 with proper timing, as my > partner had duly demonstrated. > The TD decided to correct to 4HX-2 (500) and duly informed the OS of > their right to appeal, which they used.. > (NB : this I don't like ; if you have to assign an adjusted score, it > should be 200 according to L12C) > > The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : > 1) fact : was there a tempo ? > 2) did it transmit UI ? > 3) was this UI used to some profit ? > > There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that South's > marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise at > such a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. > > The interesting thing is item 2 : we realized that a very spontaneous > double would transmit much more UI, and that for this reason a slight > pause before doubling, whatever South's exact holding, was correct > behavior and shouldn't be taken as giving out UI. However, we felt > uncomfortable because we couldn't back up this consideration with any > written material. > > As a consequence, item 3 was pointless. > > Would you have accepted such a decision without written indications that > it is sound ? > Or perhaps there is some, and we overlooked it ? > > Best regards, > No comment. > 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Aug 4 17:32:30 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 17:32:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] mini-stop Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC55@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Dear blmlists, >A case brought before us last saturday gives more evidence about the = need=20 >of some official mention of 'mini-stops' or extending the stop = procedure.=20 >HdW was the TDC and we took a long, long time before giving him our=20 >decision. The main reason for this is that we didn't find any law or = other=20 >official text to support our point of view. Surely there must exist = some=20 >jurisprudency ? xxxx x xxx AQxxx Q10 xx Kx QJ10xxx KQxxx AJ10x KJxx 10=09 AKJxx Axxx x xxx=09 North / all N E S W p p 1S p 3S* 4H X** p 4S p p X >* preemptive in nature but not barren at this vulnerability >** after some time >The exact tempo of South's double was contested. >10 tricks were made. They should have been 11 with proper timing, as my = >partner had duly demonstrated. >The TD decided to correct to 4HX-2 (500) and duly informed the OS of = their=20 >right to appeal, which they used.. >(NB : this I don't like ; if you have to assign an adjusted score, it=20 >should be 200 according to L12C) >The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : >1) fact : was there a tempo ? >2) did it transmit UI ? >3) was this UI used to some profit ? >There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that = South's=20 >marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise at = such=20 >a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. >The interesting thing is item 2 : we realized that a very spontaneous=20 >double would transmit much more UI, and that for this reason a slight = pause=20 >before doubling, whatever South's exact holding, was correct behavior = and=20 >shouldn't be taken as giving out UI. However, we felt uncomfortable = because=20 >we couldn't back up this consideration with any written material. >As a consequence, item 3 was pointless. >Would you have accepted such a decision without written indications = that it=20 >is sound ? >Or perhaps there is some, and we overlooked it ? I would like to know how fast the 4H bid was. If it was made before 10 = seconds had elapsed, I would say that South has the "right" to think up = to 10seconds from the 3S bid + a couple of seconds for himself without = transmitting any UI. I'm not sure this is entirely in accord with the = Laws, but (in my opinion) it ought to be. Certainly if the 4H was = "shot-gun" I would let South have his 5 seconds without deeming there to = be a UI-related tempo break. Given that there was a proper stop observed, I agree with your thoughts = on item 2. If South can give evidence that he always bids slowly in = this sort of auction then I wouldn't rule UI. If South said 'oh yes I = thought for a bit about this' then I would. I think you had to be = there...=20 It's obvious to me that pass is a LA to 4S, so if I did decide there was = UI I would adjust. I would have thought that N/S would get their = diamond ruff 99% of the time in defence and make it 2 off. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 4 17:38:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:38:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009001c3598f$15b22e20$a8b64351@noos.fr> <0rZMrxAXHlL$Ewoj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <003c01c35aa6$df30e3a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> DWS > Please do not assume that Sven does not know what he is talking about. > He posts well, and shows a good understanding of the Laws and of the > English language. In my view, when he says something he means it. I don't asume that Sven doesn't know what he is talking about (doesn't hold true for DWS anymore if DWS continues like this). Hell I respect him and I agree with him on this issue (and many others). Basically it is possible to rule the NOS themselves is to blame for the bad result rather than the MI. Which IMHO is quite possible to contemplate in the actual case. And yes when Sven says something he means is. But one should try to understand what someone is trying to say. I understood Sven perfectly well without his later explanation. If not we need to turn to some kind of legalese to discuss. Although if I see a Grattan=DWS discussion somewhere else we have already reached that stage. But dear DWS, now Sven has made his point so clear that even you must understand him can you please explain what you were trying to say with your wonderful (and utterly ridiculous): '> Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law > book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > misinformation. Jaap From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 4 17:49:00 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:49:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006c01c35aa8$4fa00ac0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Alain, This is just example 1992393 of my 'theory' that we need a stop rule in this kind of situations. Of course we might consider say 5 secs normal tempo. The problem is that people often bid very quickly creating two different kinds of normal tempo. One more thing about the case. I would tend to rule 4H* because North must have understood South's pause. That is the only explanation I can come up with for the 4S call. North has an outside ace and xxxx seems to me the absolute minimum in spades, so for me this is an automatic pass (if double is 'penalty'). Do you really think North had moved after a real double by south (say holding 3 heart tricks) ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: [blml] mini-stop > Dear blmlists, > > A case brought before us last saturday gives more evidence about the need > of some official mention of 'mini-stops' or extending the stop procedure. > HdW was the TDC and we took a long, long time before giving him our > decision. The main reason for this is that we didn't find any law or other > official text to support our point of view. Surely there must exist some > jurisprudency ? > > xxxx > x > xxx > AQxxx > > Q10 xx > Kx QJ10xxx > KQxxx AJ10x > KJxx 10 > AKJxx > Axxx > x > xxx > > North / all > > N E S W > > p p 1S p > 3S* 4H X** p > 4S p p X > > * preemptive in nature but not barren at this vulnerability > ** after some time > > The exact tempo of South's double was contested. > 10 tricks were made. They should have been 11 with proper timing, as my > partner had duly demonstrated. > The TD decided to correct to 4HX-2 (500) and duly informed the OS of their > right to appeal, which they used.. > (NB : this I don't like ; if you have to assign an adjusted score, it > should be 200 according to L12C) > > The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : > 1) fact : was there a tempo ? > 2) did it transmit UI ? > 3) was this UI used to some profit ? > > There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that South's > marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise at such > a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. > > The interesting thing is item 2 : we realized that a very spontaneous > double would transmit much more UI, and that for this reason a slight pause > before doubling, whatever South's exact holding, was correct behavior and > shouldn't be taken as giving out UI. However, we felt uncomfortable because > we couldn't back up this consideration with any written material. > > As a consequence, item 3 was pointless. > > Would you have accepted such a decision without written indications that it > is sound ? > Or perhaps there is some, and we overlooked it ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Aug 4 18:34:13 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] mini-stop Message-ID: <200308041734.h74HYDAD017899@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> TY: I certainly agree with the argument that there should be a rule for a mini-pause before making a call in this situation but I can tell you from experience directing that very few players at the general club level will see the need or be bothered to follow this. They come out for their weekly game and they just bid. They "don't take advantage of UI" but then most of that is inferential and subtle like this. And I don't think it would be very popular trying to enforce such a mini-stop outside the tournament level. I think that at the local tournament level and higher that such a rule would be adhered to more often and would be more widely accepted. On to the bridge judgement, I don't agree with Jaap here. I think that holding a singleton in the opponents suit and an outside source of tricks (AQxxx) that may not be useful on defense (what if there is a double fit both ways, as is the case (NS have blacks and EW have reds), then vulnerable it is quite likely that 4H might be an excellent save against 4S. In fact, E's pass then 4H does tend to suggest a 2-suited hand. Although I concur that P is definitely a LA, I think there is bridge reasoning from the AI that could lead N to bid 4S over 4H. +500 vs +620/650 is not an unusual situation here. If N were xxxx/xx/Qxx/Axxx then I would definitely agree with Jaap's assessment, but I think that "...is the only explanation...for the 4S call." is much too strong to describe the given hand and situation. And I have to say that although I would award as Japp to rolling back to +500 for the OS, without UI, to me, this is an automatic 4S call. -Ted. > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:49:00 +0200 > > Alain, > > This is just example 1992393 of my 'theory' that we need a stop rule in this > kind of situations. Of course we might consider say 5 secs normal tempo. The > problem is that people often bid very quickly creating two different kinds > of normal tempo. > > One more thing about the case. I would tend to rule 4H* because North must > have understood South's pause. That is the only explanation I can come up > with for the 4S call. North has an outside ace and xxxx seems to me the > absolute minimum in spades, so for me this is an automatic pass (if double > is 'penalty'). Do you really think North had moved after a real double by > south (say holding 3 heart tricks) ? > > Jaap > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Aug 4 19:06:23 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:06:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000a01c35ab3$20c78ba0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Hinden, Frances In reference to the English practice of not having TDs on Appeals Committes, Herman asked >Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude >those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast >experience in dealing with these matters? An AC and a TD have completely different roles. A TD's job is mainly about running an event (skills required: calm, diplomacy, organisation, knowledge of movements & scoring etc), secondly about applying the Laws (skills required: diplomacy, calm, thick skin, knowledge of the Laws) and third by a long distance applying judgement in some ruling decisions. This last part is a quite recent addition with the sole (successful) aim of reducing the number of appeals. Nowhere in the main part of a TD's job is there any requirement to be any good as a bridge player; indeed there are few EBU TDs whom I would say are at all competent - but this is completely irrelevant to how good they are as TDs. (snip of good stuff) No one seems to have commented on the fact that a "Director Panel" handles appeals for the lesser events at ACBL NABCs. The panel polls appropriate players (peers, perhaps, or experts) for opinions in all UI and MI cases. Going by the NABC casebooks, the TD panels do about as well as the ACs. I believe that is known as "damning with faint praise." David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott have been casebook commentators, and I would like to know their opinions in regard to the performance of TD panels. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 4 19:27:24 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:27:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <200308041734.h74HYDAD017899@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <001901c35ab6$0eaef2c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ted, You are right that 4S is not a silly call (I didn't try to implicate that). It might be right. But then it might be wrong (if south's short suit is clubs or when south has hearts). Anyway I have the gut feeling that without screens and without stop most players can 'sense' the difference between a real penalty double and an general values double. Anyway, these rulings are impossible because it comes down to break in tempo or not. And nobody knows what is normal tempo in this kind of situations. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Ying" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > TY: I certainly agree with the argument that there should be a > rule for a mini-pause before making a call in this situation > but I can tell you from experience directing that very few > players at the general club level will see the need or be > bothered to follow this. They come out for their weekly game > and they just bid. They "don't take advantage of UI" but > then most of that is inferential and subtle like this. And > I don't think it would be very popular trying to enforce such > a mini-stop outside the tournament level. > > I think that at the local tournament level and higher that > such a rule would be adhered to more often and would be more > widely accepted. > > On to the bridge judgement, I don't agree with Jaap here. I > think that holding a singleton in the opponents suit and an > outside source of tricks (AQxxx) that may not be useful on > defense (what if there is a double fit both ways, as is the > case (NS have blacks and EW have reds), then vulnerable it > is quite likely that 4H might be an excellent save against > 4S. In fact, E's pass then 4H does tend to suggest a 2-suited > hand. Although I concur that P is definitely a LA, I think > there is bridge reasoning from the AI that could lead N to > bid 4S over 4H. +500 vs +620/650 is not an unusual situation > here. If N were xxxx/xx/Qxx/Axxx then I would definitely > agree with Jaap's assessment, but I think that "...is the > only explanation...for the 4S call." is much too strong to > describe the given hand and situation. And I have to say that > although I would award as Japp to rolling back to +500 for > the OS, without UI, to me, this is an automatic 4S call. > > -Ted. > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:49:00 +0200 > > > > Alain, > > > > This is just example 1992393 of my 'theory' that we need a stop rule in this > > kind of situations. Of course we might consider say 5 secs normal tempo. The > > problem is that people often bid very quickly creating two different kinds > > of normal tempo. > > > > One more thing about the case. I would tend to rule 4H* because North must > > have understood South's pause. That is the only explanation I can come up > > with for the 4S call. North has an outside ace and xxxx seems to me the > > absolute minimum in spades, so for me this is an automatic pass (if double > > is 'penalty'). Do you really think North had moved after a real double by > > south (say holding 3 heart tricks) ? > > > > Jaap > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 4 21:45:04 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:45:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000a01c35ab3$20c78ba0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c35ac9$4bdff280$a8b64351@noos.fr> Marv: > No one seems to have commented on the fact that a "Director Panel" handles > appeals for the lesser events at ACBL NABCs. The panel polls appropriate > players (peers, perhaps, or experts) for opinions in all UI and MI cases. > Going by the NABC casebooks, the TD panels do about as well as the ACs. > > I believe that is known as "damning with faint praise." What you call a Director Panel seems to be normal procedure with another name (the way I understand you). Basically the TD(s) becomes the chair of the AC. As long as the players (including TD's who qualify as players) do the judging it seems a perfect idea to me. If only because this setup stops AC's from doing crazy things (in a remotely serious event there is always a capable TD, there is not always a capable AC=chair). And if it is manditory for the TD always to consult a panel in MI and UI cases, one can do away with those bloody appeals as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) > > From: "Hinden, Frances > > In reference to the English practice of not having TDs on Appeals Committes, > Herman asked > > >Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude > >those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast > >experience in dealing with these matters? > > An AC and a TD have completely different roles. A TD's job is mainly about > running an event (skills required: calm, diplomacy, organisation, knowledge > of movements & scoring etc), secondly about applying the Laws (skills > required: diplomacy, calm, thick skin, knowledge of the Laws) and third by a > long distance applying judgement in some ruling decisions. This last part > is a quite recent addition with the sole (successful) aim of reducing the > number of appeals. Nowhere in the main part of a TD's job is there any > requirement to be any good as a bridge player; indeed there are few EBU TDs > whom I would say are at all competent - but this is completely irrelevant to > how good they are as TDs. > > (snip of good stuff) > > No one seems to have commented on the fact that a "Director Panel" handles > appeals for the lesser events at ACBL NABCs. The panel polls appropriate > players (peers, perhaps, or experts) for opinions in all UI and MI cases. > Going by the NABC casebooks, the TD panels do about as well as the ACs. > > I believe that is known as "damning with faint praise." > > David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott have been casebook commentators, and I > would like to know their opinions in regard to the performance of TD panels. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Aug 4 23:12:35 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:12:35 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <1a8.17c4a71b.2c5cd579@aol.com> <001e01c3590e$f7b14530$24d6eb3e@cornelis> <000c01c359fe$56cf5760$6b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000d01c35ad6$db70a680$eef5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:31 PM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > It is simply beyond the wit of even the clever > knowledgeable WBFLC to phrase such sophisticated > complex, subjective laws. Especially, if you are > allowed to tinker with the result only at > intervals of ten years or so. > +=+ The majority committee opinion appears to have no wish to make interim adjustments. When suggestions arise there is no ready will to consider changing the law; there have been a couple of minor 'tweaks' only since 1997. Consider, for example Jan 11 2000 minutes when a very august group asked for a change and the WBFLC was unwilling to consider it until the decennial review. It is not that the WBFLC does not have the power to make a change at any meeting if it chooses to do so; it does not have the will to do so. The decennial review is forced on it constitutionally. +=+ > > The last straw is that you must do this, > incompletely, so as to leave large areas to the > whims and idiosyncrasies of local jurisdictions. > +=+ There is very little (nil) hope that Law 93 could be extended to allow of reference to the WBF on grounds that the interpretation of law did not conform to WBFLC interpretation, even though the power of interpretation is given to the WBFLC constitutionally.+=+ < > Given the committee's impossible task, it is > inevitable that so much of Bridge law is enforced > sporadically, inconsistently, and capriciously. > +=+ I think the flavour of this statement is not quite right. Enforcement is not the problem - the laws as understood are enforced I believe. It is variations of interpretation that is the problem - if you follow blml it is apparent that even between NBOs in Zone 1 there are differences and no take-up of the invitation of the Zonal Laws Committee's longstanding offer to give guidance if an NBO enquires. This was the underlying reason for publishing the 1992 Commentary. We are working on it by holding periodic seminars for TDs from all over - but we find even then that the course leaders are not always of a mind and we have to work on that. It is an advantage, in my view, that our EBL Laws Committee becomes progressively smaller - recently five, now four (Kooijman, Bavin, Endicott, Riccardi) and has not met as such for some years, although we do talk to each other :-) Our best work in recent years was done in front of the assembled course members, and in the back room, at the EBL TD's seminar some moons ago. There is talk of another seminar, in 2004 sometime. ~ G ~ +=+ From ptf333@kukamail.com Mon Aug 4 22:47:34 2003 From: ptf333@kukamail.com (Dr Ede Mark) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:47:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) MUTUAL BENEFIT Message-ID: <20030804225949.D4C232B92F@rhubarb.custard.org> Petroleum {Special} Trust Fund Contract Award Committee Natioal Secretariat Victoria Island Lagos=2E Attention=3A The President=2FCEO=2C The petroleum special Trust Fund was set up by the late Head of state=2CGeneral Sani Abacha who died on 18th June=2C1998=2C to manage the excess revenue accruing from the sale of petroleum and its allied products as a result of a domestic increase in the prices of petroleum products=2E The estimated annual revenue for 1999 was $45 billion US Dollars Ref=2EFMF A26 Unit 3B paragraph =5C=5C=5C=22D=5C=5C=5C=22 of the Auditor General of Federal Republic of Nigeria Report of Nov=2E1999 on estimated revenue=2E I am the Chairman of the Contract Award Committee and my committee is solely responsible for awarding and payment of contracts on behalf of federal Government of Nigeria=2E My Committee awarded contracts to foreign contractors for the supply of Agricultural Machines Spare parts to the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources=2E We overshot the contract sum by USD35 Million=2E We have paid the contractors and withholding the balance of USD35 Million=2E Because of existing domestic laws forbiding civil servants from opening=2C operating=2C and maintaining foreign accounts=2Cwe do not have the expertise to transfer this balance of funds to a foreign account=2E However=2C this balance of USD35 Million has been secured in form of credit=2Fpayment to a foreign contractors =2EHence=2Cwe wish to transfer into your bank account as the beneficiary of the funds=2E We have also arrived at a conclusion that you will be compensated to the tune of 25% of the total sum transfer while 5% will be reserved for incidental expenses that both parties will incur in the course of actualizing this transaction and the balance of 70% will be kept for the Committee members=2E If you know you are capable of helping us actualizing our life=5C=5C=5C's dream=2Cyou should send to me immediately the details of your bank particulars or open a new account where we can transfer the money {USD35 Million} which you will be holding in trust for us untill we come over there for our share=2EYour nature of business does not matter in this transaction=2E The required details include your personal Telephone=2FFax numbers=2Cbeneficiary=5C=5C=5C's name=2C Name of Bank=2CRouting number=2CAccount number=2CTelephone=2FFax numbers of same Bank=2E Note=3A Note that this transaction will be concluded within 10 working days from the day the required details are forwarded to us=2E Please=2C treat this as top secret=2E Yours sincerely=2C Dr=2E Ede Mark From David Stevenson Mon Aug 4 16:13:11 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:13:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes >In reference to the English practice of not having TDs on Appeals Committes, >Herman asked > >>Now tell me why it should be preferable, in the whole, to exclude >>those people from ACs of which you know that they have a vast >>experience in dealing with these matters? > >An AC and a TD have completely different roles. A TD's job is mainly about >running an event (skills required: calm, diplomacy, organisation, knowledge of >movements & scoring etc), secondly about applying the Laws (skills required: >diplomacy, calm, thick skin, knowledge of the Laws) and third by a long distance >applying judgement in some ruling decisions. This last part is a quite recent >addition with the sole (successful) aim of reducing the number of appeals. This is completely at variance with what EBU TDs are told. When I first became one I was taught that it was very important to make correct rulings so as to keep the customers happy. The EBU resisted the view around much of the world of ruling in a particular direction and letting ACs sort it out: we have been justly proud of our record in giving correct rulings over the years. A large part of the TD's skill lies in giving correct judgement rulings. The main change over time is better training and methodology, not in basic attitude. Much of the skill in giving good judgement rulings lies in consultation. It is only poor TDs who think they are good enough to give such rulings without discussing them with others. Good TDs who are not very good players themselves know that and allow for that in deciding with whom to consult. Different TDs are very good at different parts of the TD's role. In major events the EBU picks TDs for specific tasks. Some TDs are put in certain places for their ability in giving and considering judgement rulings. One thing that good English TDs always have in their minds: very few rulings go to appeal. This is not new, by any means: in fact the number of appeals has risen, not dropped, since I became a TD, though the main reason for that is that the methodology for providing appeals has improved. >Nowhere in the main part of a TD's job is there any requirement to be any good >as a bridge player; indeed there are few EBU TDs whom I would say are at all >competent - but this is completely irrelevant to how good they are as TDs. The EBU has told some TDs that they are unlikely to be promoted because they are not good enough bridge players. There is a perceived advantage in having bridge ability. >An AC is usually being asked to apply its bridge judgement (what are the LAs? >what is their agreement? is that play irrational? how many tricks would that >contract make? what is the most favourable result possible?) and very rarely >over-rules a director's finding of fact (was there a hesitation?). To do this >properly the AC should be at least as good at bridge as the 4 players involved, >and ideally should have a fair idea of what peers of the players would do in >similar circumstances. The AC can use the TD to advise them of the laws, and >the AC chairman is usually someone who has some experience in these things. Note that some people are of the view that it is a mistake to always use players at least as good as those involved. >To give an example of why this is so important: we won an appeal a couple of >years ago (or rather, our opponents were the ones who appealed and lost). The >result at the table had been changed by the Director to a making doubled >partscore our way. The AC chairman - who is not a very good player and didn't >know us - told us on giving us the ruling, that he couldn't see how the >partscore would make but he had been persuaded by another member of the >committee (a good player) that it would be made by my partner 100% of the time. >Yes, we could have gone through how the play would have gone at the appeal - at >the time we thought the contract was obviously making and nobody on the >appealing side or on the AC brought it up. In a very similar way, TDs have had an opinion on a judgement ruling, but have changed it after consultation. >This is also another reason why it's a good idea to have, if possible, people >who have played the board on an AC. If you ever read the booklets provided at >simultaneous pairs events, there are usually quite a few mis-analyses of the >hands: in general, an AC are more likely to work out how many tricks a contract >should make if they have played it. And finally, just to be practical: TDs >have a lot to do at a tournament without having to serve on an AC as well. >Sometimes an EBU TD turns up just to play but in fact this seems suprisingly >rare at big English tournaments - DWS is the only person I can think of who >regularly plays as well as directs. It is possible that this is why in fact the EBU L&EC have said that they do not mind seeing me on appeals at events where I am playing not directing. >In itself, none of this answers a challenge of why you shouldn't put not- >currently-directing TDs who can also play bridge on an AC, but there is another >reason why TDs shouldn't be on ACs which Grattan hasn't mentioned: an AC must be >thought to be impartial. Just think: one TD gives a ruling, and then their >colleague(s) is/are on the AC and uphold the ruling - won't people just think >that they didn't want to over-rule a colleague? (I don't think TDs _would_ act >like that, but that isn't the point). While there is such a view around, there are other views, just as silly, that we have heard: we only put good players on appeals so that they will rule in favour of the better players: we only put men on appeals [which certainly used to be EBU methods until I changed it, though I believe it was not by design] so as to rule in favour of men: we only put Londoners on appeals [also used to be very true] to rule in favour of Londoners. -- 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 Tue Aug 5 00:56:17 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:56:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000a01c35ab3$20c78ba0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001501c35ac9$4bdff280$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000c01c35ae4$00ad3320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Marv wrote: > > No one seems to have commented on the fact that a "Director Panel" handles > > appeals for the lesser events at ACBL NABCs. The panel polls appropriate > > players (peers, perhaps, or experts) for opinions in all UI and MI cases. > > Going by the NABC casebooks, the TD panels do about as well as the ACs. > > > > I believe that is known as "damning with faint praise." > > What you call a Director Panel seems to be normal procedure with another > name (the way I understand you). Basically the TD(s) becomes the chair of > the AC. As long as the players (including TD's who qualify as players) do > the judging it seems a perfect idea to me. If only because this setup stops > AC's from doing crazy things (in a remotely serious event there is always a > capable TD, there is not always a capable AC=chair). And if it is manditory > for the TD always to consult a panel in MI and UI cases, one can do away > with those bloody appeals as well. > Let me make clear how it works, to the best of my knowledge: There is an ACBL AC organization for NABCs, whose members include no TDs that I know of. They do not consult with players, as they know it all. The AC handles appeals for the NABC+ events, which are the important ones. I think it is very seldom that a TD participates in the process, other than to provide a writeup of the case (including his/her ruling). They are supposed to determine facts, not interpret the Laws, but I think some interpretation has crept in occasionally. There are TD panels, groups of TDs who confer on an appeal and get opinions from appropriate players to help formulating their decision (this is required of them). They are concerned with both the applicable Laws and the determination of facts. The TD panels handle all other appeals at NABCs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Aug 5 02:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 02:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003101c3597d$78736b80$1387403e@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Ah! In that case you will have a copy of > the EBU 'White Book'. Please consult 90.6.2 or > thereabouts (with reference to "Use of an > unlicensed convention") Thanks Grattan. There is a slight problem with this since the EBU says of the White Book "This book is currently out of print and somewhat out of date. It was written for the 1985 Law book." One assumes that where regulations (such as 90.6.2) conflict with the 97 laws (such as L12) they will be rewritten for the next edition. I don't think we can cite the current white book as authoritative when giving a ruling (although we can surely quote references we *believe* are still valid). A secondary problem is that if the auction goes P-(P)-1S-(P)-3S where 1S was non R019 we cannot apply 90.6.2 anyway. However if it goes 1S-(p)-4D where 1S was (on the actual hand) Ro19 compliant but (by agreement) may not have been then we must adjust. I'd imagine that a new 90.6.2 could read something like. 1) The Director will assign an artificial score according to the laws (84/12) 2) A PP of 30% of a top, 9IMPs will be issued Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Aug 5 02:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 02:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] a Club ruling - Overcalling 1NT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ian wrote: > > If the sponsoring body, as the EBU seems to, prohibits a 1NT opening > on the likes of: > > Ax AT 9875432 AJ Before we try and understand the EBU regulations we must first decide: "Do Tim's agreements make his 1NT conventional under the laws". If the answer is "Yes" then perhaps this opening is prohibited by the EBU. However if, as I (and I think Grattan) and others believe, the answer is "No" then the laws are quite clear - the EBU does not prohibit such an opening and *could not even if they so wished*. We can be absolutely certain that the EBU does not prohibit opening a non-conventional NT with more than 10 points. Secure in that knowledge we must then find our way through the alerting requirements and regulations on subsequent use of conventions. I have just been reading the OB. Since my NT is neither conventional (see laws), nor EBU-natural (see OB) there are no EBU-permitted conventional defences to my 1NT (no aspro, astro, cansino, etc). Boy am I going to have fun during the Brighton midweek events:) Tim From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Aug 5 00:34:49 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:34:49 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: <000c01c35ae4$00ad3320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Marvin French wrote: [about director panels being used in the ACBL in place of ACs:] > > There is an ACBL AC organization for NABCs, whose members include no TDs > that I know of. They do not consult with players, as they know it all. The > AC handles appeals for the NABC+ events, which are the important ones. I > think it is very seldom that a TD participates in the process, other than to > provide a writeup of the case (including his/her ruling). They are supposed > to determine facts, not interpret the Laws, but I think some interpretation > has crept in occasionally. I will go a step farther than this: Just as being a good player is not a requirement for a job as a TD (though some TDs are excellent players), knowing anything at all about the laws is not a requirement for sitting on a committee. It sometimes happens that you will get an entire committee of people who don't know what the law says -- and they do whatever "feels right" to them, go home to bed, and leave it to whoever does the writeup to try to find a justification for what they did. For the most part I think the AC members are sincerely trying to do their job well. They just don't have anyone there to indicate to them where the law ends and the judgment begins. It would cure a lot of the perceived ills of the appeals process, if having someone to inform the committee of the law was an established part of the process. > There are TD panels, groups of TDs who confer on an appeal and get opinions > from appropriate players to help formulating their decision (this is > required of them). They are concerned with both the applicable Laws and the > determination of facts. The TD panels handle all other appeals at NABCs. The TD-panel rulings have been accepted by the membership-at-large so well that they have completely replaced the appeals committee at the regional level in my district. I think the reason is that a TD panel will, at worst, give a ruling where it is clear that a certain matter of judgment could have gone either way (understandable, even if your judgment differs), while the AC gives the occasional ruling that makes us shout "that's illegal!" Call me a cynic. But I have the feeling that the reason L12C3 is in the book is as a catch-all that can be used as an excuse to justify it when an un-law-educated committee makes an otherwise illegal ruling. Indeed striking 12C3 from the book is #2 on my list of changes I'd most like to see to the 2005 laws, right behind 25B. GRB From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Aug 5 01:05:33 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:05:33 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] A bad habit, and a L54C wrinkle Message-ID: Several players at my local club (mostly rubber bridge players, not thoroughly addicted to duplicate yet -- but they've been told several times in the past) have a bad habit when they are presumed dummy. They detach their trumps from their hand before the opening lead... either they hold the rest of their cards in their left and their trumps in their right, or they actually place dummy's trumps face down on the table. For opening leader, this is covered by L73: he can take advantage of dummy's mannerism at his own risk, and if dummy deliberately detaches the wrong number of cards to mislead leader, we can adjust the score. What about declarer? Once dummy is faced, of course, the declaring side is mostly off the hook as far as UI restrictions, penalties for exposed cards, and so on. But there is a time period while the opening lead is being chosen where this isn't so. In particular, see L54C: "If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to L24), he must accept the lead." How would you handle a lead out of turn if declarer knows how many trumps dummy has, but dummy's cards are not actually face up? Does L54 apply? Or just L16? Or nothing at all? GRB From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 02:59:25 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:59:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] A bad habit, and a L54C wrinkle References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: [blml] A bad habit, and a L54C wrinkle > > Several players at my local club (mostly rubber bridge players, not > thoroughly addicted to duplicate yet -- but they've been told several > times in the past) have a bad habit when they are presumed dummy. They > detach their trumps from their hand before the opening lead... either they > hold the rest of their cards in their left and their trumps in their > right, or they actually place dummy's trumps face down on the table. > > For opening leader, this is covered by L73: he can take advantage of > dummy's mannerism at his own risk, and if dummy deliberately detaches the > wrong number of cards to mislead leader, we can adjust the score. > > What about declarer? Once dummy is faced, of course, the declaring side is > mostly off the hook as far as UI restrictions, penalties for exposed > cards, and so on. But there is a time period while the opening lead is > being chosen where this isn't so. > > In particular, see L54C: "If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards > (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were > subject to L24), he must accept the lead." > > How would you handle a lead out of turn if declarer knows how many trumps > dummy has, but dummy's cards are not actually face up? Does L54 apply? Or > just L16? Or nothing at all? > > GRB This might be a point of Law and I am not qualified to interpret the laws, though of course I can read them and understand them as well as anyone else who is not specifically trained/experienced/authorized etc. There are other sorta annoying habits as well, which also are "illegal" but they are tolerated at the club level much too well by players as well as TD's. Such as UI by tempo, facial expressions, slow or vigorous placement of bidding card on table, staring at your partner in search of advice what to do next....the list just goes on endlessly. Some sort of educational pamphlet might be in order...I get tired of all that ad nauseam...but have cured myself by not going to the clubs at all. Online is better for me. Kaima D Raija Davis Kaima From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 5 04:03:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:03:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: <001501c35ac9$4bdff280$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <751E9B44-C6F1-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 16:45 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > And if it is manditory for the TD always to consult a panel in MI and > UI > cases, one can do away with those bloody appeals as well. And, I suppose, with that annoying law that gives players the right to appeal. From nancy@dressing.org Tue Aug 5 04:38:04 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:38:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] A bad habit, and a L54C wrinkle References: Message-ID: <000801c35b02$fa6ebf50$6501a8c0@hare> Why must we assume that the detached cards are trumps!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:05 PM Subject: [blml] A bad habit, and a L54C wrinkle > > Several players at my local club (mostly rubber bridge players, not > thoroughly addicted to duplicate yet -- but they've been told several > times in the past) have a bad habit when they are presumed dummy. They > detach their trumps from their hand before the opening lead... either they > hold the rest of their cards in their left and their trumps in their > right, or they actually place dummy's trumps face down on the table. > > For opening leader, this is covered by L73: he can take advantage of > dummy's mannerism at his own risk, and if dummy deliberately detaches the > wrong number of cards to mislead leader, we can adjust the score. > > What about declarer? Once dummy is faced, of course, the declaring side is > mostly off the hook as far as UI restrictions, penalties for exposed > cards, and so on. But there is a time period while the opening lead is > being chosen where this isn't so. > > In particular, see L54C: "If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards > (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were > subject to L24), he must accept the lead." > > How would you handle a lead out of turn if declarer knows how many trumps > dummy has, but dummy's cards are not actually face up? Does L54 apply? Or > just L16? Or nothing at all? > > GRB > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 5 06:45:42 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:45:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <751E9B44-C6F1-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003901c35b14$d05f83e0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Ed: > And, I suppose, with that annoying law that gives players the right to > appeal. In Holland a couple of major championships have been decided by AC rulings, twice days if not weeks after the final day of play. This we didn't like. Maybe Ton did, but the rest of us thought it was ridiculous. So we have come up with a procedure that abolish appeals but also guarantees players a fair ruling. Basically what we do is that any late stage ruling is done as if it was an appeal. The decision is formally made by the national authority (a legal requirement) so no further appeals are possible. But to put it more general. I think it should be perfectly ok for a SO to say that TD's ruling is final. As a player I would like that the TD consults some players (preferably the kind of players that are now in the AC) before making a ruling. To top this of there should be some kind of review mechanism. It should be possible to promote and demote TD's given their performance. And yes I know, at low level this might pose some problems, not enough capable TD's. The main issue is that after play we like to know who has won. Now given any procedure something might come up that causes a delay. But the procedures should be such that this is as unlikely as possible. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) > > On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 16:45 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > And if it is manditory for the TD always to consult a panel in MI and > > UI > > cases, one can do away with those bloody appeals as well. > > And, I suppose, with that annoying law that gives players the right to > appeal. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 5 06:48:20 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:48:20 +0200 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <1a8.17c4a71b.2c5cd579@aol.com> <001e01c3590e$f7b14530$24d6eb3e@cornelis> <000c01c359fe$56cf5760$6b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c35ad6$db70a680$eef5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000901c35b15$2e864c60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Grattan, Thaks for your extensive explanation. But do you realize that you basically say that the WBFLC is not functioning. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:12 AM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > "I had not known sin, but by the law." > Romans ch 7. v 7. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:31 PM > Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > > > > > > It is simply beyond the wit of even the clever > > knowledgeable WBFLC to phrase such sophisticated > > complex, subjective laws. Especially, if you are > > allowed to tinker with the result only at > > intervals of ten years or so. > > > +=+ The majority committee opinion appears to > have no wish to make interim adjustments. When > suggestions arise there is no ready will to > consider changing the law; there have been a > couple of minor 'tweaks' only since 1997. > Consider, for example Jan 11 2000 minutes > when a very august group asked for a change > and the WBFLC was unwilling to consider it > until the decennial review. It is not that the WBFLC > does not have the power to make a change at any > meeting if it chooses to do so; it does not have the > will to do so. The decennial review is forced on it > constitutionally. +=+ > > > > The last straw is that you must do this, > > incompletely, so as to leave large areas to the > > whims and idiosyncrasies of local jurisdictions. > > > +=+ There is very little (nil) hope that Law 93 > could be extended to allow of reference to the > WBF on grounds that the interpretation of law > did not conform to WBFLC interpretation, even > though the power of interpretation is given to the > WBFLC constitutionally.+=+ > < > > Given the committee's impossible task, it is > > inevitable that so much of Bridge law is enforced > > sporadically, inconsistently, and capriciously. > > > +=+ I think the flavour of this statement is not > quite right. Enforcement is not the problem - the > laws as understood are enforced I believe. It is > variations of interpretation that is the problem > - if you follow blml it is apparent that even > between NBOs in Zone 1 there are differences > and no take-up of the invitation of the Zonal Laws > Committee's longstanding offer to give guidance > if an NBO enquires. This was the underlying reason > for publishing the 1992 Commentary. We are > working on it by holding periodic seminars for > TDs from all over - but we find even then that the > course leaders are not always of a mind and we > have to work on that. It is an advantage, in my > view, that our EBL Laws Committee becomes > progressively smaller - recently five, now four > (Kooijman, Bavin, Endicott, Riccardi) and has > not met as such for some years, although we do > talk to each other :-) Our best work in recent > years was done in front of the assembled course > members, and in the back room, at the EBL > TD's seminar some moons ago. There is talk of > another seminar, in 2004 sometime. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Aug 4 10:14:23 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:14:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Adreswijziging Message-ID: <01cf01c35a68$ce290800$a8b64351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01CC_01C35A79.8ED87940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Beste allemaal, Ik heb een nieuw e-mail adres: jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl Oude e-mail adressen blijven nog wel een maand of wat in de lucht. Sorry voor de overlast maar Wanadoo sloot van de ene dag op de andere de = pop3-server af bij extern inbellen hetgeen dat account voor mij = waardeloos maakte. Dear friends, I have a new e-mail adress: jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl My old adresses will remain functional for another month or so. Sorry for the hassle, but my previous provider Wanadoo cut essential = services. Jaap ------=_NextPart_000_01CC_01C35A79.8ED87940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Beste allemaal,
 
Ik heb een nieuw e-mail=20 adres:  jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl=
Oude e-mail adressen blijven nog wel = een maand of=20 wat in de lucht.
Sorry voor de overlast maar Wanadoo = sloot van de=20 ene dag op de andere de pop3-server af bij extern inbellen hetgeen dat = account=20 voor mij waardeloos maakte.
 
 
Dear friends,
 
I have a new e-mail adress: jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl=
My old adresses will remain functional = for another=20 month or so.
Sorry for the hassle, but my previous = provider=20 Wanadoo cut essential services.
 
Jaap
 
------=_NextPart_000_01CC_01C35A79.8ED87940-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 16:35:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:35:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <001901c35ab6$0eaef2c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <200308041734.h74HYDAD017899@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030805173403.01d3a3d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:27 4/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Ted, > >You are right that 4S is not a silly call (I didn't try to implicate that). >It might be right. But then it might be wrong (if south's short suit is >clubs or when south has hearts). Anyway I have the gut feeling that without >screens and without stop most players can 'sense' the difference between a >real penalty double and an general values double. Anyway, these rulings are >impossible because it comes down to break in tempo or not. And nobody knows >what is normal tempo in this kind of situations. AG : well, if nobody knows what is normal, then nobody knows what is abnormal, not even TDs and ACs - which means that no TD or AC has any right to pretend that some UI came from abnormal tempo. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 5 16:42:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:42:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: Message-ID: <001b01c35b68$1dff41a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Marvin French wrote: > > It would cure a lot of the perceived ills of the appeals process, if > having someone to inform the committee of the law was an established > part of the process. Perhaps Linda Trent will comment on this. I believe Rich Colker has assumed an advisory role for ACs in regard to the Laws and ACBL regulations. Capable as he is, I would prefer that one of the top ACBL TDs, someone like Matt Smith or Guillermo Poplawsky, perform that task. Rich is the NABC Appeals Administrator and Linda is the Appeals Manager Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 5 16:54:41 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:54:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <751E9B44-C6F1-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c35b69$e2d4dac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > And if it is manditory for the TD always to consult a panel in MI and > > UI > > cases, one can do away with those bloody appeals as well. > > And, I suppose, with that annoying law that gives players the right to > appeal. > But L93A also says that the "Chief Director"shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Tournament or Appeals Committee." If the CTD gives his blessing to a TD panel decision, then the right of appeal has been satisfied. I am wondering if the DIC of an event could be considered the Chief Director for L93A purposes. The DIC probably must bless any TD panel decision at our NABCs, but the CTD of an NABC could hardly oversee all TD panel appeals in a large tournament like this, which has many events running concurrently. Also, can L93A be interpreted as meaning "if there is no Tournament or Appeals Committee *for the event*? NABCs have an AC for NABC+ events but not for lesser "regionally-rated" events. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 5 18:21:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:21:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <200308041734.h74HYDAD017899@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <5.1.0.14.0.20030805173403.01d3a3d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001601c35b76$160e2480$a8b64351@noos.fr> > AG : well, if nobody knows what is normal, then nobody knows what is > abnormal, not even TDs and ACs - which means that no TD or AC has any right > to pretend that some UI came from abnormal tempo. But that is exactly the problem. We need to define normal tempo so we need a kind of stop. If not a quick double ('normal tempo in a way') means 'partner shut up' and a 3 to 5 seconds double ('normal tempo in a way') means 'partner do something intelligent'. Is that the game we want to play ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > At 20:27 4/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Ted, > > > >You are right that 4S is not a silly call (I didn't try to implicate that). > >It might be right. But then it might be wrong (if south's short suit is > >clubs or when south has hearts). Anyway I have the gut feeling that without > >screens and without stop most players can 'sense' the difference between a > >real penalty double and an general values double. Anyway, these rulings are > >impossible because it comes down to break in tempo or not. And nobody knows > >what is normal tempo in this kind of situations. > > AG : well, if nobody knows what is normal, then nobody knows what is > abnormal, not even TDs and ACs - which means that no TD or AC has any right > to pretend that some UI came from abnormal tempo. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Tue Aug 5 19:19:07 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:19:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c35ae4$00ad3320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article , Gordon Bower writes > > snip good stuff > >Call me a cynic. But I have the feeling that the reason L12C3 is in the >book is as a catch-all that can be used as an excuse to justify it when an >un-law-educated committee makes an otherwise illegal ruling. Indeed >striking 12C3 from the book is #2 on my list of changes I'd most like to >see to the 2005 laws, right behind 25B. > As applied by the EBU TD's 12C3 works extremely well, and substantially reduces the number of appeals. I'd resist such a change very strongly. In your jurisdiction where the TD's don't use it I can see your position. On 25B, well we're all agreed with that. cheers John >GRB > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 5 09:44:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:44:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <000f01c35b87$5ac33140$1e39e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Ah! In that case you will have a copy of > > the EBU 'White Book'. Please consult 90.6.2 or > > thereabouts (with reference to "Use of an > > unlicensed convention") > > Thanks Grattan. There is a slight problem with > this since the EBU says of the White Book "This > book is currently out of print and somewhat out of > date. It was written for the 1985 Law book." One > assumes that where regulations (such as 90.6.2) > conflict with the 97 laws (such as L12) they will be > written for the next edition. don't think we can > cite the current white book as authoritative when > giving a ruling (although we can surely quote > references we *believe* are still valid). > +=+ I think this should read 'references that the EBU believes are still valid'. Before acting as a TD under EBU regulations you should obtain official guidance. The Director in Charge will not allow you to go your own way since the responsibility is his.+=+ > > A secondary problem is that if the auction goes > P-(P)-1S-(P)-3S where 1S was non R019 we cannot > apply 90.6.2 anyway. However if it goes 1S-(p)-4D > where 1S was (on the actual hand) Ro19 compliant > but (by agreement) may not have been then we > must adjust. > > I'd imagine that a new 90.6.2 could read something > like. > 1) The Director will assign an artificial score > according to the laws (84/12) > 2) A PP of 30% of a top, 9IMPs will be issued > > Tim > +=+ As I have been explaining (unsuccessfully) to DWS it appears that the EBU is purporting to exercise a power not given it under the Laws. The position is more complex than Tim acknowledges since entrants in EBU tournaments (e.g. Brighton) accept the conditions of entry which include the application of the 1997 Laws and the published regulations. I suspect that the intention of the EBU L&E committee was to apply the 'no conventions' rule to any 1NT not conforming to the EBU definition of 'natural'. The drafting was sloppy. Since the EBU (Bavin, Stevenson, Doe, probably Burn) is aware of the discussion it will be interesting to see if there is any reaction. They might just extend the effect of the 'no conventions' rule - this would be my expectation. We will soon find out. The updated White Book is about to appear; DWS was to implement the final adjustments to the text after the last L&E meeting I attended. My copy of the draft is around somewhere but having just brought all the stuff home that I was holding at work (we have moved out of the building) it is 'somewhere in the boxes'. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 5 10:35:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:35:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: Message-ID: <001001c35b87$5bf21450$1e39e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) > It would cure a lot of the perceived ills of the appeals > process, if having someone to inform the committee > of the law was an established part of the process. > +=+ Where is it not? The Chief Director is responsible for informing the AC of the Law and Regulations that apply. Let me add that, in the chair of an AC, if a doubt as to law/regulation arises I call the Director in to explain the law/regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 5 10:46:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:46:21 +0100 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas References: <1a8.17c4a71b.2c5cd579@aol.com> <001e01c3590e$f7b14530$24d6eb3e@cornelis> <000c01c359fe$56cf5760$6b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c35ad6$db70a680$eef5193e@4nrw70j> <000901c35b15$2e864c60$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001101c35b87$5d127870$1e39e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: Re: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas > Grattan, > > Thaks for your extensive explanation. But do > you realize that you basically say that the WBFLC > is not functioning. > > Jaap > +=+ No. I am not saying that.The WBFLC is of the opinion that any major change in the law would create too great a problem in the republication and reprinting of the laws world-wide to be justified unless a complete breakdown were occurring. That is its judgement, perhaps influenced by the once-in-10-years pointer in the by-laws. In the meantime it continues the regular work on interpretation and application of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 5 10:57:10 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:57:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000a01c35ab3$20c78ba0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c35b87$5e2bd7b0$1e39e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) > > No one seems to have commented on the fact > that a "Director Panel" handles appeals for the > lesser events at ACBL NABCs. The panel polls > appropriate players (peers, perhaps, or > experts) for opinions in all UI and MI cases. > Going by the NABC casebooks, the TD panels > do about as well as the ACs. > > I believe that is known as "damning with > faint praise." > > David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott have > been casebook commentators, and I would > like to know their opinions in regard to the > performance of TD panels. > +=+ I am so strongly of the view that the functions of Directors and the functions of AC members are disparate that any answer I might give would be prejudiced. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 5 21:05:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:05:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP Message-ID: <004b01c35b8d$3a9426d0$1311e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > We will soon find out. The updated White > Book is about to appear; DWS was to implement > the final adjustments to the text after the last > L&E meeting I attended. < +=+ I learn that the final review of the revised text will be at the forthcoming L&E meeting. After that I believe it remains to ratify the formal L&E minute at the subsequent meeting of the Council - or perhaps the L&E already has the mandate of Council to publish. 'About to appear' is a slight exaggeration but it is only a short distance away. Patience. ~ G ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Tue Aug 5 17:48:37 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:48:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: <000a01c35ab3$20c78ba0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC50@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000a01c35ab3$20c78ba0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French writes >David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott have been casebook commentators, and I >would like to know their opinions in regard to the performance of TD panels. Simple: they were pretty poor initially, but have got better and better as time has gone on. Nowadays their results are as good as ACs. -- 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 Aug 5 18:04:46 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:04:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c35ae4$00ad3320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Gordon Bower writes >Call me a cynic. But I have the feeling that the reason L12C3 is in the >book is as a catch-all that can be used as an excuse to justify it when an >un-law-educated committee makes an otherwise illegal ruling. Indeed >striking 12C3 from the book is #2 on my list of changes I'd most like to >see to the 2005 laws, right behind 25B. The reason L12C3 is in the book is because it is fairer and more acceptable to the players. I am not sure what you mean by a catchall. It is interesting at the criticisms made about L12C3 from people in areas that do not have it. My own view is that most of the criticisms would not be made if you had it available and saw it in action. ACs and TDs make legal rulings and decisions as far as possible, and that includes rulings where L12C3 is used. -- 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 Aug 5 18:10:37 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >A case brought before us last saturday gives more evidence about the need >of some official mention of 'mini-stops' or extending the stop procedure. >HdW was the TDC and we took a long, long time before giving him our >decision. The main reason for this is that we didn't find any law or other >official text to support our point of view. Surely there must exist some >jurisprudency ? > > xxxx > x > xxx > AQxxx > >Q10 xx >Kx QJ10xxx >KQxxx AJ10x >KJxx 10 > AKJxx > Axxx > x > xxx > >North / all > > N E S W > > p p 1S p > 3S* 4H X** p > 4S p p X > >* preemptive in nature but not barren at this vulnerability >** after some time > >The exact tempo of South's double was contested. >10 tricks were made. They should have been 11 with proper timing, as my >partner had duly demonstrated. >The TD decided to correct to 4HX-2 (500) and duly informed the OS of their >right to appeal, which they used.. >(NB : this I don't like ; if you have to assign an adjusted score, it >should be 200 according to L12C) > >The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : >1) fact : was there a tempo ? >2) did it transmit UI ? >3) was this UI used to some profit ? > >There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that South's >marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise at such >a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. Yes, it means there was no tempo break. When a strange action happens normal tempo is to take a few seconds, so 5 seconds on this sort of sequence is normal tempo. Thus #2 and #3 are moot. The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they minuted it so it is part of EBU jurisprudence, after a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton 2002 concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC Chairman was Nissan Rand of Israel, visiting us as EBL Seniors Chairman. -- 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 Aug 5 23:41:45 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:41:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <003c01c35aa6$df30e3a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009001c3598f$15b22e20$a8b64351@noos.fr> <0rZMrxAXHlL$Ewoj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003c01c35aa6$df30e3a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut writes >But dear DWS, now Sven has made his point so clear that even you must >understand him can you please explain what you were trying to say with your >wonderful (and utterly ridiculous): >'> Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law >> book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is >> misinformation. Of course you would say it is ridiculous: everything you either do not understand or do not agree with you demean. However, it is true despite your attitude. Perhaps not in Norway. From what Sven says it sounds as though Norway have a different interpretation from the rest of the world. However, the normal interpretation to which I refer is covered by WBFLC 1998-08-30#2 which says [inter alia]: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a ‘double shot’).' The wording 'normal error or misjudgement' is about the same level as 'inferior play'. So, 'inferior play' is not enough to deny redress in the normal way of things, and I am surprised if Norway does use this as its standard. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Aug 5 18:13:27 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:13:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A bad habit, and a L54C wrinkle In-Reply-To: <000801c35b02$fa6ebf50$6501a8c0@hare> References: <000801c35b02$fa6ebf50$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: Nancy T Dressing writes > >Why must we assume that the detached cards are trumps!!! If some dummies have a habit of detaching their trumps then we would make a ruling based on this. Of course, some dummies might just detach the nearest suit to the thumb. I would just give them a verbal warning. -- 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 Tue Aug 5 23:14:47 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:14:47 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, David Stevenson wrote: > It is interesting at the criticisms made about L12C3 from people in > areas that do not have it. My own view is that most of the criticisms > would not be made if you had it available and saw it in action. I will take one more stab at explaining myself here. (And along the way, I cleared up a couple of misconceptions I had about the footnote and the zonal election.) First, the misconceptions. I had the wrong impression that 12C3 was added to everyone's law book, and the part about whether directors could use it or not was an option. On reexamining I find this is not the case. In fact, in the ACBL, neither TDs nor ACs had this power and still don't. In the RoW, ACs had this power all along (formerly a footnote, but got its own number), and somehow this power got extended to TDs in one of those between-laws reinterpretations that noone outside the WBFLC and BLML ever hears about. L12C2 spells out clearly how to decide which score to award to each side. Plain and simple, and while not quite as mechanical as a revoke ruling, a lot easier to grab than this slippery thing called "equity." I incorrectly accused ACBL appeals committees of hiding behind 12C3 as an excuse for failing to find appropriate scores to assign. In fact, it seems the ACs that make up an "equitable" result on a board and impose it, are just doing something outright illegal. I remain puzzled that the RoW uses it or likes it or thinks it is better than 12C2. If my opponents' misexplanation causes me not to bid a slam on a two-way finesse, 12C2 is plain as day that I am entitled to make my slam. How is being told "sorry, we're going to take away your top and give you 60 or 70% of slam making and 30% of something else" going to make me like 12C3? People are accustomed to being penalized a bit when they cause a problem and being given a bit extra when their opponents spoil a board by doing something silly. There is nothing equitable about giving a pair a score that 12C2 says they don't deserve. > ACs and TDs make legal rulings and decisions as far as possible, and > that includes rulings where L12C3 is used. I may be unfairly saying "12C3 rulings" when what I actually mean are " 'weighted mixtures of scores instead of a single result' rulings." A number of these have been posted to BLML in the past few years .... and every last one of them has turned my stomach. If all that 12C3 was used for was to correct a director's error in judgment and vary the scores to match what 12C2 says they should have been in the first place, I'd not mind it at all. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 01:18:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:18:48 -0400 Subject: Rough justice - was Re: [blml] Bananas Message-ID: On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 05:46 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ No. I am not saying that.The WBFLC is of > the opinion that any major change in the law > would create too great a problem in the > republication and reprinting of the laws > world-wide to be justified unless a complete > breakdown were occurring. That is its > judgement, perhaps influenced by the > once-in-10-years pointer in the by-laws. > In the meantime it continues the regular > work on interpretation and application of > the laws. How old is that once-in-10-years pointer? Perhaps the WBFLC should consider the possible impact of the Internet on it. From bcarl82@yahoo.com Wed Aug 6 03:11:14 2003 From: bcarl82@yahoo.com (bcarl82@yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:11:14 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) hey its me Message-ID:
DON'T LOSE ANY MORE MONEY ON YOUR EXISTING HOME LOAN!

hey its me again, i was wondering if you'd be interested in this site

Every day thousands of Americans are saving money, don't be one of the few who miss out!
are you prepared for lower mortgage repayments?

From David Stevenson Wed Aug 6 01:51:32 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 01:51:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: <001b01c35b68$1dff41a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001b01c35b68$1dff41a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French writes > >From: "Gordon Bower" > >> >> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Marvin French wrote: >> >> It would cure a lot of the perceived ills of the appeals process, if >> having someone to inform the committee of the law was an established >> part of the process. > >Perhaps Linda Trent will comment on this. I believe Rich Colker has assumed >an advisory role for ACs in regard to the Laws and ACBL regulations. Capable >as he is, I would prefer that one of the top ACBL TDs, someone like Matt >Smith or Guillermo Poplawsky, perform that task. > >Rich is the NABC Appeals Administrator and Linda is the Appeals Manager The last time I was on an NABC AC that asked for a view on the laws the Chairman asked for the senior TD present, not Rich who was just outside the door at the 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 Wed Aug 6 01:55:26 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 01:55:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Bower writes >I remain puzzled that the RoW uses it or likes it or thinks it is better >than 12C2. If my opponents' misexplanation causes me not to bid a slam on >a two-way finesse, 12C2 is plain as day that I am entitled to make my >slam. How is being told "sorry, we're going to take away your top and give >you 60 or 70% of slam making and 30% of something else" going to make me >like 12C3? People are accustomed to being penalized a bit when they cause >a problem and being given a bit extra when their opponents spoil a board >by doing something silly. There is nothing equitable about giving a pair a >score that 12C2 says they don't deserve. Well, that's a view. But people who are exposed to it generally do not agree with your view. The Law book has a foreword that points out that the main aim is equity. L12C2 is not an equity Law: L12C3 is. You seem to dislike the concept of equity: fair enough. But many many people see equity as reasonable in the majority of situations where someone has made an honest mistake. -- 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 Wed Aug 6 06:09:56 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 01:09:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:55 AM +0100 8/6/03, David Stevenson wrote: >Well, that's a view. But people who are exposed to it (12C3) >generally do not agree with your view. Thanks to the miracle of the internet we're all exposed to it now if we want to be, for better of worse. >The Law book has a foreword that points out that the main aim is equity. I double. Is this what you mean? "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." I see no reference to equity. Rather I think its thrust is "no harm, no foul." The hedge with "primarily" is on account of the laws covering revokes. >L12C2 is not an equity Law: L12C3 is. You seem to dislike the >concept of equity: fair enough. But many many people see equity as >reasonable in the majority of situations where someone has made an >honest mistake. Here we come to a philosophical divide. I believe that infractions of law, intentional or not, ought to be penalized as if they were intentional. This is the only way to discourage future infractions, or, equivalently, to encourage compliance with the laws. That surely must be one purpose of the laws. It may be that many players who furnish MI or choose an illegal alternative when they have MI are making honest mistakes, but I assure you the less severe the consequences the more such mistakes we will see. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Wed Aug 6 06:20:42 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 01:20:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:14 PM -0800 8/5/03, Gordon Bower wrote: >I incorrectly accused ACBL appeals committees of hiding behind 12C3 as an >excuse for failing to find appropriate scores to assign. In fact, it seems >the ACs that make up an "equitable" result on a board and impose it, are >just doing something outright illegal. This seldom happens now at the NABC level. For the casebooks, including the latest from Phoenix, see http://66.147.103.154/html/contents.html#casebooks I'll be posting my summary of the last few casebooks shortly. >I remain puzzled that the RoW uses it or likes it or thinks it is better >than 12C2. Me too. I've written about it on BLML previously -- I haven't had the time to give it the attention I'd like. Briefly, I think that the aim of the laws ought to be justice, not equity. I also abhor any law that allows an AC to elevate their feelings over the rest of the laws, in effect turning an objective process into a subjective one. >I may be unfairly saying "12C3 rulings" when what I actually mean are >" 'weighted mixtures of scores instead of a single result' rulings." Some correspondents (DWS) have written that they are one and the same. Others (Grattan) have written that the law means just what it says -- an AC may assign any result its members judge equitable. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Aug 6 07:44:48 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 07:44:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) References: Message-ID: <002c01c35be6$6e5425c0$7d45e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 1:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) > > Well, that's a view. But people who are exposed > to it generally do not agree with your view. > > The Law book has a foreword that points out that > the main aim is equity. L12C2 is not an equity Law: > L12C3 is. You seem to dislike the concept of equity: > fair enough. But many many people see equity as > reasonable in the majority of situations where > someone has made an honest mistake. > +=+"The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage" ('Scope and Interpretation of the Laws') "Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." (12C3) The specific intention in 12C3 is to allow ACs to assign scores that do equity rather than administer punishment. The attitude of the Zone 1 authority has insisted this must be the objective going way back before 1985 and we held out for it when Kaplan was leading the charge towards the punitive 12C2. This is an example of a negotiated settlement; this list is sometimes harsh upon the lawmakers who, in fact, are all people dedicated to the achievement of optimum law, but who work in a political arena where they need the art of diplomacy and the skills of negotiation alongside their insight in the subject matter and their expertise in drafting. We live in the real world. And when people write of 'justice' they think 'punishment' and set aside the first principle of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 08:13:24 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:13:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) References: Message-ID: <001c01c35bea$af8c7ac0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Adam, I agree with all you say. Specially 'justice rather than equity'. For me equity means nothing. It is just a buzz word they use whenever they do something weird. > >L12C2 is not an equity Law: L12C3 is. You seem to dislike the > >concept of equity: fair enough. But many many people see equity as > >reasonable in the majority of situations where someone has made an > >honest mistake. > > Here we come to a philosophical divide. I believe that infractions of > law, intentional or not, ought to be penalized as if they were > intentional. This is the only way to discourage future infractions, > or, equivalently, to encourage compliance with the laws. That surely > must be one purpose of the laws. First. That 'honest mistake' thing is bullshit. A mistake is a mistake (honest by definition I guess), an infraction is an infraction. Second. I disagree completely with C3 is equity and C2 is not. I use C3 a lot (in Europe we do) and I see it as better justice than C2. So although I agree on the American principle (if you err you pay the price) I prefer European style sanctions (less severe). Adam: > It may be that many players who furnish MI or choose an illegal > alternative when they have MI are making honest mistakes, but I > assure you the less severe the consequences the more such mistakes we > will see. I don't believe in that. In Holland penal code penalties are laughable by American standards (no death, life without parole hardly exists, prison terms might be up to 100 times shorter, true for most European countries) still our crime rate is lower rather than higher than in the States. In general as soon as a penalty hurts increasing it has no real effects. So what I like in C3 is that we give the NOS their normal expectation rounded up rather than the best possible result which on certain hands can lead to (in European eyes) ridiculous rulings (and in non KO events there are other stakeholders as well). For the OS we can be as mean as we want depending on how serious we judge the infraction. There is a hell of a lot of difference between somebody giving a slightly wrong explanation (why penalise it on top of changing the result to the complement of the NOS ruling) and someone caught in in UI trap in the sense that any choice can be challenged (difficult to rule) and someone who should know better blatantly using UI (in which case also in Europe we know what to do). Also keep in mind that part of the penalty is that if you create a bad score you keep it. So in real life the NOS gets (way) more than their normal expectation already and the OS (way) less. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) > At 1:55 AM +0100 8/6/03, David Stevenson wrote: > >Well, that's a view. But people who are exposed to it (12C3) > >generally do not agree with your view. > > Thanks to the miracle of the internet we're all exposed to it now if > we want to be, for better of worse. > > >The Law book has a foreword that points out that the main aim is equity. > > I double. Is this what you mean? "The Laws are primarily designed not > as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." > I see no reference to equity. Rather I think its thrust is "no harm, > no foul." The hedge with "primarily" is on account of the laws > covering revokes. > > >L12C2 is not an equity Law: L12C3 is. You seem to dislike the > >concept of equity: fair enough. But many many people see equity as > >reasonable in the majority of situations where someone has made an > >honest mistake. > > Here we come to a philosophical divide. I believe that infractions of > law, intentional or not, ought to be penalized as if they were > intentional. This is the only way to discourage future infractions, > or, equivalently, to encourage compliance with the laws. That surely > must be one purpose of the laws. > > It may be that many players who furnish MI or choose an illegal > alternative when they have MI are making honest mistakes, but I > assure you the less severe the consequences the more such mistakes we > will see. > > -- > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 08:15:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:15:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <081201c35086$316f8de0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000101c350a3$c92a26a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009001c3598f$15b22e20$a8b64351@noos.fr> <0rZMrxAXHlL$Ewoj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003c01c35aa6$df30e3a0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001d01c35bea$afcf9e40$a8b64351@noos.fr> Dear DWS, As far as I know Norway is as normal as the rest of the world. I have made plenty of AC rulings in Holland and abroad on this subject. Yes I know the law, and yes the line between 'a normal error or misjudgement' and 'evidently irrational wild or gambling' is a matter of judgement. Those two concepts (and keep in mind that in other language laws there will be translation problems of words that vague) are rather far apart so there is a rather large gray zone in between. And I would not be surprised if Norway tends to be 'stricter' than average, but this doesn't make them special. > The wording 'normal error or misjudgement' is about the same level as > 'inferior play'. So, 'inferior play' is not enough to deny redress in > the normal way of things, and I am surprised if Norway does use this as > its standard. Thanks for the language lesson. But dear DWS, I don't think Norway does use this as its standard. What makes you think so by the way ? Because Sven said 'I would rule inferior play rather than MI' ? I might have said exactly the same meaning 'in my judgement the player himself is to blame and not the MI'. You might be right that this is a less than perfect way of putting things (but is it, it is clear and concise, only DWS doesn't like the wording). But 'we' assume we are discussing with people who know about the subject and can stand a reasonable amount of shorthand. And you as an English native speaker should be a litlle bit tolerant about the choice of words by non native speakers however well they speak your language. In the end you admit yourself that 'inferior play' is not in the law text and however close it is, according to DWS, to 'normal error and misjudgement' it is not the same, and IMHO not the same at all. For a poor player I might go along but for a good player inferior play is something completely different from a normal error or misjudgement. > Of course you would say it is ridiculous: everything you either do not > understand or do not agree with you demean. However, it is true despite > your attitude. I said it is ridiculous because for me it is. You say 'and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is misinformation'. It means nothing to me and it is logical nonsense to me. There is MI or there is no MI. Or is this an English grammar construct I don't understand. Anyway if I don't understand it (at the language level) it is a safe bet most people don't understand it. DWS > everything you either do not > understand or do not agree with you demean. I probably do this too much. Still 'everything' is a gross overstatement. But once more DWS, try to look at yourself sometimes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > Jaap van der Neut writes > > >But dear DWS, now Sven has made his point so clear that even you must > >understand him can you please explain what you were trying to say with your > >wonderful (and utterly ridiculous): > > >'> Seriously, Sven, there is no Law against inferior play in the Law > >> book, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > >> misinformation. > > Of course you would say it is ridiculous: everything you either do not > understand or do not agree with you demean. However, it is true despite > your attitude. > > Perhaps not in Norway. From what Sven says it sounds as though Norway > have a different interpretation from the rest of the world. However, > the normal interpretation to which I refer is covered by > > WBFLC 1998-08-30#2 > > which says [inter alia]: > > '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’).' > > The wording 'normal error or misjudgement' is about the same level as > 'inferior play'. So, 'inferior play' is not enough to deny redress in > the normal way of things, and I am surprised if Norway does use this as > its standard. > > -- > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 08:16:37 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:16:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001e01c35bea$b012c1c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> David, You are really a terrible guy to discuss with. You simply ignore what others say. David: > Yes, it means there was no tempo break. When a strange action happens > normal tempo is to take a few seconds, so 5 seconds on this sort of > sequence is normal tempo. Thus #2 and #3 are moot. As long as it is legal to bid in 1 second as well (and people do all the time) we just legalized the wonderful system 'quick double = penalty' and '5 sec double = doubts'. As I said before I agree 5 seconds is a kind of normal tempo IF YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF PROBLEM and it is normal to have some kind of problem in a sequence like this. But to hide the fact that you have a problem or not it should be illegal to bid in 1 second. So you need some kind of stop rule. Or in other words, we have to enforce whatever we consider normal tempo. > The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they minuted it so it is > part of EBU jurisprudence, after a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton > 2002 concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC Chairman was Nissan > Rand of Israel, visiting us as EBL Seniors Chairman. Nissan Rand is not the Pope. And the fact he was chosen as EBL Seniors Chairman (a political issue) doesn't mean he knows or doesn't know anything about bridge (actually he does) or bridge laws (I don't know). Anyway if the EBL/EBU like to dodge the issue like this of course the have the right to do so. Anyway I know the problem because I had to rule cases like this myself and the only conclusion is 'the laws suck' and '***** the lawmakers'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > Alain Gottcheiner writes > > >A case brought before us last saturday gives more evidence about the need > >of some official mention of 'mini-stops' or extending the stop procedure. > >HdW was the TDC and we took a long, long time before giving him our > >decision. The main reason for this is that we didn't find any law or other > >official text to support our point of view. Surely there must exist some > >jurisprudency ? > > > > xxxx > > x > > xxx > > AQxxx > > > >Q10 xx > >Kx QJ10xxx > >KQxxx AJ10x > >KJxx 10 > > AKJxx > > Axxx > > x > > xxx > > > >North / all > > > > N E S W > > > > p p 1S p > > 3S* 4H X** p > > 4S p p X > > > >* preemptive in nature but not barren at this vulnerability > >** after some time > > > >The exact tempo of South's double was contested. > >10 tricks were made. They should have been 11 with proper timing, as my > >partner had duly demonstrated. > >The TD decided to correct to 4HX-2 (500) and duly informed the OS of their > >right to appeal, which they used.. > >(NB : this I don't like ; if you have to assign an adjusted score, it > >should be 200 according to L12C) > > > >The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : > >1) fact : was there a tempo ? > >2) did it transmit UI ? > >3) was this UI used to some profit ? > > > >There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that South's > >marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise at such > >a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. > > Yes, it means there was no tempo break. When a strange action happens > normal tempo is to take a few seconds, so 5 seconds on this sort of > sequence is normal tempo. Thus #2 and #3 are moot. > > The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they minuted it so it is > part of EBU jurisprudence, after a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton > 2002 concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC Chairman was Nissan > Rand of Israel, visiting us as EBL Seniors Chairman. > > -- > 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 toddz@att.net Wed Aug 6 08:38:15 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 03:38:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <001e01c35bea$b012c1c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut > Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > > [snippage out of order] > Or in other words, we have to enforce whatever we > consider normal tempo. Well, you said it yourself -- "we". Not what the Law decrees as normal tempo, not what the regulations specify as normal tempo, not what LHO insists should have been normal tempo, and not what some silly, unnecessary mini-stop rule would suggest is normal tempo. > So you need some kind of stop rule. Absent a specific rule you use common sense when applying a general rule. So you'd ask some question like was there abnormal tempo considering the circumstances? You'd probably follow up a yes response by figuring out if the tempo suggested anything, and so on. -Todd From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 6 09:06:38 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:06:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <001e01c35bea$b012c1c0$a8b64351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030806094741.01d3cb10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:16 6/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >David, > >You are really a terrible guy to discuss with. You simply ignore what= others >say. AG : SMOff : I had some trouble understanding Jaap here. The first sentence= =20 looked like a compliment. In French, 'terrible' means 'terrible, dreadful', but is also used as a=20 superlative, not unlike English 'terrific'. Then the second sentence put me back on the trail. SMOn : your opinions aren't as distant from eachother as Jaap wants them to= =20 appear. I'll try some synthesis. Assume that North's hand is a problem in this sequence, that both pass and= =20 4S are serious LAs (this seemed right to several contributors). The *normal* tempo over 4H is to hesitate slightly, because the sequence is= =20 unexpected. Doubling in a split second is *not* the normal tempo. It is sometimes done,= =20 but incorrect. Even without the mini-stop principle, we might point at the= =20 word 'haste' in L73C and L73A2. For these reasons : - if North passes a very quick double, he might be deemed to have used UI.= =20 This is often overlooked by TDs and ACS, especially if North argues that=20 'penalty doubles are for being left in'. We should, in such a case, use=20 L16B and adjust to 4S making whatever, if the NS score for that contract is= =20 worse than the score for 4HX. - if North takes out a neither-quick-nor-very-slow double, as was the case= =20 here, he didn't use UI, because there was no UI. Contrast with the case of a forcing pass at high level, which, with or=20 without tempo, means 'I'm uncertain', which makes the tempo irrelevant. The difference between 'I'm certain that I'm uncertain' and 'I'm uncertain= =20 that I'm uncertain' is, er, uncertain. (would that make a fair ko=E2n ?) The assertion that both a quick and a semi-slow double create UI is=20 untenable, as it would make every double UI-generating. One of those=20 actions should be treated as proper, and IMOBO it's the latter. Of course, we'd be better off demanding a tempo in such a case, and David's= =20 mention of a rising jurisprudency in that direction is good news. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 6 08:51:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:51:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c35bef$9a5e79a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ......... > Perhaps not in Norway. From what Sven says it sounds as though Norway > have a different interpretation from the rest of the world. However, > the normal interpretation to which I refer is covered by > > WBFLC 1998-08-30#2 > > which says [inter alia]: > > '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').' > > The wording 'normal error or misjudgement' is about the same level as > 'inferior play'. So, 'inferior play' is not enough to deny redress in > the normal way of things, and I am surprised if Norway does use this as > its standard. I believe the apparent difference is a question of where we draw the line for ruling an action to be "irrational, wild or gambling". The way I understand it we do not compensate NOS for "damage" caused by inferior play subsequent to an infraction unless there is some tangible connection between the infraction as such and the subsequent inferior play. Regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Aug 6 08:56:59 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) References: Message-ID: <001101c35bf0$50a86e00$37db8051@pbncomputer> Adam wrote: > I double. Is this what you mean? "The Laws are primarily designed not > as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." It has just struck me that this sentence is complete nonsense, and ought to be changed. The Laws are designed as Laws. What should be said is: "The Laws are primarily designed not to punish irregularities, but to provide redress for damage". Of course, this presumes that the retention of this pious nonsense is considered desirable in the first place, which in my view it is not. > I see no reference to equity. Rather I think its thrust is "no harm, > no foul." The hedge with "primarily" is on account of the laws > covering revokes. Also the laws conerning bids and plays out of turn, insufficient bids, and just about everything else. There is nothing "equitable" in the notion that a player who has bid out of turn must guess the right contract for his side with his next call; this "restitution" is far too severe if "equity" is the objective. > Here we come to a philosophical divide. I believe that infractions of > law, intentional or not, ought to be penalized as if they were > intentional. This is the only way to discourage future infractions, > or, equivalently, to encourage compliance with the laws. That surely > must be one purpose of the laws. This is entirely correct; it is hard to conceive a sensible alternative. My own view is that an offending side has (whether deliberately or otherwise) forfeited its right to an equitable result by committing an offence, whereas a non-offending side has not earned the right to a better than equitable result by having an offence committed against it. Hence, I think that an offending side should receive its 12C2 score (the worst among likely outcomes), while a non-offending side should receive its 12C3 score (a result in accordance with its expectation if the infraction had not occurred). David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Aug 6 12:46:02 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:46:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] new addresses Message-ID: <3F30EA7A.8000307@hdw.be> My old address remains working, but I have also started my own domain name: hdw.be My blml-address is now : blml@hdw.be normal mail can be sent to hermandw@hdw.be But there is -at the moment- no need to alter your address-book. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Aug 6 13:32:21 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:32:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030806082402.026501e0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:10 PM 8/5/03, David wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner writes > > >The AC had to handle the 3 usual questions : > >1) fact : was there a tempo ? > >2) did it transmit UI ? > >3) was this UI used to some profit ? > > > >There was a neutral kibitzer ; the AC heard him. He told us that > South's > >marked a short pause, about 5 seconds, compatible with the surprise > at such > >a strange bidding sequence (pass-then-4H). That settles item 1. > > Yes, it means there was no tempo break. When a strange action happens >normal tempo is to take a few seconds, so 5 seconds on this sort of >sequence is normal tempo. Thus #2 and #3 are moot. > > The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they minuted it so it is >part of EBU jurisprudence, after a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton >2002 concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC Chairman was Nissan >Rand of Israel, visiting us as EBL Seniors Chairman. Common sense says you can't be put in a position where you will be deemed to have given UI no matter what you do. In any situation in which an immediate call that appears to be taken without thought would be held to transmit UI, a five-second pause clearly must not be. We should never adjust a score after a player's action works to his advantage if we would have adjusted the score had he instead taken the opposite action and that had worked to his advantage. 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 Aug 6 13:42:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:42:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) In-Reply-To: References: <001b01c35b68$1dff41a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c35b68$1dff41a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030806083824.02650630@pop.starpower.net> At 08:51 PM 8/5/03, David wrote: >Marvin French writes > > > >Perhaps Linda Trent will comment on this. I believe Rich Colker has > assumed > >an advisory role for ACs in regard to the Laws and ACBL regulations. > Capable > >as he is, I would prefer that one of the top ACBL TDs, someone like Matt > >Smith or Guillermo Poplawsky, perform that task. > > > >Rich is the NABC Appeals Administrator and Linda is the Appeals Manager > > The last time I was on an NABC AC that asked for a view on the laws >the Chairman asked for the senior TD present, not Rich who was just >outside the door at the time. Mr. Colker is also the ACBL's National Recorder. I would assume that, in that capacity, part of his job is to stand by at NABC appeals in case the AC asks for input about a player's recorded questionable past actions. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 16:24:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:24:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <001601c35b76$160e2480$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <027D17F9-C822-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 13:21 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > We need to define normal tempo I don't think this is possible, unless you intend to force every player to call at the same "normal tempo". As it stands, what's normal tempo for me may well be slow tempo for you, and what's normal for you may be fast for me, and while most players may fit into a certain "window", not all will. For a couple players at the clubs here, "normal tempo" seems to be somewhere between 30 seconds and a couple of minutes. Telling them they have to call within 3-5 seconds, or some other arbitrary short time period, ain't gonna work. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 16:40:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:40:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: <002c01c35be6$6e5425c0$7d45e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5BDC20BE-C824-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 02:44 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > We live in the real world. And when people write of > 'justice' they think 'punishment' and set > aside the first principle of the law. =46rom Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: Main Entry: jus=B7tice Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; = Old English=20 justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus Date: 12th century 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by=20= the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of=20 merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law;=20= especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to=20= the rules of law or equity 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the=20 principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to=20= this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming=20 to law 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS Notice "equity" in 1c. :-) Also, 1a and 2a refer to "just". Main Entry: 2just Pronunciation: 'j&st Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; = Middle French=20 juste, from Latin justus, from jus right, law; akin to Sanskrit yos=20 welfare Date: 14th century 1 a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : REASONABLE =20= b archaic : faithful to an=20 original c : conforming to a standard of correctness : PROPER 2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or=20= good : RIGHTEOUS (2) : being what is merited : DESERVED =20= b : legally correct : LAWFUL synonym see FAIR, UPRIGHT So while I see an element of punishment in "justice", it seems to me a=20= small element compared to "fairness" or "reasonableness". Maybe I don't=20= live in the real world. :)= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 16:48:57 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:48:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <001d01c35bea$afcf9e40$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <7D55B872-C825-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Thanks for the language lesson. But dear DWS, I don't think Norway > does use > this as its standard. What makes you think so by the way ? Because > Sven said > 'I would rule inferior play rather than MI' ? I might have said > exactly the > same meaning 'in my judgement the player himself is to blame and not > the > MI'. You might be right that this is a less than perfect way of putting > things (but is it, it is clear and concise, only DWS doesn't like the > wording). Careful, there, Jaap. DWS objected to the statement. He didn't say it was the wording. It may have been, or it may have been (his interpretation of) the meaning. And others here have not yet weighed in on the question. I haven't, for instance. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Aug 6 16:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <000f01c35b87$5ac33140$1e39e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I think this should read 'references that the EBU > believes are still valid'. Before acting as a TD under > EBU regulations you should obtain official guidance. > The Director in Charge will not allow you to go your > own way since the responsibility is his.+=+ Of course. However about 98% of boards played under EBU regulations have but a single director running them. Those directors should be ruling according to their own abilities/knowledge/beliefs. > > > > A secondary problem is that if the auction goes > > P-(P)-1S-(P)-3S where 1S was non R019 we cannot > > apply 90.6.2 anyway. However if it goes 1S-(p)-4D > > where 1S was (on the actual hand) Ro19 compliant > > but (by agreement) may not have been then we > > must adjust. > > > > I'd imagine that a new 90.6.2 could read something > > like. 1) The Director will assign an artificial score > > according to the laws (84/12) > > 2) A PP of 30% of a top, 9IMPs will be issued > > > > Tim > > > +=+ As I have been explaining (unsuccessfully) > to DWS it appears that the EBU is purporting to > exercise a power not given it under the Laws. The > position is more complex than Tim acknowledges > since entrants in EBU tournaments (e.g. Brighton) > accept the conditions of entry which include the > application of the 1997 Laws and the published > regulations. I agree. However we must then say "Can the current regulations be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the current laws?". If such a reading can be found then that is what players are agreeing to. > I suspect that the intention of the EBU L&E > committee was to apply the 'no conventions' rule > to any 1NT not conforming to the EBU definition > of 'natural'. Well from what DWS wrote the intention of the EBU was to prevent players opening off-shape 1NTs. > The drafting was sloppy. Since the > EBU (Bavin, Stevenson, Doe, probably Burn) is > aware of the discussion it will be interesting > to see if there is any reaction. They might just > extend the effect of the 'no conventions' rule - > this would be my expectation. You could be right. My hope is that they will actually acknowledge that some off-shape hands occasionally arise where, for reasons of tactics/other systemic agreements the "best bid" feels like 1NT. They did this for 4441/5431 with singleton honour and put the obligation for good disclosure firmly on pairs with this philosophical approach (which is where it belongs of course). > We will soon find out. The updated White > Book is about to appear; DWS was to implement > the final adjustments to the text after the last > L&E meeting I attended. My copy of the draft is > around somewhere but having just brought all > the stuff home that I was holding at work (we > have moved out of the building) it is 'somewhere > in the boxes'. Just as point of principle I think we must acknowledge that the right to regulate under L40d cannot override other laws. I do not believe an SO should be allowed to license my version of "super scramble": After 1N-(X)- 2S shows either a weak hand with spade shortage or a number of strong hands. Opener may subsequently bid an insufficient 2C/D/H without penalty. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Aug 6 16:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > > The wording 'normal error or misjudgement' is about the same level as > 'inferior play'. So, 'inferior play' is not enough to deny redress in > the normal way of things, and I am surprised if Norway does use this as > its standard. It is, I hope, legal to rule "In my opinion (after consultation) the same inferior play would have been found absent the MI - no damage, no adjustment." It would not be legal to rule that way in UI cases of course. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Aug 6 16:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > If my opponents' misexplanation causes me not to bid a slam on > a two-way finesse, 12C2 is plain as day that I am entitled to make my > slam. How is being told "sorry, we're going to take away your top and > give you 60 or 70% of slam making and 30% of something else" going to > make me like 12C3? Look at it another way Gordon. If I offer you 70% of two-way guess slams making for the rest of your life will you take it? As a corollary if I judge that there is only 60% chance of you bidding such a slam and a 50% chance of making it I will not (under L12C2) award you any benefit from this possibility. And if I award the full value of a making slam to one of your competitors in an event thus depriving you of victory might you not feel a little bit peeved? L12c3 is open to abuse (as are so many others). It is also capable of intelligent application to award a "good deal" to the NOS without overly distorting the results. What is your MP expectation at the moment of the infraction? Would an offer of: 55% of slam made 20% of bid 5 making 6 15% of 5 made 10% of slam -1 be a deal you could contemplate refusing? I'll still be giving your opps 100% of 6S making under L12c2 so I think I have enough deterrent up my sleeve to satisfy most. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 17:04:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:04:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: <001c01c35bea$af8c7ac0$a8b64351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 03:13 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > First. That 'honest mistake' thing is bullshit. A mistake is a mistake > (honest by definition I guess), an infraction is an infraction. Perhaps an infraction is a gerbil. :-) "Mistake" means "error". There is no implication of duplicity in the word. My dictionary says of these " ERROR suggests the existence of a standard or guide and a straying from the right course through failure to make effective use of this . MISTAKE implies misconception or inadvertence and usually expresses less criticism than error." "Honest" means "free from fraud or deception". So perhaps technically "honest mistake" is a redundancy because yes, a mistake is honest by definition. But it is a common phrase in English *because* people (and laws) have a tendency to treat a mistake as (possibly) dishonest. > Second. I disagree completely with C3 is equity and C2 is not. I use > C3 a > lot (in Europe we do) and I see it as better justice than C2. So > although I > agree on the American principle (if you err you pay the price) I prefer > European style sanctions (less severe). I'm an American; I have no experience with C3, so I can't comment on the relative merits of C3 and C2. But I will say that while a preference for less severe sanctions may lead you to conclude that C3 is "better justice" than C2, I'm not so sure that's a correct conclusion. > Adam: >> It may be that many players who furnish MI or choose an illegal >> alternative when they have MI are making honest mistakes, but I >> assure you the less severe the consequences the more such mistakes we >> will see. > > I don't believe in that. [snip - I will *not* get into a discussion of the relative merits of various countries' penal codes here] I can't speak to Adam's experience on this subject, and mine is admittedly limited, but *in* *this* *country*, I believe he is correct. Keep in mind that the customs of your tribe (or mine, or anyone else's) are not laws of nature. > So what I like in C3 is that we give the NOS their normal expectation > rounded up rather than the best possible result which on certain hands > can > lead to (in European eyes) ridiculous rulings (and in non KO events > there are other > stakeholders as well). For the OS we can be as mean as we want > depending on > how serious we judge the infraction. There is a hell of a lot of > difference > between somebody giving a slightly wrong explanation (why penalise it > on top > of changing the result to the complement of the NOS ruling) and > someone caught > in in UI trap in the sense that any choice can be challenged > (difficult to > rule) and someone who should know better blatantly using UI (in which > case > also in Europe we know what to do). Um. I'm not sure my poor brain grasps what you're trying to say here. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 17:34:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:34:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] new addresses In-Reply-To: <3F30EA7A.8000307@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 07:46 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > But there is -at the moment- no need to alter your address-book. Address book? I have an address book? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 6 17:40:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:40:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 11:56 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Just as point of principle I think we must acknowledge that the right > to > regulate under L40d cannot override other laws. While I agree that this should be the case, I'm under the impression that the WBFLC have said it is not. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 17:52:32 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:52:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) References: Message-ID: <000c01c35c43$365dff80$aaae53d4@Default> Ed: > I'm an American; I have no experience with C3, so I can't comment on > the relative merits of C3 and C2. But I will say that while a > preference for less severe sanctions may lead you to conclude that C3 > is "better justice" than C2, I'm not so sure that's a correct > conclusion. Ed: > Um. I'm not sure my poor brain grasps what you're trying to say here. Read todays mail by David Burn. He puts it much better than I could ever dream of. Also Tim W=M has a useful mail on the subject. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) > > On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 03:13 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > First. That 'honest mistake' thing is bullshit. A mistake is a mistake > > (honest by definition I guess), an infraction is an infraction. > > Perhaps an infraction is a gerbil. :-) > > "Mistake" means "error". There is no implication of duplicity in the > word. My dictionary says of these " ERROR suggests the existence of a > standard or guide and a straying from the right course through failure > to make effective use of this . MISTAKE implies > misconception or inadvertence and usually expresses less criticism than > error." > > "Honest" means "free from fraud or deception". So perhaps technically > "honest mistake" is a redundancy because yes, a mistake is honest by > definition. But it is a common phrase in English *because* people (and > laws) have a tendency to treat a mistake as (possibly) dishonest. > > > Second. I disagree completely with C3 is equity and C2 is not. I use > > C3 a > > lot (in Europe we do) and I see it as better justice than C2. So > > although I > > agree on the American principle (if you err you pay the price) I prefer > > European style sanctions (less severe). > > I'm an American; I have no experience with C3, so I can't comment on > the relative merits of C3 and C2. But I will say that while a > preference for less severe sanctions may lead you to conclude that C3 > is "better justice" than C2, I'm not so sure that's a correct > conclusion. > > > Adam: > >> It may be that many players who furnish MI or choose an illegal > >> alternative when they have MI are making honest mistakes, but I > >> assure you the less severe the consequences the more such mistakes we > >> will see. > > > > I don't believe in that. > > [snip - I will *not* get into a discussion of the relative merits of > various countries' penal codes here] > > I can't speak to Adam's experience on this subject, and mine is > admittedly limited, but *in* *this* *country*, I believe he is correct. > Keep in mind that the customs of your tribe (or mine, or anyone else's) > are not laws of nature. > > > So what I like in C3 is that we give the NOS their normal expectation > > rounded up rather than the best possible result which on certain hands > > can > > lead to (in European eyes) ridiculous rulings (and in non KO events > > there are other > > stakeholders as well). For the OS we can be as mean as we want > > depending on > > how serious we judge the infraction. There is a hell of a lot of > > difference > > between somebody giving a slightly wrong explanation (why penalise it > > on top > > of changing the result to the complement of the NOS ruling) and > > someone caught > > in in UI trap in the sense that any choice can be challenged > > (difficult to > > rule) and someone who should know better blatantly using UI (in which > > case > > also in Europe we know what to do). > > Um. I'm not sure my poor brain grasps what you're trying to say here. > :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 18:25:31 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:25:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: Message-ID: <001001c35c43$3a858920$aaae53d4@Default> Tim: > It is, I hope, legal to rule "In my opinion (after consultation) the same > inferior play would have been found absent the MI - no damage, no > adjustment." It would not be legal to rule that way in UI cases of > course. Of course it is. If not MI 'automatically' leads to an adjusted score. So we might as well quit play the moment the MI surfaces. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > DWS wrote: > > > > The wording 'normal error or misjudgement' is about the same level as > > 'inferior play'. So, 'inferior play' is not enough to deny redress in > > the normal way of things, and I am surprised if Norway does use this as > > its standard. > > It is, I hope, legal to rule "In my opinion (after consultation) the same > inferior play would have been found absent the MI - no damage, no > adjustment." It would not be legal to rule that way in UI cases of > course. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 18:13:36 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:13:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <027D17F9-C822-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c35c43$38b11740$aaae53d4@Default> Ed: > I don't think this is possible, unless you intend to force every player > to call at the same "normal tempo". As it stands, what's normal tempo > for me may well be slow tempo for you, and what's normal for you may be > fast for me, and while most players may fit into a certain "window", > not all will. For a couple players at the clubs here, "normal tempo" > seems to be somewhere between 30 seconds and a couple of minutes. > Telling them they have to call within 3-5 seconds, or some other > arbitrary short time period, ain't gonna work. Of course you are right. But you are also wrong. For this problem we invented the stop rule. You get 10 secs. You have to take them and taking longer means you are out of normal tempo whatever you claim as your habits. Now the problem is that STOP only applies after jumps. Only a minority of the jump situations are tempo sensitive so most of the STOP's beat air. But there are all kind of time sensitive situations (first round, competition) where the stop rule doesn't apply which creates problem because despite what all of you say about normal tempo, people transfer info all the time by tempo in this situation. In most cases not even intentional (play Italians without screens, great fun). There are two solutions. One. In France they play basically everything (FFB events) with screens (also rather low level competition). You will run into all kind of funny sequences and misunderstandings you never see without screens. Two. Extending the STOP rule to the first round of bidding and competitive situations. The big advantage of stop is that it regulates normal tempo. And of course there is a third option. Ignoring the problem by declaring that around 5 seconds or whatever is normal tempo. But since nobody is going to nail you on 2 or 8 there is great scope for 'communication'. And yes as an AC I can do something about split second and about a long pause. But most players are smart enough to avoid those two extremes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > > On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 13:21 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > We need to define normal tempo > > I don't think this is possible, unless you intend to force every player > to call at the same "normal tempo". As it stands, what's normal tempo > for me may well be slow tempo for you, and what's normal for you may be > fast for me, and while most players may fit into a certain "window", > not all will. For a couple players at the clubs here, "normal tempo" > seems to be somewhere between 30 seconds and a couple of minutes. > Telling them they have to call within 3-5 seconds, or some other > arbitrary short time period, ain't gonna work. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 18:23:38 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:23:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <7D55B872-C825-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000f01c35c43$39acdc60$aaae53d4@Default> Ed: > Careful, there, Jaap. DWS objected to the statement. He didn't say it > was the wording. It may have been, or it may have been (his > interpretation of) the meaning. And others here have not yet weighed in > on the question. I haven't, for instance. Careful ? In three mails DWS said a lot but failed to explain what he objected to. Objecting that way is pointless. But he managed to produce an English statement '... and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' which I didn't understand. A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. Maybe too harsh. But nobody said I was wrong in that assertion. Maybe you can explain what the above DWS phrase means. In the end it is supposed to be his objection (to what by the way). It doesn't happen that often that I am really lost trying to understand an English phrase. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Thanks for the language lesson. But dear DWS, I don't think Norway > > does use > > this as its standard. What makes you think so by the way ? Because > > Sven said > > 'I would rule inferior play rather than MI' ? I might have said > > exactly the > > same meaning 'in my judgement the player himself is to blame and not > > the > > MI'. You might be right that this is a less than perfect way of putting > > things (but is it, it is clear and concise, only DWS doesn't like the > > wording). > > Careful, there, Jaap. DWS objected to the statement. He didn't say it > was the wording. It may have been, or it may have been (his > interpretation of) the meaning. And others here have not yet weighed in > on the question. I haven't, for instance. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 6 18:11:15 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:11:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030806094741.01d3cb10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c35c43$379b6180$aaae53d4@Default> AG: The assertion that both a quick and a semi-slow double create UI is untenable, as it would make every double UI-generating. One of those actions should be treated as proper, and IMOBO it's the latter. As long as there is no formal rule about what constitutes normal tempo everybodys tempo is as good as yours or mine. Anyway if you think it is normal to take some time in this situation (I agree by the way) what is wrong by formalizing it by a stop rule (which explicitly prohibits quick bids and, more general, tempo variations). AG: Of course, we'd be better off demanding a tempo in such a case, and David= 's mention of a rising jurisprudency in that direction is good news. This jurisprudency is non existent for the moment. Yes there are a couple= of rulings. I am sure they will be contradictionary if you analyse them. Any= way if the jurisprudency really is going to be that (say) 5 seconds is normal tempo in competitive situations (definition please !) what is wrong by formalizing it by a stop rule. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "David Stevenson" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop At 09:16 6/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >David, > >You are really a terrible guy to discuss with. You simply ignore what others >say. AG : SMOff : I had some trouble understanding Jaap here. The first senten= ce looked like a compliment. In French, 'terrible' means 'terrible, dreadful', but is also used as a superlative, not unlike English 'terrific'. Then the second sentence put me back on the trail. SMOn : your opinions aren't as distant from eachother as Jaap wants them = to appear. I'll try some synthesis. Assume that North's hand is a problem in this sequence, that both pass an= d 4S are serious LAs (this seemed right to several contributors). The *normal* tempo over 4H is to hesitate slightly, because the sequence = is unexpected. Doubling in a split second is *not* the normal tempo. It is sometimes don= e, but incorrect. Even without the mini-stop principle, we might point at th= e word 'haste' in L73C and L73A2. For these reasons : - if North passes a very quick double, he might be deemed to have used UI= =2E This is often overlooked by TDs and ACS, especially if North argues that 'penalty doubles are for being left in'. We should, in such a case, use L16B and adjust to 4S making whatever, if the NS score for that contract = is worse than the score for 4HX. - if North takes out a neither-quick-nor-very-slow double, as was the cas= e here, he didn't use UI, because there was no UI. Contrast with the case of a forcing pass at high level, which, with or without tempo, means 'I'm uncertain', which makes the tempo irrelevant. The difference between 'I'm certain that I'm uncertain' and 'I'm uncertai= n that I'm uncertain' is, er, uncertain. (would that make a fair ko=E2n ?) The assertion that both a quick and a semi-slow double create UI is untenable, as it would make every double UI-generating. One of those actions should be treated as proper, and IMOBO it's the latter. Of course, we'd be better off demanding a tempo in such a case, and David= 's mention of a rising jurisprudency in that direction is good news. Best regards, Alain. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 6 19:41:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:41:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <000e01c35c43$38b11740$aaae53d4@Default> Message-ID: <000301c35c4a$58cf45e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ..........=20 > Of course you are right. But you are also wrong. For this problem we > invented the stop rule. You get 10 secs. You have to take them and = taking > longer means you are out of normal tempo whatever you claim as your > habits. >=20 > Now the problem is that STOP only applies after jumps.=20 ......... > There are two solutions. ......... > Two. Extending the STOP rule to the first round of bidding and = competitive > situations. The big advantage of stop is that it regulates normal = tempo. ......... I wonder if it would not be of interest to quote the current STOP = regulation in force in Norway: STOP with a compulsory pause for thought shall be used: - With any opening bid at the level two or higher - With all jump bids - With all calls except PASS at the level three or higher in competitive auctions. I believe this last rule would have solved the problem with the = "surprising" 4H bid in the auction that started this thread? And just as a reminder: It is the responsibility of the player producing = the STOP to regulate the delay for his LHO who is supposed to make his call = with no further delay when the STOP card is retracted except that he is = always entitled to his full ten seconds pause for thought also when the STOP = card is retracted before ten seconds have elapsed. Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 6 20:09:29 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:09:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <027D17F9-C822-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c35c4e$44484fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" , Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > We need to define normal tempo > > I don't think this is possible, unless you intend to force every player > to call at the same "normal tempo". As it stands, what's normal tempo > for me may well be slow tempo for you, and what's normal for you may be > fast for me, and while most players may fit into a certain "window", > not all will. For a couple players at the clubs here, "normal tempo" > seems to be somewhere between 30 seconds and a couple of minutes. > Telling them they have to call within 3-5 seconds, or some other > arbitrary short time period, ain't gonna work. Tempo is only part of it. For most players, we can tell whether a player has a problem or not by many factors, tempo being only one of them. Beginners must be told that they should act as if they have a problem with every call on the first round and on every call made over an opposing action. Like it or not, it's the Law, like following suit, and the Laws should be enforced for everyone. Whatever then becomes "normal tempo" for a player, fast or slow, must be maintained in all UI-sensitive situations if UI is to be avoided. Yes, call the TD and say, "My opponent is varying his/her behavior in UI-sensitive situations." Something like that. If it seems to be true, a lecture follows, with continued violations subject to PPs or worse. I didn't know what good ethics were until I kibitzed our recent Hall of Fame inductee Tobias Stone playing with Bill Root in a pair event at the nationals in New York City (1955?). They made every call and defensive play with the same degree of deliberateness, very impressive. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Aug 6 20:21:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:21:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 11:56 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Just as point of principle I think we must acknowledge > > that the right to regulate under L40d cannot override > > other laws. > > While I agree that this should be the case, I'm under > the impression that the WBFLC have said it is not. > +=+ The WBF has ruled that the discretion to regulate granted by specific laws like 40D, 40E, 78D, 80E, etc., which are concerned with regulation of specific matters, is restricted only by the terms of the specific law and is not overridden by Law 80F which provides for the general regulation of further matters not provided for in specific laws. If it were otherwise Law 40D, for example, would commence 'Subject to Law 80F... ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Aug 6 21:11:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:11:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c35c56$f36ff750$2e3ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > Yes, it means there was no tempo break. When a > strange action happens normal tempo is to take a > few seconds, so 5 seconds on this sort of sequence > is normal tempo. Thus #2 and #3 are moot. > > The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they > minuted it so it is part of EBU jurisprudence, after > a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton 2002 > concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC > Chairman was Nissan Rand of Israel, visiting us > as EBL Seniors Chairman. > +=+ WBF CoP - revised December 2001 - see Notes on Rulings number 5. See also Monaco C of C amendments re Law 16 in Section 25.3. The trend in international TACs is not to jump in precipitately on delays in return of tray when the auction has taken an unanticipated turn. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Aug 6 23:19:41 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:19:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003901c35c68$d6096540$370858db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 7:22 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Of what small spots pure white complains." > - John Donne. > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:40 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > > > On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 11:56 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads > wrote: > > > > > Just as point of principle I think we must acknowledge > > > that the right to regulate under L40d cannot override > > > other laws. > > > > While I agree that this should be the case, I'm under > > the impression that the WBFLC have said it is not. > > > +=+ The WBF has ruled that the discretion to regulate > granted by specific laws like 40D, 40E, 78D, 80E, etc., > which are concerned with regulation of specific matters, > is restricted only by the terms of the specific law and is > not overridden by Law 80F which provides for the > general regulation of further matters not provided for > in specific laws. If it were otherwise Law 40D, for example, > would commence 'Subject to Law 80F... Or maybe if it were so L80F would commence 'Except under L40D ...' I don't think we can read anything into the omission of 'Subject to ...' in L40D. Wayne > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Aug 6 23:22:34 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:22:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003a01c35c69$3e10b670$370858db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 3:56 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > The drafting was sloppy. Since the > > EBU (Bavin, Stevenson, Doe, probably Burn) is > > aware of the discussion it will be interesting > > to see if there is any reaction. They might just > > extend the effect of the 'no conventions' rule - > > this would be my expectation. > > You could be right. My hope is that they will actually > acknowledge that > some off-shape hands occasionally arise where, for reasons of > tactics/other systemic agreements the "best bid" feels like > 1NT. They did > this for 4441/5431 with singleton honour and put the > obligation for good > disclosure firmly on pairs with this philosophical approach (which is > where it belongs of course). A good regulation will of course permit deviant (from some standard) 1NT bid whether or not one has exercised good or poor judgement in making the call. The purpose of the law/regulation is not to force players to use good judgement. Wayne From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Wed Aug 6 23:29:51 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:29:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: <002c01c35be6$6e5425c0$7d45e150@endicott> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030807082525.028fdd78@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> At 07:44 AM 6/08/2003 +0100, Grattan wrote: snip >+=+"The Laws are primarily designed not as >punishment for irregularities, but rather as >redress for damage" ('Scope and Interpretation >of the Laws') I am using a weird American mail reader which insists on parsing incoming traffic for naughty words or ideas. The above from Grattan scored two chili peppers. Please Grattan take care, even when quoting from the holy texts. There are, as we know people taking this list who are easily offended. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Aug 7 00:21:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:21:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees (was: HCP) References: <000c01c35ae4$00ad3320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002501c35c71$6f998de0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Gordon Bower writes > > >Call me a cynic. But I have the feeling that the reason L12C3 is in the > >book is as a catch-all that can be used as an excuse to justify it when an > >un-law-educated committee makes an otherwise illegal ruling. Indeed > >striking 12C3 from the book is #2 on my list of changes I'd most like to > >see to the 2005 laws, right behind 25B. > > The reason L12C3 is in the book is because it is fairer and more > acceptable to the players. A very popular score adjustment practice for years in this area was to give non-offenders avg+ and let the offenders keep the table result. It was only a few years ago that an ACBL TD from this area ruled that way at my table. Such illegal rulings made both sides happy, but that didn't make them bridge-acceptable. I am not sure what you mean by a catchall. > > It is interesting at the criticisms made about L12C3 from people in > areas that do not have it. My own view is that most of the criticisms > would not be made if you had it available and saw it in action. > > ACs and TDs make legal rulings and decisions as far as possible, and > that includes rulings where L12C3 is used. > L12C3 works very well if one wants to see "equity" outcomes for every irregularity. If that is indeed the aim, it only follows that you should follow that philosophy for all irregularities. That means, e.g., figuring what would have happened absent a revoke, applying percentages to each possibility *a la* L12C3. This "equity" approach is something new to duplicate bridge, which traditionally (say pre-1997) has had simple rules for handling irregularities. You do something wrong, you pay the fine. That is what Adam and I call justice, as opposed to equity. The justice approach, besides being a key element in the spirit of the game for 70 years, has these advantages: -- Penalties are easy to formulate and apply. L12C3 requires expert judges who have an intimate knowledge of the players involved, both their tendencie s and their capabilities. TDs at lower levels would have no clue about how to apply L12C3. The elitist solution to use L12C3 only for high-level bridge is unacceptable. The Laws should be the same for every level. -- It requires no crystal ball gazing to come up with probabilities for various outcomes of UI and MI situations. You give the NOS benefit of any doubt about an appropriate score for them, the OS gets the reciprocal score, that's it. Even a lower-level TD can come up with such an adjustment. -- It leads to identical rulings for identical irregularities. This is "equity," in an important sense of the word, which is equal treatment for all under the laws. -- It accords with the parent game of rubber bridge, which should dominate its duplicate bridge offspring. Out of time, but not out of arguments. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From David Stevenson Thu Aug 7 00:04:50 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: I decided to come back and see how you are. The first day I was told I did not know how to make high-level bidding decisions, and did not understand ethics. From then on it has gone downhill. When I suggest something I do not agree with Sven any attempt to discuss with him is scuppered by a virulent and very unpleasant attack. When I make a general comment on whether something is a UI position I am told I do not read and therefore discussion is not possible. When this person is very rude to me and I object I am told that this is what people say to me in real life. Tonight I realised I was still very upset five hours after reading the latest round of deliberate unpleasantness. There are a lot of people here with sensible ideas, but I cannot continue. I would love to discuss with you but I cannot take the continuous rudeness. I strongly suggest that other people take action to control this. There must be a fair number of people like myself who believe the first importance of BLML should be to discuss rather than to vilify. I note that the person claims to be a member of the Netherlands national Appeals committee. If this is true it means that my opinion of both the Netherlands generally and the NBB specifically has dropped. If, at some time in the future, BLML rids itself of this pestilence, feel free to let me know, and I shall return. Until then, au revoir. Incidentally, if anyone would like to consider some method of discussion, eg a new mailing list, where people are required to conform to some standard of behaviour to each other, let me know and we shall see what we can 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 Wed Aug 6 16:25:40 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:25:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky writes >At 2:14 PM -0800 8/5/03, Gordon Bower wrote: >>I may be unfairly saying "12C3 rulings" when what I actually mean are >>" 'weighted mixtures of scores instead of a single result' rulings." >Some correspondents (DWS) have written that they are one and the >same. Others (Grattan) have written that the law means just what it >says -- an AC may assign any result its members judge equitable. Not quite. Grattan has said what the Law means. I have said that ACs and TDs apply this Law in the way that they are told to by their SOs. One of the differences of opinion that Adam and I have always had over L12C3 is that he assumes that ACs and TDs can and will ignore what their SO instructs, but if they do the whole process is a mess whatever the Law book says. For example one of the EBU Summer ACs made an illegal decision since it did not follow any instructions about how to rule. Adam thinks it is a failure of L12C3: I think the AC wants shooting. -- 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 Thu Aug 7 00:38:39 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:38:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003101c3597d$78736b80$1387403e@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c35c73$e0c49580$bfe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2003 5:09 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "You can do anything in this world if you > are prepared to take the consequences." > - William Somerset Maugham. > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:37 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > > > > There is nothing in 9.1.1 thru 15.1.2 that > > tells the TD to award an adjusted score. > > There must be a law (or specific regulation) > > that enables this process. That is what I am > > trying to find. Obviously an SO could not > > write a regulation under L40d that conflicted > > with the Law 12 requirement to award an > > AssAS (rather than an ArtAS) once a result is > > obtained. As I said before I can find a path > > from L84e, via damage assessment, to L12c2. > > I can't find a route to L12c1 (a score was > > obtained) or L12A2 (the board was played > > normally - well OK I could try "the board > > has already been played so it can't be > > played normally now" but I don't think > > the punters are going to let me get away > > with that any more than they would if I > > tried it on while giving an UI adjustment). > > I've got my TD training coming up and I'm > > going to look a right idiot if I try and adjust > > a score without even knowing what > > regulations/laws I am using. > > > +=+ Ah! In that case you will have a copy of > the EBU 'White Book'. Please consult 90.6.2 or > thereabouts (with reference to "Use of an > unlicensed convention") > 2. There is no restriction on the nature > of regulations that may be made under Law 40D > other than those stated in Law 40D itself. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I find this very hard to believe. e.g. Regulation ??? - If you use the Endicott 2NT overcall then you must rebid 1C and lead trumps if you are a defender. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 7 00:51:22 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:51:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000901c35c56$f36ff750$2e3ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <002501c35c75$a3d85a60$37db8051@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > > The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they > > minuted it so it is part of EBU jurisprudence, after > > a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton 2002 > > concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC > > Chairman was Nissan Rand of Israel, visiting us > > as EBL Seniors Chairman. > > > +=+ WBF CoP - revised December 2001 - see > Notes on Rulings number 5. > See also Monaco C of C amendments re > Law 16 in Section 25.3. The trend in international > TACs is not to jump in precipitately on delays in > return of tray when the auction has taken an > unanticipated turn. Some background may help. In the Brighton case to which DWS refers, I was the chair of a committee that comprised Nissan Rand and Liz McGowan apart from myself. I do not recall the exact auction, but it involved a hand that had previously failed to make a simple overcall producing a bid of 4S in a position where this would be totally unexpected. Its LHO considered the matter, then passed, and its RHO took another bid that was not at all clear. Nissan asked whether the pause over 4S had been of the kind that was consistent only with "I was not expecting 4S - now what should I do?" To me, this was a novelty - until then, in England, we had tended to the view that any break in tempo was likely to convey UI, whatever the preceding auction, and to rule accordingly. When I explained this, Nissan said, in effect: "Well, if that is how you view these positions in your jurisdiction, you must rule..." as we in fact did rule. "But", he continued, "in other parts of the world there may be more tolerance for a player who is taken aback by a completely unexpected development". After much thought, I considered that he had a good point, so raised the matter myself at a meeting of our laws commission. This does not, of course, change the fundamental question of whether UI is or is not present following any departure from normal tempo (whether that departure involves abnormal slowness or abnormal haste). I am, however, more sympathetic than I was to the notion that in certain positions, it would be normal not to expect a player to conform to normal tempo. Those positions may perhaps best be dealt with by the kind of "mini-stop" advocated in this thread, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. Indeed, I consider it sensible for a pause to be mandated at any stage in any auction until both members of one side or the other have passed. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 7 01:27:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] mini-stop Message-ID: <200308070027.h770RTNR005965@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > Nissan asked whether the pause over 4S had been of the kind that was > consistent only with "I was not expecting 4S - now what should I do?" To put this into the language of L16A, the pause is one that would occur regardless of the player's hand, and thus it does not suggest any action over another. On the other hand, 5 s is an awfully long pause. In practice, partner is likely to know whether it means "What is that ---- up to?" or "This is a cards double, not a trumps double." As Jaap says, there is really no good answer absent a mandated pause or the use of screens. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 7 02:21:03 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 02:21:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world Message-ID: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> I have just returned from southern Sweden, where I played in the tournament in Skovde. My intention was only to play a few sessions in the pairs that are the side games to the main event, the Chairman's Cup. As luck would have it, a team of Danish players found itself a man short for the quarter-finals of the Cup - they had not expected to get that far, and one of them simply had to return to work. I was drafted in, and found myself playing with an unfamiliar partner against a team comprising Stig Werdelin, his brother, and a young couple consisting of someone I knew to be one of the more promising Danish juniors and a player whom I recognised as one of the Danish ladies' team in Salsomaggiore. My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: Q73 A74 874 AK63 My right-hand opponent was the dealer, a fact that did not inhibit my partner from opening 1S (five-card majors, strong no trump). He had been deceived by the Swedish boards, which not only indicate with a red marking that you are vulnerable, but underline your compass positions as well. Thinking that the line under his compass position, Vast, meant that he was the dealer, he had committed a technical error. The Director, a young and nervous individual, was summoned. Explanations followed in Swedish and/or Danish (as far as I could tell, each of the other three players and the Director could understand one another perfectly, whereas I could not comprehend a word). Eventually, it was explained to me in English what I already knew; that my RHO could accept the bid, in which case... or he could... in which case... My RHO then asked the Director (in English): "Is it OK if I pass at my turn as dealer, and then let my opponents conduct a normal auction, but if they take advantage of the information, we call you back?" Now, if this had been an English tournament, I would have vouchsafed my objections to this course. As it was, everybody else started talking in Scandinavian. The upshot seemed to be that, with the consent of all concerned, my RHO would pass and I could open the bidding, but was not allowed to know that my guy had an opening bid with five spades. Whatever you may think of this decision, it was the position I found myself in. So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. Now then. This was an unfamiliar partner. We had discussed our system to the extent that, for example, I knew that 1S-2NT (Jacoby)-3NT showed a maximum with short hearts. But we had not explicitly talked about this sequence. He knew, and I knew that he knew, that 1C-1M might be a weakish hand with four of the major and longer diamonds. But we had not in any way agreed that 1m-1M-1N-2C was a puppet to 2D, and that 2D was an artificial game force, though I would have known without prior discussion that this was also standard operating procedure. In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: (a) normal (b) quixotic (c) irrational David Burn London, England From walt1@verizon.net Thu Aug 7 05:42:56 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:42:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030807082525.028fdd78@pop-server.bigpond.net.a u> References: <002c01c35be6$6e5425c0$7d45e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030807003731.02aacec0@incoming.verizon.net> >At 07:44 AM 6/08/2003 +0100, Grattan wrote: >snip >>+=+"The Laws are primarily designed not as >>punishment for irregularities, but rather as >>redress for damage" ('Scope and Interpretation >>of the Laws') At 06:29 PM 6/08/2003, Tony Musgrove wrote: >I am using a weird American mail reader which >insists on parsing incoming traffic for naughty words >or ideas. The above from Grattan scored two chili >peppers. Please Grattan take care, even when >quoting from the holy texts. There are, as we know >people taking this list who are easily offended. > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) Tony I too noticed that Grattan rated two chili peppers on the Eudora scale (it can be turned off by clicking on Tools > Options > Mood Watch). The thing that surprised me was your referring to this as an American reader. I first downloaded it about six years ago from Australia and had always assumed it was Australian. Walt From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 7 07:01:53 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 02:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: from "David Burn" at Aug 07, 2003 02:21:03 AM Message-ID: <200308070601.h7761rFK026294@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "David Burn" > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 02:21:03 +0100 > > My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > > Q73 A74 874 AK63 > [...snip...] > So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which > came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard > operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. > > Now then. This was an unfamiliar partner. We had discussed our system to > the extent that, for example, I knew that 1S-2NT (Jacoby)-3NT showed a > maximum with short hearts. But we had not explicitly talked about this > sequence. He knew, and I knew that he knew, that 1C-1M might be a > weakish hand with four of the major and longer diamonds. But we had not > in any way agreed that 1m-1M-1N-2C was a puppet to 2D, and that 2D was > an artificial game force, though I would have known without prior > discussion that this was also standard operating procedure. > > In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > (a) normal > (b) quixotic > (c) irrational > Hmmm...my bias is coming from the American East Coast where a new minor forcing or two-way checkback (like you describe) are the most common systems played. I would assume NMF and respond 2S. Based on your like "...though I would have known without prior discussion that this was also standard operating procedure..." and you think that it is a common system by your partner and the field that he normally plays in, then I would assume that it would be irrational for you to make a different assumption. Personally, I feel that with the weaker hand with four hearts and longer diamonds, that partner might pass 1NT and discuss this with you before trotting something like that out. -Ted. From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Aug 6 23:34:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:34:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: Message-ID: <001401c35cac$72a9d950$e457e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > However about 98% of boards played > under EBU regulations have but a single > director running them. Those directors > should be ruling according to their own > abilities/knowledge/beliefs. > +=+He has to make his own rulings, but he is instructed as to the meaning of the laws and regulations. The long arm of the EBU reaches out to him! +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 7 07:29:59 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 02:29:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <000e01c35c43$38b11740$aaae53d4@Default> Message-ID: <918BA985-C8A0-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 13:13 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > There are two solutions. > One. In France they play basically everything (FFB events) with screens > (also rather low > level competition). You will run into all kind of funny sequences and > misunderstandings you never see without screens. I have no experience with screens, and frankly not much interest in gaining any. And I daresay many players in this country, rightly or wrongly, feel the same way. > Two. Extending the STOP rule to the first round of bidding and > competitive > situations. The big advantage of stop is that it regulates normal > tempo. SOs have the power to do this. They have chosen not to do it. I wonder why? > And of course there is a third option. Ignoring the problem by > declaring > that around 5 seconds or whatever is normal tempo. But since nobody is > going > to nail you on 2 or 8 there is great scope for 'communication'. And > yes as > an AC I can do something about split second and about a long pause. > But most > players are smart enough to avoid those two extremes. Sigh. Whatever regulations you make, unless you put every player in a strait jacket, there will be instances around the edges of the regulation which will require a TD or an AC, or both, to pass judgment as to whether a given call was made in or out of tempo. Making such a judgment is hardly ignoring the problem. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Aug 7 10:47:08 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:47:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] The real world Message-ID: >From: "David Burn" ...Cutting to the chase. >My RHO then asked the Director (in English): "Is it OK if I pass at my >turn as dealer, and then let my opponents conduct a normal auction, but >if they take advantage of the information, we call you back?" ... >So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which >came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard >operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. ... >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > >(a) normal >(b) quixotic >(c) irrational ...Quixotic. It would be perfectly normal, absent a specific agreement, in any game, from the Bermuda Bowl to Moron's Night Out, to bid Two Spades. On Cheating Moron's Night Out, of course, you would bid Four Spades, but that's not the case here. No, I've changed my mind. It's barmy and self-immolating to pass. Irrational. Norman Scorbie Diss Norfolk UK _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Aug 7 11:38:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:38:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <4C9DBAC8-C8C3-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 02:21 AM, David Burn wrote: > > My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > > Q73 A74 874 AK63 > > Auction 1C-1S-1NT-2D > Now then. This was an unfamiliar partner. We had discussed our system > to > the extent that, for example, I knew that 1S-2NT (Jacoby)-3NT showed a > maximum with short hearts. But we had not explicitly talked about this > sequence. He knew, and I knew that he knew, that 1C-1M might be a > weakish hand with four of the major and longer diamonds. But we had not > in any way agreed that 1m-1M-1N-2C was a puppet to 2D, and that 2D was > an artificial game force, though I would have known without prior > discussion that this was also standard operating procedure. There's another operating procedure used by some in conjuction with Walsh - that of New Minor Forcing, in which 2D is the only forcing enquiry, and both 2C and 3D would have been natural and non-forcing. > > In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > (a) normal > (b) quixotic > (c) irrational Since both common adjuncts to your explicit agreement require that 2D is played as an artificial forcing enquiry, to pass here seems irrational. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 12:15:58 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:15:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <000301c35c4a$58cf45e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c35c43$38b11740$aaae53d4@Default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807130637.01d32330@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:41 6/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Jaap van der Neut >.......... > > Of course you are right. But you are also wrong. For this problem we > > invented the stop rule. You get 10 secs. You have to take them and taking > > longer means you are out of normal tempo whatever you claim as your > > habits. > > > > Now the problem is that STOP only applies after jumps. >......... > > There are two solutions. >......... > > Two. Extending the STOP rule to the first round of bidding and competitive > > situations. The big advantage of stop is that it regulates normal tempo. >......... > >I wonder if it would not be of interest to quote the current STOP regulation >in force in Norway: > >STOP with a compulsory pause for thought shall be used: >- With any opening bid at the level two or higher >- With all jump bids >- With all calls except PASS at the level three or higher in competitive >auctions. > >I believe this last rule would have solved the problem with the "surprising" >4H bid in the auction that started this thread? AG : of course it would. Your regulation seems a bit excessive - more and more stops will, as Jaap put it, "beat air" ; however, it is pretty easy to understand, and I would welcome its use. When playing with Gilles, we use a complex metarule as to what constitutes a fit-jump or fit-non-jump, but it requires some time to think of -and we pretend being quick thinkers. Thinking about making a natural suit bid, checking, then realizing it would be a FNJ, takes about 6-7 seconds, and when it is followed by a pass UI is there. Sven's last item would solve this problem, as it would many others. Perhaps it would be a good idea -but difficult to implement- to allow players who are sure that their stop will be pointless in the current sequence (say, 1NT-4NT) to be exempted of using it. Yes, I realize it could cause problems if a pair used the stop when making a weak bid, and not when making a strong one, perhaps the same one, BTA bridge rules aren't made to deal with blatant cheat, as some of us have mentioned before. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 12:21:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:21:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <001b01c35c4e$44484fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <027D17F9-C822-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807131720.01d303c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:09 6/08/2003 -0700, Marvin French wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > >, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > We need to define normal tempo > > > > I don't think this is possible, unless you intend to force every player > > to call at the same "normal tempo". As it stands, what's normal tempo > > for me may well be slow tempo for you, and what's normal for you may be > > fast for me, and while most players may fit into a certain "window", > > not all will. For a couple players at the clubs here, "normal tempo" > > seems to be somewhere between 30 seconds and a couple of minutes. > > Telling them they have to call within 3-5 seconds, or some other > > arbitrary short time period, ain't gonna work. > >Tempo is only part of it. > >For most players, we can tell whether a player has a problem or not by many >factors, tempo being only one of them. Beginners must be told that they >should act as if they have a problem with every call on the first round and >on every call made over an opposing action. Like it or not, it's the Law, >like following suit, and the Laws should be enforced for everyone. > >Whatever then becomes "normal tempo" for a player, fast or slow, must be >maintained in all UI-sensitive situations if UI is to be avoided. AG : it is indeed good to say that the player faced with an UI-sensitive auction should act as if one had a problem ; but the actual tendency is to penalize one when one did indeed have a problem and partner took a view, because one transmitted UI. This seems a bit contradictory. To those who are afraid of not being able to show equal interest in all situations : it can be achieved by asking an interesting question about the bidding so far, whether we are interested in the answer or not. Of course, this would require players and TDs to stop being paranoiac about "misleading questions". Best ragards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 12:28:10 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:28:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <002501c35c75$a3d85a60$37db8051@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000901c35c56$f36ff750$2e3ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807132553.01d33a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:51 7/08/2003 +0100, David Burn wrote: > > >This does not, of course, change the fundamental question of whether UI >is or is not present following any departure from normal tempo (whether >that departure involves abnormal slowness or abnormal haste). I am, >however, more sympathetic than I was to the notion that in certain >positions, it would be normal not to expect a player to conform to >normal tempo. Those positions may perhaps best be dealt with by the kind >of "mini-stop" advocated in this thread, with which I have a great deal >of sympathy. Indeed, I consider it sensible for a pause to be mandated >at any stage in any auction until both members of one side or the other >have passed. AG : this is a very good rule. Easy to understand, eliminates many pointless Stops (like 1H p 1S p 3D), creates many important ones (like 1H 1N 2H). Calling for votes. >David Burn >London, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Aug 7 12:07:45 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 07 Aug 2003 13:07:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop Message-ID: <20030807110745.ECA0B2A6478@front.interia.pl> > At 20:41 6/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > Perhaps it would be a good idea -but difficult to implement- to allow=20 > players who are sure that their stop will be pointless in the current=20 > sequence (say, 1NT-4NT) to be exempted of using it. > Yes, I realize it could cause problems if a pair used the stop when makin= g >=20 > a weak bid, and not when making a strong one, perhaps the same one,=20 >BTA=20 > bridge rules aren't made to deal with blatant cheat, as some of us have= =20 > mentioned before. Unfortunately, because they should. This thinking gives tremendous advantage to those who do cheat - yes, there are not many of them but why should they be given huge handicap by the rules?=20 =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 12:35:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:35:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807133029.01d23160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:21 7/08/2003 +0100, you wrote: >I have just returned from southern Sweden, where I played in the >tournament in Skovde. My intention was only to play a few sessions in >the pairs that are the side games to the main event, the Chairman's Cup. >As luck would have it, a team of Danish players found itself a man short >for the quarter-finals of the Cup - they had not expected to get that >far, and one of them simply had to return to work. I was drafted in, and >found myself playing with an unfamiliar partner against a team >comprising Stig Werdelin, his brother, and a young couple consisting of >someone I knew to be one of the more promising Danish juniors and a >player whom I recognised as one of the Danish ladies' team in >Salsomaggiore. > >My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > >Q73 A74 874 AK63 > >My right-hand opponent was the dealer, a fact that did not inhibit my >partner from opening 1S (five-card majors, strong no trump). He had been >deceived by the Swedish boards, which not only indicate with a red >marking that you are vulnerable, but underline your compass positions as >well. Thinking that the line under his compass position, Vast, meant >that he was the dealer, he had committed a technical error. > >The Director, a young and nervous individual, was summoned. Explanations >followed in Swedish and/or Danish (as far as I could tell, each of the >other three players and the Director could understand one another >perfectly, whereas I could not comprehend a word). Eventually, it was >explained to me in English what I already knew; that my RHO could accept >the bid, in which case... or he could... in which case... > >My RHO then asked the Director (in English): "Is it OK if I pass at my >turn as dealer, and then let my opponents conduct a normal auction, but >if they take advantage of the information, we call you back?" > >Now, if this had been an English tournament, I would have vouchsafed my >objections to this course. As it was, everybody else started talking in >Scandinavian. The upshot seemed to be that, with the consent of all >concerned, my RHO would pass and I could open the bidding, but was not >allowed to know that my guy had an opening bid with five spades. >Whatever you may think of this decision, it was the position I found >myself in. > >So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which >came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard >operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. > >Now then. This was an unfamiliar partner. We had discussed our system to >the extent that, for example, I knew that 1S-2NT (Jacoby)-3NT showed a >maximum with short hearts. But we had not explicitly talked about this >sequence. He knew, and I knew that he knew, that 1C-1M might be a >weakish hand with four of the major and longer diamonds. But we had not >in any way agreed that 1m-1M-1N-2C was a puppet to 2D, and that 2D was >an artificial game force, though I would have known without prior >discussion that this was also standard operating procedure. > >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > >(a) normal >(b) quixotic >(c) irrational AG : in uncertain positions, all non-repetitive suit bids are forcing. However, this is a little too self-seving. Passing is the correct thing to do. I think that your partner should have realized that the 2D bid would give you an ethics problem, and bid 3D, obviously offering as AI all UI you had been given. Of course, you could bid 2S, possibly being penalized, then invoke L82, and be reinstated in your rights. It all depends whether you'd rather remain a friend with the TD or partner. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 12:42:13 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:42:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807134128.01d28090@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:47 7/08/2003 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>From: "David Burn" > >...Cutting to the chase. > >>My RHO then asked the Director (in English): "Is it OK if I pass at my >>turn as dealer, and then let my opponents conduct a normal auction, but >>if they take advantage of the information, we call you back?" >... > >>So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which >>came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard >>operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. >... >>In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: >> >>(a) normal >>(b) quixotic >>(c) irrational > >...Quixotic. It would be perfectly normal, absent a specific agreement, in >any game, from the Bermuda Bowl to Moron's Night Out, to bid Two Spades. AG : not in France or Belgium. There, 2D is percieved as S/O by a majority. OK, then, its (a) in Sweden and (b) in France. From luis@fuegolabs.com Thu Aug 7 12:53:40 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:53:40 -0300 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <040c01c35cda$8b4310c0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> > In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > (a) normal > (b) quixotic > (c) irrational c) 100% irrational, even without any agreement or "implicit" agreement 2d is forcing and you do have a spade fit so whatever 2d is your bid is 2s. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/7/2003 From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Aug 7 12:56:03 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:56:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: A case on another forum was reported as follows West East S QT9xx S Jxx H KQx H Axx D KQxx D AJxx C x C Axx W N E S 1S P 2C P 2D P 2H P 2NT P 3NT DBL P% P 4S All Pass I dont know what the 2C was but lets assume 1RF. 2H 4th suit GF. % At this stage, west (a player of international standard) asks what is the significance of the double. He is told it is lead directing. He passes and East pulls to 4S's. N/S weren't happy in that they felt W had no reason to ask any questions as he had nothing to bid and used question to draw East's attention to the poor contract. The Td ruled 4S's was normal, regardless of possible UI. Any comments ?? The more interesting issue for me was the alert/non alert of the double. I felt that as the double was conventional (ie) it was an agreement to lead a specific suit, clubs, in this case that it should be alertable. Another contributor, posted the following ... ".... I refer you to http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/static/files/Systems%20and%20Systems%20Regulat ions/2002%20WBF%20Alerting%20Policy.pdf The WBF alerting policy document which clearly states "If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 1. All doubles. 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. ...." So 1NT by the opps double by me as a single suiter is not alertable ?? Support doubles/ redoubles are not alertable ?? The above lead directing doubles are not alertable ?? This seems to put unnecessary pressure on the opps who on one hand may want to know if a double carries any significance and yet on the other can be accused of giving UI if they do ask. K. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 7 07:57:44 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:57:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164305.01d3b5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000901c35c56$f36ff750$2e3ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <003901c35cdb$eb6a20a0$53ab53d4@Default> Grattan: > +=+ WBF CoP - revised December 2001 - see > Notes on Rulings number 5. > See also Monaco C of C amendments re > Law 16 in Section 25.3. The trend in international > TACs is not to jump in precipitately on delays in > return of tray when the auction has taken an > unanticipated turn. > ~ G ~ +=+ I know this trend Grattan. But this is making it worse rather than better as long as there is no way to stop people from acting in their 'normal tempo' as if they anticipated the unanticipated turn of events (they might but most of the time this clearly conveys the message 'no problem whatsover'). However you twist the wording, this way you authorize two different kinds of normal tempo. Rather quick (hey, this is my normal tempo) and a few seconds slower (hey, I have the right to think some after such an unexpected call). Do you still remember why to STOP rule was introduced in the first place ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Of what small spots pure white complains." > - John Donne. > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:10 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > > > > Yes, it means there was no tempo break. When a > > strange action happens normal tempo is to take a > > few seconds, so 5 seconds on this sort of sequence > > is normal tempo. Thus #2 and #3 are moot. > > > > The EBU L&EC took official notice of this, ie they > > minuted it so it is part of EBU jurisprudence, after > > a remark by an AC Chairman at Brighton 2002 > > concerning a similar bidding sequence. The AC > > Chairman was Nissan Rand of Israel, visiting us > > as EBL Seniors Chairman. > > > +=+ WBF CoP - revised December 2001 - see > Notes on Rulings number 5. > See also Monaco C of C amendments re > Law 16 in Section 25.3. The trend in international > TACs is not to jump in precipitately on delays in > return of tray when the auction has taken an > unanticipated turn. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 7 13:02:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:02:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML References: Message-ID: <003d01c35cdb$efa27320$53ab53d4@Default> David, You sound almost happy to blame me. Great, but you quitted before and I once read something by you suggesting Burn was to blame. Might it just be possible that the problem is not only a bad Jaap and a bad Burn but also a DWS problem ? In my view you take offense about all kind of things. That is ok but you offend people yourself as well. Look at this recent UI thread you mentioned explicitly. You send a couple of mails making me rather mad at you. I shouldn't but I don't like your IMHO rather arrogant 'I don't agree, I know better, but I don't give arguments' style. In your original mail you used an argument which I qualified as 'logical nonsense'. Maybe I shouldn't but since nobody has challenged me on that one so far, I assume I was right (I am still waiting for you or anybody else to explain that statement to me, I really couldn't parse it). Why didn't you clarify your original statement by the way rather than starting all kind of bad Jaap mails ? You can say what you want but always keep in mind: If you cannot take it you should not dish it out. DWS > I note that the person claims to be a member of the Netherlands > national Appeals committee. If this is true it means that my opinion of > both the Netherlands generally and the NBB specifically has dropped. Don't you realise how utterly stupid, ridiculous and insulting you can be. Just because you think I am a bad guy you conclude that scince I am Dutch all of Holland must be a bad place and since I am in the NBB the NBB is a bad organisation. This kind of thinking is the basis of almost all discrimination and indirectly a lot of silly violence and hate in our wonderful world. Well dear DWS, at least I am happy to announce that whatever I think of you (not that much by the way), it doesn't influence my opinion of England and English people in general. DWS: > Incidentally, if anyone would like to consider some method of > discussion, eg a new mailing list, where people are required to conform > to some standard of behaviour to each other, let me know and we shall > see what we can do. I am most happy to, but once again DWS try to analyze and solve your own problems first. Because for someone to teach about standards of behaviour you have a long way to go to 'improve' your own. And this is exactly the kind of thing that triggers my wrath. But having said all that, I am sorry about what happend. I bear you no ill, I have no feelings of any kind about you, I just hate the way you 'discuss' and the way you 'teach' other people. As other people on this list have noticed (Herman and Ton come to mind) I can be quite agressive if people use 'it is' style of discussing when I think/feel/know these so called 'facts' are simply not true. I take quite a lot of risks doing so (I don't double check everything I attack) but I have almost always been right (in a logical sense). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:04 AM Subject: [blml] BLML > > I decided to come back and see how you are. > > The first day I was told I did not know how to make high-level bidding > decisions, and did not understand ethics. > > From then on it has gone downhill. When I suggest something I do not > agree with Sven any attempt to discuss with him is scuppered by a > virulent and very unpleasant attack. When I make a general comment on > whether something is a UI position I am told I do not read and therefore > discussion is not possible. > > When this person is very rude to me and I object I am told that this > is what people say to me in real life. > > Tonight I realised I was still very upset five hours after reading the > latest round of deliberate unpleasantness. > > There are a lot of people here with sensible ideas, but I cannot > continue. I would love to discuss with you but I cannot take the > continuous rudeness. I strongly suggest that other people take action > to control this. There must be a fair number of people like myself who > believe the first importance of BLML should be to discuss rather than to > vilify. > > I note that the person claims to be a member of the Netherlands > national Appeals committee. If this is true it means that my opinion of > both the Netherlands generally and the NBB specifically has dropped. > > If, at some time in the future, BLML rids itself of this pestilence, > feel free to let me know, and I shall return. Until then, au revoir. > > Incidentally, if anyone would like to consider some method of > discussion, eg a new mailing list, where people are required to conform > to some standard of behaviour to each other, let me know and we shall > see what we can 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 ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 7 11:29:01 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:29:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop References: <027D17F9-C822-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <001b01c35c4e$44484fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003b01c35cdb$ed3e9280$53ab53d4@Default> Marv: > I didn't know what good ethics were until I kibitzed our recent Hall of Fame > inductee Tobias Stone playing with Bill Root in a pair event at the > nationals in New York City (1955?). They made every call and defensive play > with the same degree of deliberateness, very impressive. The problem isn't that bad at real top level (apart from the fact we play with screens nowadays), most top players are straight enough and they know how to handle. The problem is worst at medium level. Here they are smart enough to 'use' (often not intentionally) tempo variations and all other kinds of non verbal communication, and they tend to be very upset if they perceive opponents from doing it (often not realising they do the same or worse). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] mini-stop > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > , Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > We need to define normal tempo > > > > I don't think this is possible, unless you intend to force every player > > to call at the same "normal tempo". As it stands, what's normal tempo > > for me may well be slow tempo for you, and what's normal for you may be > > fast for me, and while most players may fit into a certain "window", > > not all will. For a couple players at the clubs here, "normal tempo" > > seems to be somewhere between 30 seconds and a couple of minutes. > > Telling them they have to call within 3-5 seconds, or some other > > arbitrary short time period, ain't gonna work. > > Tempo is only part of it. > > For most players, we can tell whether a player has a problem or not by many > factors, tempo being only one of them. Beginners must be told that they > should act as if they have a problem with every call on the first round and > on every call made over an opposing action. Like it or not, it's the Law, > like following suit, and the Laws should be enforced for everyone. > > Whatever then becomes "normal tempo" for a player, fast or slow, must be > maintained in all UI-sensitive situations if UI is to be avoided. > > Yes, call the TD and say, "My opponent is varying his/her behavior in > UI-sensitive situations." Something like that. If it seems to be true, a > lecture follows, with continued violations subject to PPs or worse. > > I didn't know what good ethics were until I kibitzed our recent Hall of Fame > inductee Tobias Stone playing with Bill Root in a pair event at the > nationals in New York City (1955?). They made every call and defensive play > with the same degree of deliberateness, very impressive. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 7 11:29:25 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:29:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003c01c35cdb$ee8e4400$53ab53d4@Default> David, Passing 2D whithout an explicit agreement that 2D shows a weak hand with longer diamonds doesn't exist. Although it is conceivable this sequence might just show that kind of hand no sane partner will ever do that to you without agreements. So I consider 2S completely automatic. Anyway it was clear everyone wanted to play a game called bridge rather than a game called bridge laws so why not oblige ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:21 AM Subject: [blml] The real world > I have just returned from southern Sweden, where I played in the > tournament in Skovde. My intention was only to play a few sessions in > the pairs that are the side games to the main event, the Chairman's Cup. > As luck would have it, a team of Danish players found itself a man short > for the quarter-finals of the Cup - they had not expected to get that > far, and one of them simply had to return to work. I was drafted in, and > found myself playing with an unfamiliar partner against a team > comprising Stig Werdelin, his brother, and a young couple consisting of > someone I knew to be one of the more promising Danish juniors and a > player whom I recognised as one of the Danish ladies' team in > Salsomaggiore. > > My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > > Q73 A74 874 AK63 > > My right-hand opponent was the dealer, a fact that did not inhibit my > partner from opening 1S (five-card majors, strong no trump). He had been > deceived by the Swedish boards, which not only indicate with a red > marking that you are vulnerable, but underline your compass positions as > well. Thinking that the line under his compass position, Vast, meant > that he was the dealer, he had committed a technical error. > > The Director, a young and nervous individual, was summoned. Explanations > followed in Swedish and/or Danish (as far as I could tell, each of the > other three players and the Director could understand one another > perfectly, whereas I could not comprehend a word). Eventually, it was > explained to me in English what I already knew; that my RHO could accept > the bid, in which case... or he could... in which case... > > My RHO then asked the Director (in English): "Is it OK if I pass at my > turn as dealer, and then let my opponents conduct a normal auction, but > if they take advantage of the information, we call you back?" > > Now, if this had been an English tournament, I would have vouchsafed my > objections to this course. As it was, everybody else started talking in > Scandinavian. The upshot seemed to be that, with the consent of all > concerned, my RHO would pass and I could open the bidding, but was not > allowed to know that my guy had an opening bid with five spades. > Whatever you may think of this decision, it was the position I found > myself in. > > So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which > came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard > operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. > > Now then. This was an unfamiliar partner. We had discussed our system to > the extent that, for example, I knew that 1S-2NT (Jacoby)-3NT showed a > maximum with short hearts. But we had not explicitly talked about this > sequence. He knew, and I knew that he knew, that 1C-1M might be a > weakish hand with four of the major and longer diamonds. But we had not > in any way agreed that 1m-1M-1N-2C was a puppet to 2D, and that 2D was > an artificial game force, though I would have known without prior > discussion that this was also standard operating procedure. > > In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > (a) normal > (b) quixotic > (c) irrational > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 13:31:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:31:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807142016.01d2a710@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:56 7/08/2003 +0100, Karel wrote: >A case on another forum was reported as follows > >West East >S QT9xx S Jxx >H KQx H Axx >D KQxx D AJxx >C x C Axx > >W N E S >1S P 2C P >2D P 2H P >2NT P 3NT DBL >P% P 4S All Pass > > >I dont know what the 2C was but lets assume 1RF. 2H 4th suit GF. > >% At this stage, west (a player of international standard) asks what is the >significance of the double. He is told it is lead directing. He passes and >East pulls to 4S's. > >N/S weren't happy in that they felt W had no reason to ask any questions as >he had nothing to bid and used question to draw East's attention to the poor >contract. The Td ruled 4S's was normal, regardless of possible UI. Any >comments ?? AG : indeed, West has no bridge reason to ask about the double. However, this doesn't make it an infraction, unless the question decieved the opponents, which isn't the case here. 4S is indeed normal when you're told that LHO has a bunch of strong clubs. This is AI. It has always been said here that when all UI you got is covered by AI, the AI status prevails. The only case where we should disallow the pull is when there are good reasons to believe that East wouldn't have asked the question - the "pro question" problem. >The more interesting issue for me was the alert/non alert of the double. I >felt that as the double was conventional (ie) it was an agreement to lead a >specific suit, clubs, in this case that it should be alertable. Another >contributor, posted the following ... > >The WBF alerting policy document which clearly states > >"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: >1. All doubles. >2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, >or suggests a no-trump contract. >3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of >conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, >players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. ...." > > >So 1NT by the opps double by me as a single suiter is not alertable ?? >Support doubles/ redoubles are not alertable ?? The above lead directing >doubles are not alertable ?? This seems to put unnecessary pressure on the >opps who on one hand may want to know if a double carries any significance >and yet on the other can be accused of giving UI if they do ask. AG : I've said before that this policy is absurd. Perhaps it's a good idea to ask to alert neither takeout, penalty or optional doubles, so as to limit UI risks, but clearly artificial doubles should be alerted. Your example of 1NT-X is a good one ; an SOS redouble of 1NT showing any long suit is another classical case). Or a redouble of a transfer bid, asking partner to bid the suit himself. And umpteen other cases. But I don't agree with the contention that this lead-directing double should be alerted. What else could it be ? "One should alert any bid whose meaning could be unexpected". This is not the case here. To the contrary, when a double calls for a specific suit, and the suit can't be inferred from the bidding (eg 1NT p 3NT X calling for spades - or whatever), it should be made alertable. It isn't, here and now. Best regards, Alain. From martineze@sify.com Thu Aug 7 13:21:27 2003 From: martineze@sify.com (MR.MARTIN EZE) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:21:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Message-ID: ATTN=3B SIR=2FMADAM=2E My name is MR=2EMARTIN EZE=2C an Accountant with the Ajaokuta Steel Company Ltd =28ASCL=29=2E My duty includes awards of contracts=2C vetting and making payments on behalf of my Ministry =28ASCL=29=2E I got your contact from the Internet on my search for Honest=2F Reliable person or company to execute this business together=2E SUBJECT=3A After due consideration=2C I have fully agreed to privately invest extensively in a very business venture=2E I am intending to retire from government services to private business I decided to contact you for an urgent business proposal=2E I have decided to deal with a neutral person like you because of the nature of the transaction as I will equally be happy to arrange with you on terms of trade and possible transfer of the funds needed for the investment into your company=92s account or personal account=2E These funds were incurred as a kick back lifting of oil by the last top military government=2E Note that the former President of Nigeria late Gen=2E Sani Abacha and his Cabinet allowed the nations refineries to collapse=2E This was a ground plot by the late head of state and his cabinets to enable them lift the Nations oil through the back door to their foreign counterpart in other to enrich their individual foreign bank account=2EThis money Thirty Million Five Hundred Thousand US Dollars =28US$30=2E5M=29 is now floating in the Federal Ministry of Finance as a redundant fund waiting to be claimed=2E Because of our new Federal Government Decree on Civil Servants=2C we are officially not allowed to own a company or operate a foreign bank account=2EHence my soliciting for your assistance to enable me receives this fund into your company=92s account or personal accountpending when I come over for the sharing=2E To enable me start the process and remittance of the fund into your bank account successfully within 14 banking days=2C I need the following information from you by e-mail=3A * Beneficiary=92s name=2C address=2C private telephone =2F fax number=2E * Your bank particulars including your bank name=2Caddress and your account number=2E Note that as soon as I receive this information it will be forwarded to the appropriate quarters for final processing and approvals=2E With the modalities I have worked out it makes it possible for you to act as acontractor who worked under my ministry and now waiting to receive his payment and when satisfied by the agencies your bank account will be credited within 48 banking hours This transfer is 100% risk free having done all the underground works locally for the smooth transfer of the fund into your bank account within the shortest period=2E I advised that you should keep this transaction a top secret and rest all correspondence to fax=2C e-mail or phone only=2C because I am occupying a sensitive position in the government circle and also this is once in a lifetime opportunity=2E Finally I want you to assure me that you will work on my instruction and my own share of the money will be safe=2EYou will be rewarded with 30% of the total sum for your honest assistance and co-operation 10% for all type of expense that we both parties might incur during the course of this transaction and the balance of 60% remain for me=2E Contact me by return mail for any question and further discussion on my private email=3B{martineze=40sify=2Ecom}OR FAX NUMBER=3B234-1-7958737 Awaiting your urgent response=2E Best regards=2E MR=2EMARTIN EZE=2E From Martin@SPASE.NL Thu Aug 7 13:29:56 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:29:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A6A8@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Alain Gottcheiner wrore: > an SOS redouble of 1NT > showing any long > suit is another classical case). Or a redouble of a transfer > bid, asking > partner to bid the suit himself. And umpteen other cases. Redoubles are not excluded from alerting, so these are wrong examples. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 7 13:45:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:45:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030807083747.022a44b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:21 PM 8/6/03, Grattan wrote: >+=+ The WBF has ruled that the discretion to regulate >granted by specific laws like 40D, 40E, 78D, 80E, etc., > which are concerned with regulation of specific matters, >is restricted only by the terms of the specific law and is >not overridden by Law 80F which provides for the >general regulation of further matters not provided for >in specific laws. If it were otherwise Law 40D, for example, >would commence 'Subject to Law 80F... As it should. The idea that L40D lets SOs pass regulations that directly contradict the stated intent of the Laws is abhorrent and can only lead to trouble and confusion. Is there any chance that the addition of those words might be considered for the next revision? I'm not in the let's-have-one-set-of-worldwide-rules-for-everyone camp, but that's a far cry from finding any sense in having loopholes that allow individual jurisdictions to ignore TFLB at will. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Aug 7 13:38:44 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:38:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: <003d01c35cdb$efa27320$53ab53d4@Default> Message-ID: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 01:02 PM, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > David, > > You sound almost happy to blame me. Great, but you quitted before and > I once > read something by you suggesting Burn was to blame. Might it just be > possible that the problem is not only a bad Jaap and a bad Burn To say nothing of those of us on rgb who have been killfiled by DWS. > but also a > DWS problem ? > > In my view you take offense about all kind of things. That is ok but > you > offend people yourself as well. Yes, several other people have commented to me that it's an unfortunate combination, David's oversensitivity and his occasional propensity to rudeness. > Look at this recent UI thread you mentioned > explicitly. You send a couple of mails making me rather mad at you. I > shouldn't but I don't like your IMHO rather arrogant 'I don't agree, I > know > better, but I don't > give arguments' style. He doesn't like being challenged, doesn't see the need to justify arguments which may not have been as carefully worded as they might, and has explicitly stated that he doesn't have the time to go back and check on what he and others have written. Hence he's unapologetic about misquoting others or misrepresenting their arguments. > In your original mail you used an argument which I > qualified as 'logical nonsense'. Maybe I shouldn't but since nobody has > challenged me on that one so far, I assume I was right (I am still > waiting > for you > or anybody else to explain that statement to me, I really couldn't > parse > it). Why didn't you clarify your original statement by the way rather > than > starting all kind of bad Jaap mails ? You can say what you want but > always > keep in mind: If you cannot take it you should not dish it out. Indeed. Though it's a shame, since he obviously has so much to contribute that I (and most others) could gain from. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 7 13:48:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003901c35c68$d6096540$370858db@Desktop> References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:19 PM 8/6/03, Wayne wrote: >I don't think we can read anything into the omission of 'Subject to ...' >in L40D. I wouldn't think so either, nor would I expect others to, but the WBFLC apparently does. 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 Aug 7 14:13:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:13:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A6A8@obelix.spase.nl.206.1 68.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807151328.01d2fcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:29 7/08/2003 +0200, Martin Sinot wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrore: > > > an SOS redouble of 1NT > > showing any long > > suit is another classical case). Or a redouble of a transfer > > bid, asking > > partner to bid the suit himself. And umpteen other cases. > >Redoubles are not excluded from alerting, so these are wrong examples. AG : sorry. In Belgium, they are. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Aug 7 13:58:31 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:58:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC70@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 02:21 7/08/2003 +0100, you wrote: >I have just returned from southern Sweden, where I played in the >tournament in Skovde. My intention was only to play a few sessions in >the pairs that are the side games to the main event, the Chairman's = Cup. >As luck would have it, a team of Danish players found itself a man = short >for the quarter-finals of the Cup - they had not expected to get that >far, and one of them simply had to return to work. I was drafted in, = and >found myself playing with an unfamiliar partner against a team >comprising Stig Werdelin, his brother, and a young couple consisting of >someone I knew to be one of the more promising Danish juniors and a >player whom I recognised as one of the Danish ladies' team in >Salsomaggiore. > >My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > >Q73 A74 874 AK63 > >My right-hand opponent was the dealer, a fact that did not inhibit my >partner from opening 1S (five-card majors, strong no trump). He had = been >deceived by the Swedish boards, which not only indicate with a red >marking that you are vulnerable, but underline your compass positions = as >well. Thinking that the line under his compass position, Vast, meant >that he was the dealer, he had committed a technical error. > >The Director, a young and nervous individual, was summoned. = Explanations >followed in Swedish and/or Danish (as far as I could tell, each of the >other three players and the Director could understand one another >perfectly, whereas I could not comprehend a word). Eventually, it was >explained to me in English what I already knew; that my RHO could = accept >the bid, in which case... or he could... in which case... > >My RHO then asked the Director (in English): "Is it OK if I pass at my >turn as dealer, and then let my opponents conduct a normal auction, but >if they take advantage of the information, we call you back?" > >Now, if this had been an English tournament, I would have vouchsafed my >objections to this course. As it was, everybody else started talking in >Scandinavian. The upshot seemed to be that, with the consent of all >concerned, my RHO would pass and I could open the bidding, but was not >allowed to know that my guy had an opening bid with five spades. >Whatever you may think of this decision, it was the position I found >myself in. > >So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which >came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard >operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. > >Now then. This was an unfamiliar partner. We had discussed our system = to >the extent that, for example, I knew that 1S-2NT (Jacoby)-3NT showed a >maximum with short hearts. But we had not explicitly talked about this >sequence. He knew, and I knew that he knew, that 1C-1M might be a >weakish hand with four of the major and longer diamonds. But we had not >in any way agreed that 1m-1M-1N-2C was a puppet to 2D, and that 2D was >an artificial game force, though I would have known without prior >discussion that this was also standard operating procedure. > >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > >(a) normal >(b) quixotic >(c) irrational (b) quixotic, close to irrational Without discussion I would assume that 2D was non-forcing with spades & = diamonds,=20 and I might expect 2C to be some form of check-back. On this hand I have better spades than diamonds, and I would give = preference=20 back to 2S. It's a 2-way shot: the worst case is that we play a 4-3 = spade fit=20 instead of a better diamond fit (not necessarily a disaster). The worst = case from passing is that it was artificial and we play in a 3-2 diamond fit 27 high, which is a disaster. I would consider passing 2D with xx Axx Qxxx AKxx From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Aug 7 14:06:17 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:06:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] mini-stop Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC71@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 00:51 7/08/2003 +0100, David Burn wrote: > > >This does not, of course, change the fundamental question of whether UI >is or is not present following any departure from normal tempo (whether >that departure involves abnormal slowness or abnormal haste). I am, >however, more sympathetic than I was to the notion that in certain >positions, it would be normal not to expect a player to conform to >normal tempo. Those positions may perhaps best be dealt with by the = kind >of "mini-stop" advocated in this thread, with which I have a great deal >of sympathy. Indeed, I consider it sensible for a pause to be mandated >at any stage in any auction until both members of one side or the other >have passed. AG : this is a very good rule. Easy to understand, eliminates many=20 pointless Stops (like 1H p 1S p 3D), creates many important ones (like = 1H=20 1N 2H). Calling for votes. Strongly object. There are very few pointless stops, and the two you = have=20 quoted (1NT-4NT and 1H-1S-3D) are not pointless. On the first it is just possible that the next player is thinking of = bidding (why can't he have a 7600 distribution or something very freaky). If he thinks for a long time than as well as giving partner information (which = may be useless) he's also given the 1NT opener useful information. On the second, for one thing some people play 3D as artificial and this = gives responder plenty of opportunity to alert it. For another, if responder = bids 4H very quickly or 3NT very slowly this gives UI which a proper "stop" = would have alleviated. I always wait the full 10 seconds after any stop bid. I agree there is a problem with some non-stop auctions, but I don't = think this is the solution (I don't know what is, mind you, other than to play with a computer inserting pauses at random). From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Aug 7 14:16:24 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:16:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Karel wrote: >A case on another forum was reported as follows > >West East >S QT9xx S Jxx >H KQx H Axx >D KQxx D AJxx >C x C Axx > >W N E S >1S P 2C P >2D P 2H P >2NT P 3NT DBL >P% P 4S All Pass. > > >I dont know what the 2C was but lets assume 1RF. 2H 4th suit GF.. > >% At this stage, west (a player of international standard) asks what is = the >significance of the double. He is told it is lead directing. He = passes and >East pulls to 4S's. > >N/S weren't happy in that they felt W had no reason to ask any = questions as >he had nothing to bid and used question to draw East's attention to the = poor >contract. The Td ruled 4S's was normal, regardless of possible UI. = Any >comments ?? Assuming 2C was systemically natural, passing the double of 3NT is = irrational. I don't know why West asked; he has no reason either to pull or redouble = but=20 in this particular case I would have thought there is no harm done. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 14:44:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:44:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC70@lonsc-s-031.europe. shell.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807154123.024629a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:58 7/08/2003 +0100, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > > >(a) normal > >(b) quixotic > >(c) irrational > >(b) quixotic, close to irrational > >Without discussion I would assume that 2D was non-forcing with spades & >diamonds, >and I might expect 2C to be some form of check-back. >On this hand I have better spades than diamonds, and I would give preference >back to 2S. It's a 2-way shot: AG : indeed. It is clever. It is even the best bid. That's what you should do, without doubt, absent UI. But you aren't allowed to "be clever" the right way after having recieved UI. That has been said on blml several times. And it seems to be a typical case. From john@asimere.com Thu Aug 7 14:46:41 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:46:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes > >My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > >Q73 A74 874 AK63 > >So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which >came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard >operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. > >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > >(a) normal >(b) quixotic >(c) irrational Pass is obvious. >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 aa2972@compaq.com Thu Aug 7 14:53:00 2003 From: aa2972@compaq.com (aa2972@compaq.com) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:53:00 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) help defend your PC against new viruses Message-ID: <20030807135147.9D9D72BF4A@rhubarb.custard.org> You are receiving this email as a warning. Why not download the most advanced and complete anti-virus package right now? Norton anti-virus protects you from ALL transmission methods btw, you look great today. Best to be on the safe side. Download Protection NOW. http://fpp39@softwaresavings2you.biz/default.asp?id=3000 ps. dont want any more of this shit? http://f1pp39@softwaresavings2you.biz/remove/remove.html From aa2972@compaq.com Thu Aug 7 14:53:04 2003 From: aa2972@compaq.com (aa2972@compaq.com) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:53:04 +0800 Subject: [blml] help defend your PC against new viruses Message-ID: You are receiving this email as a warning. Why not download the most advanced and complete anti-virus package right now? Norton anti-virus protects you from ALL transmission methods btw, you look great today. Best to be on the safe side. Download Protection NOW. http://fpp39@softwaresavings2you.biz/default.asp?id=3000 ps. dont want any more of this shit? http://f1pp39@softwaresavings2you.biz/remove/remove.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 7 15:15:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:15:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <003c01c35cdb$ee8e4400$53ab53d4@Default> References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:29 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >David, > >Passing 2D whithout an explicit agreement that 2D shows a weak hand with >longer diamonds doesn't exist. Although it is conceivable this sequence >might just show that kind of hand no sane partner will ever do that to you >without agreements. AG : this meaning of 2D is "Standard French" > So I consider 2S completely automatic. AG : so I don't From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Thu Aug 7 15:04:55 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:04:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005301c35cec$e1e62720$7f1afac1@olivier> > At 12:29 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >David, > > > >Passing 2D whithout an explicit agreement that 2D shows a weak hand with > >longer diamonds doesn't exist. Although it is conceivable this sequence > >might just show that kind of hand no sane partner will ever do that to you > >without agreements. > > AG : this meaning of 2D is "Standard French" I think it is "Standard Walsh" ... witch is not a french convention as far as i know, walsh is more and more used in France, but is not yet part of the french system, So, if you play Walsh, the answer is a if you are not playing walsh, the answer is c I can't find a system where the answer is b. As David, I enjoyed this tournament last week and I got some occasions too to play in side tournaments, [I encourage you to come and play next year (last 15 days of July in Malmöe)] I never meet a swedish pair playing walsh so I should answer a in Sandinavia, I think the good point is to bid 2S (if think you do the same in your club individual tournament, witch can be a good clue too for "sane bidding") and call for a general beer. Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > So I consider 2S completely automatic. > > > AG : so I don't > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Thu Aug 7 15:10:28 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:10:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005301c35cec$e1e62720$7f1afac1@olivier> Message-ID: <000901c35ced$a818ada0$1de3f9c1@olivier> > [I encourage you to come and play next year (last 15 days of July in > Malmöe)] Sorry, not July but June :) Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > At 12:29 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >David, > > > > > >Passing 2D whithout an explicit agreement that 2D shows a weak hand with > > >longer diamonds doesn't exist. Although it is conceivable this sequence > > >might just show that kind of hand no sane partner will ever do that to > you > > >without agreements. > > > > AG : this meaning of 2D is "Standard French" > I think it is "Standard Walsh" ... witch is not a french convention as far > as i know, walsh is more and more used in France, but is not yet part of the > french system, > So, if you play Walsh, the answer is a > if you are not playing walsh, the answer is c > I can't find a system where the answer is b. > As David, I enjoyed this tournament last week and I got some occasions too > to play in side tournaments, > [I encourage you to come and play next year (last 15 days of July in > Malmöe)] > I never meet a swedish pair playing walsh so I should answer a in > Sandinavia, > I think the good point is to bid 2S (if think you do the same in your club > individual tournament, witch can be a good clue too for "sane bidding") and > call for a general beer. > > Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > > > > So I consider 2S completely automatic. > > > > > > AG : so I don't > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Aug 7 15:22:12 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807133029.01d23160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <89B749A5-C8E2-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : in uncertain positions, all non-repetitive suit bids are forcing. > However, this is a little too self-seving. Passing is the correct > thing to do. > I think that your partner should have realized that the 2D bid would > give you an ethics problem, and bid 3D, obviously offering as AI all > UI you had been given. In some (possibly older, American) adjuncts to the agreed system, 3D is used as the weak signoff with diamonds. > Of course, you could bid 2S, possibly being penalized, then invoke > L82, and be reinstated in your rights. It all depends whether you'd > rather remain a friend with the TD or partner. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Aug 7 15:29:45 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:29:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] The real world Message-ID: >From: Alain Gottcheiner >To: >Subject: RE: [blml] The real world >Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:44:32 +0200 > >At 13:58 7/08/2003 +0100, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >> >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: >> > >> >(a) normal >> >(b) quixotic >> >(c) irrational >> >>(b) quixotic, close to irrational >> >>Without discussion I would assume that 2D was non-forcing with spades & >>diamonds, >>and I might expect 2C to be some form of check-back. >>On this hand I have better spades than diamonds, and I would give >>preference >>back to 2S. It's a 2-way shot: > >AG : indeed. It is clever. It is even the best bid. That's what you should >do, without doubt, absent UI. >But you aren't allowed to "be clever" the right way after having recieved >UI. That has been said on blml several times. And it seems to be a typical >case. It's not 'clever'. It is perfectly normal. It's an action that, it appears, neither Ms. Hinden nor I would consider any alternative to [This may vary regionally - were I playing, as David Burn was, in Sweden I might wonder what 'standard' methods were]. How far backwards do you expect us to bend [never having met Ms. Hinden this fortunately conjures up no image in my mind]? Absent UI, the bid shows (we assume) Spades and Diamonds. It doesn't show any more Spades or any fewer Diamonds with the UI. We bid what we must. To not do so is idiotic, suicidal and an insult to our opponents. If they wish to call the director back at the end of the hand, the best of Danish luck to them, but I can't imagine that they would dream of doing so (based on the auction so far - we may well cheat like hell later). _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Aug 7 16:15:48 2003 From: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Aug 07, 2003 02:46:41 PM Message-ID: <200308071515.h77FFmO02237@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > > In article <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer>, David Burn > writes > > > >My hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, was: > > > >Q73 A74 874 AK63 > > > >So I opened one club (better minor). My partner bid one spade, which > >came as no great surprise. I rebid 1NT, which I took to be standard > >operating procedure, and he bid two diamonds. > > > >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > > >(a) normal > >(b) quixotic > >(c) irrational > > Pass is obvious. > I have to agree with everybody who has said in effect that style matters. If his bidding shows longer spades than diamonds, pass is irrational. If it's undiscussed it's at minimum reasonable. If the auction says nothing about the relative length of the suit pass is obvious. From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Aug 7 18:07:16 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:07:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <89B749A5-C8E2-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The real world > > On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : in uncertain positions, all non-repetitive suit bids are forcing. > > However, this is a little too self-seving. Passing is the correct > > thing to do. > > I think that your partner should have realized that the 2D bid would > > give you an ethics problem, and bid 3D, obviously offering as AI all > > UI you had been given. > > In some (possibly older, American) adjuncts to the agreed system, 3D is > used as the weak signoff with diamonds. Not older, newer. Older American systems 3D was forcing and still is in SAYC as far as I am reading the sayc notes right. Most people play any new suit by responder is forcing, the current American "standard" to ,my experience is that 2D there is NMF. Or some other form of artificial inquiry as ti the majors. Kaima > > > > Of course, you could bid 2S, possibly being penalized, then invoke > > L82, and be reinstated in your rights. It all depends whether you'd > > rather remain a friend with the TD or partner. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > > > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Aug 7 18:58:24 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:58:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:56 AM Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? > A case on another forum was reported as follows > > West East > S QT9xx S Jxx > H KQx H Axx > D KQxx D AJxx > C x C Axx > > W N E S > 1S P 2C P > 2D P 2H P > 2NT P 3NT DBL > P% P 4S All Pass > > > I dont know what the 2C was but lets assume 1RF. 2H 4th suit GF. > > % At this stage, west (a player of international standard) asks what is the > significance of the double. He is told it is lead directing. He passes and > East pulls to 4S's. > > N/S weren't happy in that they felt W had no reason to ask any questions as > he had nothing to bid and used question to draw East's attention to the poor > contract. The Td ruled 4S's was normal, regardless of possible UI. Any > comments ?? > > > The more interesting issue for me was the alert/non alert of the double. I > felt that as the double was conventional (ie) it was an agreement to lead a > specific suit, clubs, in this case that it should be alertable. Another > contributor, posted the following ... > > > ".... I refer you to > http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/static/files/Systems%20and%20Systems%20Regulat > ions/2002%20WBF%20Alerting%20Policy.pdf > > The WBF alerting policy document which clearly states > > "If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: > 1. All doubles. > 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, > or suggests a no-trump contract. > 3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of > conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, > players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. ...." > > > So 1NT by the opps double by me as a single suiter is not alertable ?? > Support doubles/ redoubles are not alertable ?? The above lead directing > doubles are not alertable ?? This seems to put unnecessary pressure on the > opps who on one hand may want to know if a double carries any significance > and yet on the other can be accused of giving UI if they do ask. > > K. = = = = = = = = Would an "authority" from ACBL care to comment on above. I would like to hear how this situation is properly handled in ACBL. Kaima From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 7 09:00:11 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:00:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030807082525.028fdd78@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <006201c35d0f$2827b790$fa16e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 (was: Appeals Committees) > At 07:44 AM 6/08/2003 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > snip > > > >+=+"The Laws are primarily designed not as > >punishment for irregularities, but rather as > >redress for damage" ('Scope and Interpretation > >of the Laws') > > I am using a weird American mail reader which > insists on parsing incoming traffic for naughty words > or ideas. The above from Grattan scored two chili > peppers. Please Grattan take care, even when > quoting from the holy texts. There are, as we know > people taking this list who are easily offended. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > +=+ Did you mean a weird male reader? I must contact Edgar and tell him his language gives offence - all those suggestive words in one sentence. I wonder if the substitution of simple four letter words will cause a major junking of laws messages? Could be a useful by-product. By the way, I hesitate to mention the S/*m word but I am now receiving a few intrusive (and objectionable) messages, with [blml] in the subject line, which seem not to emanate from the Netherlands. Chilli peppers, indeed! ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 7 19:42:58 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:42:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: Message-ID: <00af01c35d14$e008ad60$faad53d4@Default> > Absent UI, the bid shows (we assume) Spades and Diamonds. It doesn't show > any more Spades or any fewer Diamonds with the UI. We bid what we must. To > not do so is idiotic, suicidal and an insult to our opponents. If they wish > to call the director back at the end of the hand, the best of Danish luck to > them, but I can't imagine that they would dream of doing so (based on the > auction so far - we may well cheat like hell later). Of course I agree. I am really amazed about others in this thread. One. If you are not sure what is going on you bid 2S. Any normal player would. Two. The opponents clearly wanted to play this board in a normal way rather than to extract the maximum legal penalty. They don't want you to pass 2D, they don't expect you to pass 2D, so they will not even consider calling the TD about you not passing 2D. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Scorbie" To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The real world > >From: Alain Gottcheiner > >To: > >Subject: RE: [blml] The real world > >Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:44:32 +0200 > > > >At 13:58 7/08/2003 +0100, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > > > >> >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > >> > > >> >(a) normal > >> >(b) quixotic > >> >(c) irrational > >> > >>(b) quixotic, close to irrational > >> > >>Without discussion I would assume that 2D was non-forcing with spades & > >>diamonds, > >>and I might expect 2C to be some form of check-back. > >>On this hand I have better spades than diamonds, and I would give > >>preference > >>back to 2S. It's a 2-way shot: > > > >AG : indeed. It is clever. It is even the best bid. That's what you should > >do, without doubt, absent UI. > >But you aren't allowed to "be clever" the right way after having recieved > >UI. That has been said on blml several times. And it seems to be a typical > >case. > > Absent UI, the bid shows (we assume) Spades and Diamonds. It doesn't show > any more Spades or any fewer Diamonds with the UI. We bid what we must. To > not do so is idiotic, suicidal and an insult to our opponents. If they wish > to call the director back at the end of the hand, the best of Danish luck to > them, but I can't imagine that they would dream of doing so (based on the > auction so far - we may well cheat like hell later). > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 7 19:50:10 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:50:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b001c35d14$e10c13a0$faad53d4@Default> Dear Alain, Curious that I have to correct a French speaking Belgian on what is 'Standard French'. But Olivier has already done it. Walsh is not part of Standard French although of course some pairs play it (actually very few). Then I am not so sure if 2D is 'standard Walsh' as Olivier puts it. (Almost) everybody advanced enough to play Walsh will have some artificial way to end in 2D rather than to bid it naturally. If there is a standard at all, 2C puppet to 2D (normally to play 2D or any INV) and 2D GF might well be it. But once more, whithout agreement I will always bid 2S when holding three, and I know nobody who would not. Unles maybe when playing in an enviroment where 2D to play is standard (assuming I know it which is hardly consistent with having no agreements). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The real world > At 12:29 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >David, > > > >Passing 2D whithout an explicit agreement that 2D shows a weak hand with > >longer diamonds doesn't exist. Although it is conceivable this sequence > >might just show that kind of hand no sane partner will ever do that to you > >without agreements. > > AG : this meaning of 2D is "Standard French" > > > > So I consider 2S completely automatic. > > > AG : so I don't > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From luis@fuegolabs.com Thu Aug 7 20:01:57 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:01:57 -0300 Subject: [blml] Law of 18 or 19 clarification Message-ID: <050701c35d16$5fc5ad40$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Hi, Some simple questions that I'm sure you will be able to answer. a) Does the WBF have a policy for opening bids allowed in not HUM systems? If so it is rule of 18 or 19? b) Same question for the ACBL. I'm confused since some people mention rule of 18, others rule of 19 and I can't find a mention to those in the WBF systems policy. Thanks, Luis. PS: Sorry I posted this to R.G.B unintentionally, (mail client got dizzy) I'm sure this is the right place to ask. If you read both groups answer this one :-) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/7/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Aug 7 20:40:47 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:40:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0AF98E54-C90F-11D7-9471-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 06:07 PM, DRD wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 7:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] The real world > > >> >> On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> AG : in uncertain positions, all non-repetitive suit bids are >>> forcing. >>> However, this is a little too self-seving. Passing is the correct >>> thing to do. >>> I think that your partner should have realized that the 2D bid would >>> give you an ethics problem, and bid 3D, obviously offering as AI all >>> UI you had been given. >> >> In some (possibly older, American) adjuncts to the agreed system, 3D >> is >> used as the weak signoff with diamonds. > > Not older, newer. > Older American systems 3D was forcing and still is in SAYC as far as I > am > reading the sayc notes right. OK, we're talking different time scales, I think. I meant older in the context of the use of Walsh, since Hardy (early Walsh) suggests 3D as the signoff with a weak hand, while Bergen (newer Walsh) adopts 2C as checkback with 2D as weak. Two-way checkback as mentioned by David Burn seems currently to be in vogue but isn't mentioned in the texts I've read yet. Sayc is by definition outside of the scope of the discussion. > Most people play any new suit by responder is forcing, the current > American > "standard" to ,my experience is that 2D there is NMF. Or some other > form of > artificial inquiry as ti the majors. > Kaima > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 7 20:47:01 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: from "Olivier Beauvillain" at Aug 07, 2003 04:04:55 PM Message-ID: <200308071947.h77Jl17Z000897@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Olivier Beauvillain" > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:04:55 +0200 >=20 > > >Passing 2D whithout an explicit agreement that 2D shows a weak hand = with > > >longer diamonds doesn't exist. Although it is conceivable this seque= nce > > >might just show that kind of hand no sane partner will ever do that = to > > >you without agreements. > > > > AG : this meaning of 2D is "Standard French" > I think it is "Standard Walsh" ... witch is not a french convention as = far > as i know, walsh is more and more used in France, but is not yet part o= f the > french system, > So, if you play Walsh, the answer is a > if you are not playing walsh, the answer is c > I can't find a system where the answer is b. > As David, I enjoyed this tournament last week and I got some occasions = too > to play in side tournaments, > [I encourage you to come and play next year (last 15 days of July in > Malm=F6e)] > I never meet a swedish pair playing walsh so I should answer a in > Sandinavia, > I think the good point is to bid 2S (if think you do the same in your c= lub > individual tournament, witch can be a good clue too for "sane bidding")= and > call for a general beer. >=20 TY: Actually, the way I learned Walsh back in 1980's is that you would bypass 1D to show the 4 card major. However, with 2D being a New Minor Forcing bid, you have to bid 3D to show 4M and 6+ diamonds with a non-forcing hand. With a non-forcing hand and only 4-5 you pass 1NT. If you are playing Walsh, then 2D is a forcing bid that starts all forcing sequences. All other bids are invitational at best. And, at least on the East Coast of America, using either NMF or checkback stayman of some form or other are standard at the intermediate or higher level. In any undiscussed situation in ACBL-land, I would assume that a new suit by an UPH would be forcing at least one round. For a hand with S/D, I would assume that partner either bids 1S on a one-bid hand or bids 1D with both suits. What this means, I think, is that there are many standards out there with regional dominance. I don't think you can find a "standard" in an international event and hence, I think Jaap's estimation (including the opponents' obvious intention to play the board with as little complication as possible) would suggest just bidding 2S which is at least normal in as many places as pass and seeing what happens. -Ted. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 7 20:56:45 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <0AF98E54-C90F-11D7-9471-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> from "Gordon Rainsford" at Aug 07, 2003 08:40:47 PM Message-ID: <200308071956.h77JujoU001603@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> At this point, in ACBL-land, most people either play 2D as NMF or a 2-way checkback stayman where 2C is the GF bid (and is often played with a 2D relay response, but not always) and 2D is an intermediate checkback bid showing either NF or Inv values (depending on rebid) and 3D is still the NF diamond bid/weak. The only place I've seen the 2-way checkback system written up in is Steve Robinson's Washington Standard book (which of course is common around here seeing as I live in Washington and see/play vs/talk with Stevie and his contemporaries a lot). -Ted. > From: Gordon Rainsford > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:40:47 +0100 > > OK, we're talking different time scales, I think. > > I meant older in the context of the use of Walsh, since Hardy (early > Walsh) suggests 3D as the signoff with a weak hand, while Bergen (newer > Walsh) adopts 2C as checkback with 2D as weak. Two-way checkback as > mentioned by David Burn seems currently to be in vogue but isn't > mentioned in the texts I've read yet. > > Sayc is by definition outside of the scope of the discussion. > > > Most people play any new suit by responder is forcing, the current > > American > > "standard" to ,my experience is that 2D there is NMF. Or some other > > form of > > artificial inquiry as ti the majors. > > Kaima > > From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 7 22:11:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:11:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] mini-stop In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807130637.01d32330@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c35d28$88ad2730$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Alain Gottcheiner=20 ......... > >I wonder if it would not be of interest to quote the current STOP > regulation > >in force in Norway: > > > >STOP with a compulsory pause for thought shall be used: > >- With any opening bid at the level two or higher > >- With all jump bids > >- With all calls except PASS at the level three or higher in = competitive > >auctions. > > > >I believe this last rule would have solved the problem with the > "surprising" > >4H bid in the auction that started this thread? >=20 > AG : of course it would. > Your regulation seems a bit excessive - more and more stops will, as = Jaap > put it, "beat air" ; however, it is pretty easy to understand, and I = would > welcome its use. Don't forget that by competitive auctions we mean auctions where both = sides participate with calls different from pass. I do not believe we shall = have that many auctions where there will be an excessive number of added stop situations above the four-level? > Perhaps it would be a good idea -but difficult to implement- to allow > players who are sure that their stop will be pointless in the current > sequence (say, 1NT-4NT) to be exempted of using it. One effect of the caller announcing STOP to be responsible for timing = the delay is that if he feels confident that the stop is pointless in the = actual situation he may reduce the stop period below ten seconds or even omit = it completely. This we in fact see pretty often.=20 His LHO is still entitled to his ten seconds IF HE WANTS THEM. He of course transmits UI to his partner by the varying way he uses = stop, but that is easily detectable and I do not know of any case where this = has led to summoning the director. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 7 23:21:31 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:21:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <200308071956.h77JujoU001603@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <7F0460BD-C925-11D7-A75B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 15:56 US/Eastern, Ted Ying wrote: > The only place I've seen the 2-way checkback system written > up in is Steve Robinson's Washington Standard book (which > of course is common around here seeing as I live in Washington > and see/play vs/talk with Stevie and his contemporaries a lot). Two way checkback is also used in Romex, though I think in that system 2C is invitational and 2D is GF. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 7 19:26:00 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:26:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > > Indeed. Though it's a shame, since he obviously has > so much to contribute that I (and most others) could > gain from. > +=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable to stand well back from the edge. In the past Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, and in the exchanges with David, if it has occurred I have missed it. ~ G ~ +=+ From bbickford@charter.net Fri Aug 8 01:03:20 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:03:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Message-ID: <0a9a01c35d40$7a6d7630$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Justice should remove the bandage from > her eyes long enough to distinguish between > the vicious and the unfortunate." > ~ R. G. Ingersoll > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > > > > > > > Indeed. Though it's a shame, since he obviously has > > so much to contribute that I (and most others) could > > gain from. > > > +=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of > a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable > to stand well back from the edge. In the past > Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, > and in the exchanges with David, if it has > occurred I have missed it. ~ G ~ +=+ I agree with this. I think it also should be pointed out that email is a relatively new phenomomen. When talking face to face, you can always use body language to know when to back up and explain in a different way and/or adapt your wording to get your point across. This is extremely difficult in email. I think it is a two-way street. The writer has to make every effort to explain clearly and without causing offense and the recipient has to realize the writer is merely trying to make a point. In an international forum, this is exacerbated by language differences. Cheers........................./Bill Bickford > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 8 07:48:06 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:48:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Message-ID: <005601c35d79$2cf3b160$69f62fd4@Default> Grattan: > +=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of > a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable > to stand well back from the edge. In the past > Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, > and in the exchanges with David, if it has > occurred I have missed it. ~ G ~ +=+ Thanks for noticing some improvement. I do my best. But one more small detail. I don't criticise 'persons'. Why should I. I criticise persons holding certain 'jobs'. Or more clear I critisice their performance in that job. Of course there is no clear line between the two and I guess I have overdone in the past, but that is the basic idea. And IMHO the bridge world needs criticism. Ever tried to get something remotely resembling criticism in a Daily Bulletin at a major championship ? I never did but I have seen some attempts. It is as bad as the Pravda before the Wall came down, if not worse. So no big suprise that disasters like Lille and Menton and others (I can give you a couple of stories) happen. They will happen again if the EBL/WBF cannot reform itself. In a BLML context IMHO Ton is fair game as WBFLC chairman and as EBL/WBF operations director (among other jobs). Grattan is as EBU/WBFLC official. Herman is as EBL AC scribe. DWS is also because he poses himself as an authority. And there will be others. Now there is nothing wrong with holding office or being an authority or being well known for whatever reason (I am myself in the Dutch bridge world). It brings all kind of rewards. But also expect more and fiercer criticism and opposition than if you were just the average guy in the street. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Justice should remove the bandage from > her eyes long enough to distinguish between > the vicious and the unfortunate." > ~ R. G. Ingersoll > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > > > > > > > Indeed. Though it's a shame, since he obviously has > > so much to contribute that I (and most others) could > > gain from. > > > +=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of > a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable > to stand well back from the edge. In the past > Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, > and in the exchanges with David, if it has > occurred I have missed it. ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 8 07:55:46 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:55:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003e01c35d7a$39493c40$0aef193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:48 PM Subject: RE: [blml] HCP > At 06:19 PM 8/6/03, Wayne wrote: > > >I don't think we can read anything into the omission of 'Subject to ...' > >in L40D. > > I wouldn't think so either, nor would I expect others to, but the WBFLC > apparently does. > > +=+ No. That is not what is said. The WBF's decision is consistent with established:principles that: (a) each law is to be considered in its own right. (b) the specific overrides the general. The 'Subject to' remark was my own shorthand reflection of the above, based on the practice in drafting the laws which Kaplan followed. If one law was to be subject to another he indicated this in the law, usually with words such as "but see Law ...". But the principle, reiterated in Geneva 1990, is first to be found in pre 1987 records, and I do not know just how far back it goes. (2) On the enquiry whether this might change, both the Zones 1 & 2 Zonal Authorities and maybe other Zones and/or NBOs, have availed themselves of this decision in such matters as the prohibition of psyches of conventional bids. In another connection the WBF and the EBL System Policies also depend on it. I do not think we will attempt to stand these bodies on their heads, so if we change anything it is unlikely to restrict the exercise of such powers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 8 12:58:50 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:58:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <00b001c35d14$e10c13a0$faad53d4@Default> References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030808135448.02468600@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:50 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Dear Alain, > >Curious that I have to correct a French speaking Belgian on what is >'Standard French'. But Olivier has already done it. Walsh is not part of >Standard French although of course some pairs play it (actually very few). AG : The main source for Standard French once was Roudinesco's "La Majeure= =20 par 5". He advocates 2C as the only artificial bid (it even became known=20 under his name). The combination of this idea with Walsh makes 2D a weak,=20 canap=E9-like bid. Okay, perhaps it isn't absolutely classical in France. It is, however, in=20 French-speaking Southern Belgium. Please read my previous comments with=20 that correction. >Then I am not so sure if 2D is 'standard Walsh' as Olivier puts it.= (Almost) >everybody advanced enough to play Walsh will have some artificial way to= end >in 2D rather than to bid it naturally. If there is a standard at all, 2C >puppet to 2D (normally to play 2D or any INV) and 2D GF might well be it. AG : yes, that's a more modern idea, known in France as "ping-pong" (wonder= =20 why ?) ; I don't know how popular it has become. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 8 13:21:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:21:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <003e01c35d7a$39493c40$0aef193e@4nrw70j> References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030808080348.01f64a60@pop.starpower.net> At 02:55 AM 8/8/03, grandeval wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 06:19 PM 8/6/03, Wayne wrote: > > > > >I don't think we can read anything into the omission of 'Subject > to ...' > > >in L40D. > > > > I wouldn't think so either, nor would I expect others to, but the > WBFLC > > apparently does. > >+=+ No. That is not what is said. The WBF's decision >is consistent with established:principles that: >(a) each law is to be considered in its own right. >(b) the specific overrides the general. > The 'Subject to' remark was my own shorthand >reflection of the above, based on the practice in >drafting the laws which Kaplan followed. If one law >was to be subject to another he indicated this in the >law, usually with words such as "but see Law ...". >But the principle, reiterated in Geneva 1990, is first to >be found in pre 1987 records, and I do not know just >how far back it goes. > (2) On the enquiry whether this might change, both >the Zones 1 & 2 Zonal Authorities and maybe other > Zones and/or NBOs, have availed themselves of this >decision in such matters as the prohibition of psyches >of conventional bids. In another connection the WBF >and the EBL System Policies also depend on it. > I do not think we will attempt to stand these bodies >on their heads, so if we change anything it is unlikely >to restrict the exercise of such powers. That seems like a rather light dismissal of a rather absurd situation. It should bother us that at least two zones, nominally bound to follow TFLB, have exercised their power under L40D to write rules that directly nullify L40A, and we view this as entirely legal. TFLB is supposed to be a book of laws, not a book of defaults that stand as fallback laws only for those zones or NCBOs that choose not to write their own. If each zone can make its own rules that potentially nullify an existing law in TFLB, then that law has no business being in TFLB in the first place. Perhaps we need a new lawbook with two sections, one containing the "real" laws that we are all expected to follow, and a second listing those areas of law which are, by intention, not covered by the lawbook, but instead left to be determined by the preferences of individual zones (whose laws might in turn delegate lawmaking authority in specified areas under their jurisdiction to their component NCBOs, SOs, or whatever). There is no point in having nominal written "laws" that, by the force of other written laws, just "don't count". IMO it is a fatal flaw in a lawbook to have rules that conform to the model "Law A: Members must... Law B: Members may ignore Law A if they so choose." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Fri Aug 8 15:32:52 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:32:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030808135448.02468600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004801c35db9$f39b9ae0$8c1afac1@olivier> At 20:50 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Dear Alain, > >Curious that I have to correct a French speaking Belgian on what is >'Standard French'. But Olivier has already done it. Walsh is not part of >Standard French although of course some pairs play it (actually very few). AG : The main source for Standard French once was Roudinesco's "La Majeure par 5". He advocates 2C as the only artificial bid (it even became known under his name). The combination of this idea with Walsh makes 2D a weak, canapé-like bid. Okay, perhaps it isn't absolutely classical in France. It is, however, in French-speaking Southern Belgium. Please read my previous comments with that correction. OB: It may be a part of Roudi's system but it isn't the "french standard" witch is learned in our clubs. It is rather common now, but for pairs playing upgraded system. >Then I am not so sure if 2D is 'standard Walsh' as Olivier puts it. (Almost) >everybody advanced enough to play Walsh will have some artificial way to end >in 2D rather than to bid it naturally. If there is a standard at all, 2C >puppet to 2D (normally to play 2D or any INV) and 2D GF might well be it. AG : yes, that's a more modern idea, known in France as "ping-pong" (wonder why ?) ; I don't know how popular it has become. OB : I don't know why ... but "puppet" in France means something else (3C / 2NT to look for 5 cards major) so "they" have to find another name! Il is far less popular that Check Back Stayman (call it "Roudi" in France ...) I have a small glossary french/english of conventions names if you come to play here :) Olivier (Say Olivix in Britanny ...) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 8 19:31:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:31:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opening Leads Out of Turn Message-ID: <080820031431327939%ereppert@rochester.rr.invalid.com> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] Another thread led me to some thoughts on this subject. It seems there are several possible OLOOT scenarios: 1. the wrong defender leads face down and (a) his partner leads face down (b) his partner leads face up (c) his partner does nothing 2. the wrong defender leads face up and (a) his partner leads face down (b) his partner leads face up (c) his partner does nothing 3. A player of the declaring side leads. There are of course several possibilities under #3, but I don't want to talk about them, just the first two. 2(a) is of course the situation addressed by Law 54. What of the others? 1(a), it seems to me, may involve Law 73B1, or possibly Law 16. There may, of course, be no real problem, and the TD may then simply tell the designated opening leader's partner to pick up his card. But it seems to me that the placing of that card on the table, even face down, is an irregularity, and so if attention is drawn to it, the TD must be called. In 1(b) we have (in most jurisdictions of which I'm aware) two infractions, the other one being the proper opening leader leading face up. Again, if attention is drawn to either irregularity, the TD must be called (and again, he will probably do nothing). In 1(c) there is no way the situation will (legally) be resolved without a TD call. Attention *will* be drawn to the irregularity, so again, the TD must be called. Yet again, "pick up your card" seems likely to be the ruling (what law(s)?) 2(b) may get messy. Seems to me Laws 57 and 58 may be germane here, and likely the improper leader's face up card will become a (major, I think) penalty card. IAC it's pretty clear that attention will likely be drawn, and again the TD must be called. 2(c) is, if I'm not mistaken, normally handled as if it were 2(a), and Law 54 is invoked. I'm not so sure this is technically correct, but there it is. Now some players may say that calling the TD in case(s) 1 is a waste of time, and will not do so *even* *if* attention has been drawn, but it seems to me that's illegally making their own rulings, is it not? Some may even try to handle 2(b) themselves, but that's even more clearly wrong. What about 2(c)? Is the TD correct to apply law 54? If so, how so, since that law specifically refers only to 2(a)? If not, how *should* he handle it? Comments? From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 8 19:50:49 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:50:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030808135448.02468600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c35db9$f39b9ae0$8c1afac1@olivier> Message-ID: <000f01c35dde$1d452720$bbad53d4@Default> > OB : I don't know why ... but "puppet" in France means something else (= 3C / > 2NT to look for 5 cards major) so "they" have to find another name! > Il is far less popular that Check Back Stayman (call it "Roudi" in Fran= ce Roudi (rather 'standard' in France) is a kind of Check Back Stayman but b= e very careful. Roudi has artificial step reponses while most versions of Check Back use rather natural answers. Puppet is difficult. It is used in a name like Puppet Stayman. But as far= as I know the generic word 'puppet' means (or is used in certain environment= s as) a more or less obligatory 'transfer' which doesn't promise a suit (li= ke 2NT in lebensohl). But I might be wrong. Anybody ? Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The real world > > > > > At 20:50 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Dear Alain, > > > >Curious that I have to correct a French speaking Belgian on what is > >'Standard French'. But Olivier has already done it. Walsh is not part = of > >Standard French although of course some pairs play it (actually very few). > > AG : The main source for Standard French once was Roudinesco's "La Maje= ure > par 5". He advocates 2C as the only artificial bid (it even became know= n > under his name). The combination of this idea with Walsh makes 2D a wea= k, > canap=E9-like bid. > Okay, perhaps it isn't absolutely classical in France. It is, however, = in > French-speaking Southern Belgium. Please read my previous comments with > that correction. > OB: It may be a part of Roudi's system but it isn't the "french standar= d" > witch is learned in our clubs. > It is rather common now, but for pairs playing upgraded system. > > >Then I am not so sure if 2D is 'standard Walsh' as Olivier puts it. > (Almost) > >everybody advanced enough to play Walsh will have some artificial way = to > end > >in 2D rather than to bid it naturally. If there is a standard at all, = 2C > >puppet to 2D (normally to play 2D or any INV) and 2D GF might well be = it. > > AG : yes, that's a more modern idea, known in France as "ping-pong" (wonder > why ?) ; I don't know how popular it has become. > > OB : I don't know why ... but "puppet" in France means something else (= 3C / > 2NT to look for 5 cards major) so "they" have to find another name! > Il is far less popular that Check Back Stayman (call it "Roudi" in Fran= ce > ...) > I have a small glossary french/english of conventions names if you come= to > play here :) > Olivier (Say Olivix in Britanny ...) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Aug 8 18:32:02 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:32:02 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030808135448.02468600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > AG : The main source for Standard French once was Roudinesco's "La Majeur= e > par 5". He advocates 2C as the only artificial bid (it even became known > under his name). The combination of this idea with Walsh makes 2D a weak, > canap=E9-like bid. The key here is "canape-LIKE", not pure canape. At least in Western USA Walsh and Polish Club-style MAFIA, if you use 2C for checkback, 2D is weak and nonforcing, but may be 4-5, 5-5, or 5-4. That is, a 2S rebid would suggest six, and there isn't enough space at the 2-level to tell which suit is longer. As I learned it, you pretty much automatically correct to the major with 3-card support after 2D, just as you do in old-fashioned longest-suit-first standard -- but with a bit more risk of landing in your second-best fit and making up for it since 2x30 is as good as 3x20. That means I think a pass is closer to irrational than to quixotic. > Okay, perhaps it isn't absolutely classical in France. It is, however, in > French-speaking Southern Belgium. Please read my previous comments with > that correction. Accepting that 2D is weak is the easy part... accepting that passing it is reasonable is harder to swallow. GRB From Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Aug 8 20:11:16 2003 From: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: <000f01c35dde$1d452720$bbad53d4@Default> from "Jaap van der Neut" at Aug 08, 2003 08:50:49 PM Message-ID: <200308081911.h78JBGh05775@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> Jaap van der Neut writes: > > Puppet is difficult. It is used in a name like Puppet Stayman. But as far as > I know the generic word 'puppet' means (or is used in certain environments > as) a more or less obligatory 'transfer' which doesn't promise a suit (like > 2NT in lebensohl). But I might be wrong. Anybody ? > I don't think there's a totally accepted "standard" meaning. Though Bridge World is trying to get one. Their glossary distinguishes between puppet (transfer) and marionette (transfer to cheapest bid but partner is permitted to bid higher with special hands). http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bridge_glossary&f=glossa.html From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Aug 8 21:12:39 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:12:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The real world In-Reply-To: from "Olivier Beauvillain" at Aug 08, 2003 04:32:52 PM Message-ID: <200308082012.h78KCdb9027082@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Well, typically ping-pong bids in the ACBL are another name for relay bids where the relay bid pushes the auction back to partner without conveying any additional information. I would guess this is to differentiate it from the standard checkback system where 2C is the checkback system and asks for natural type responses. Much like some people playing Jordan 2NT reversing the bids for 2NT and 3m calling the reversed bids "flip flop" having flip-flop'ed the bids. -Ted. > AG : yes, that's a more modern idea, known in France as "ping-pong" (wonder > why ?) ; I don't know how popular it has become. > From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 8 21:16:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:16:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opening Leads Out of Turn In-Reply-To: <080820031431327939%ereppert@rochester.rr.invalid.com> Message-ID: <000001c35de9$e836e260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Another thread led me to some thoughts on this subject. >=20 > It seems there are several possible OLOOT scenarios: >=20 > 1. the wrong defender leads face down and > (a) his partner leads face down > (b) his partner leads face up > (c) his partner does nothing > 2. the wrong defender leads face up and > (a) his partner leads face down > (b) his partner leads face up > (c) his partner does nothing > 3. A player of the declaring side leads. >=20 > There are of course several possibilities under #3, but I don't want = to > talk about them, just the first two. Common to all cases under 1 is that the card irregularly led is simply retracted with no consequence other than possibly UI. The applicable laws for the alternatives under 2 are: (a): 54 (as you stated) (b): 58A (c): 54 Incidentally your case 3 (which you did not want to address) is no OLOOT = but card exposed during the auction, and the relevant law is 24B. > 1(a), it seems to me, may involve Law 73B1, or possibly Law 16. There > may, of course, be no real problem, and the TD may then simply tell = the > designated opening leader's partner to pick up his card. But it seems > to me that the placing of that card on the table, even face down, is = an > irregularity, and so if attention is drawn to it, the TD must be > called. Technically yes, but in practice I have never seen this happen. And I wouldn't bother myself. > In 1(b) we have (in most jurisdictions of which I'm aware) two > infractions, the other one being the proper opening leader leading = face > up. Again, if attention is drawn to either irregularity, the TD must = be > called (and again, he will probably do nothing). Making the opening lead face up instead of face down is to my knowledge never penalized. The consequence of this "irregularity" is simply that = the defense loses a few rights, i.e. the right for the other defender to ask questions before the opening lead is faced (with the possibility that = the opening lead can be retracted and also the auction continued in case misinformation is revealed) > In 1(c) there is no way the situation will (legally) be resolved > without a TD call. Attention *will* be drawn to the irregularity, so > again, the TD must be called. Yet again, "pick up your card" seems > likely to be the ruling (what law(s)?) 1(a) and 1(c) are essentially identical, and the procedure is described completely in Law 54 (Notice the initial clause in this law) > 2(b) may get messy. Seems to me Laws 57 and 58 may be germane here, = and > likely the improper leader's face up card will become a (major, I > think) penalty card. IAC it's pretty clear that attention will likely > be drawn, and again the TD must be called. True, but Law 57 is irrelevant. The offender is deemed to having played = his card subsequent to partner's lead. If his play obviously was not meant = as a play but as a lead he should be permitted to retract that card which = then becomes a major penalty card. The final result is that if his card can = be legally played to partner's (correct) lead it must be played, otherwise = it remains a major penalty card. >=20 > 2(c) is, if I'm not mistaken, normally handled as if it were 2(a), and > Law 54 is invoked. I'm not so sure this is technically correct, but > there it is. Why should this not be technically correct? It is. ....... > What about 2(c)? Is the TD correct to apply law 54? If so, how > so, since that law specifically refers only to 2(a)? If not, how > *should* he handle it? The initial clause in Law 54 was added in 1997 to specifically address = the situation where a correct opening lead is made face down while at the = same time the other defender makes a faced opening lead out of turn. The = change simply confirmed the only logical principle that a card not faced should = be retracted if another card is irregularly led and/or faced at the same = time. Regards Sven From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Aug 8 22:18:08 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:18:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: price of Big Mac (Was Soft shoe shuffle) In-Reply-To: References: <000001c3455e$b4a28ce0$374726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <019501c346e3$ea4644a0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , Robert E. Harris >> writes > >>>(By the way, a Senior Coffee is US 38 cents there. Limited to us >>>old folks.) > >>presumably the cup is labelled "Contains hot drink" :) > > "Do not drink if allergic to coffee." > > "Contents may stain clothes if poured over them." > > "Do not add sugar if sweet drink not desired." > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ Actually, the lid says, "WARNING: HOT" as well as some stuff unrelated to the contents as coffee. The cup itself has a lot of blather about what fine coffee McDonald's serves and the warning: "CAUTION: COFFEE IS VERY HOT." As to the age of the senior coffee: the coffee is a lot younger than this coffee drinker. (The coffee is quite fresh and very good.) I'm sorry to lose from BLML David S.'s often interesting and helpful views. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Fri Aug 8 23:10:35 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 23:10:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Leads Out of Turn In-Reply-To: <000001c35de9$e836e260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c35df9$e7329e80$0201a8c0@rui> ------------- > 2(b) may get messy. Seems to me Laws 57 and 58 may be germane here,=20 > and likely the improper leader's face up card will become a (major, I > think) penalty card. IAC it's pretty clear that attention will likely=20 > be drawn, and again the TD must be called. True, but Law 57 is irrelevant. The offender is deemed to having played his card subsequent to partner's lead. If his play obviously was not meant as a play but as a lead he should be permitted to retract that card which then becomes a major penalty card. The final result is that if his card can be legally played to partner's (correct) lead it must be played, otherwise it remains a major penalty card. ----------------- Rui Marques says: If the wrong lead was simultaneous or subsequent to the right lead, then the above is basically correct. The part of retracting or not is irrelevant, because being a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity.=20 If the offender lead before partner (which is not clear from the initial question), it becomes: - Wrong lead is the lead out of turn, apply the usual LOOT laws and AFTER THAT the penalty card laws. Example: AH OOT, AD in turn. Accept the AH and spread the hand or dummy, in that case AD is a penalty card, to be PITFLO. Dont forget that if the AH makes the trick and the AD cannot be played in the first trick, declarer will have lead penalties available. Do not accept the AH: Require H - AH retracted, H led, AD remains penalty card, eventual lead penalties later Forbid H - AH retracted, AD led, prohibition to lead hearts remains if the AD scores. "Lead anything" - AH remains a penalty card, AD led, declarer will have lead penalties available against the "correct" opening leader if the AD scores and the AH remains on the table. Not too messy... I=B4ve seen worse :-) From bceo_62@erols.com Sat Aug 9 03:42:02 2003 From: bceo_62@erols.com (bceo_62@erols.com) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Outlook Message-ID: we could all use some extra money at the end of the week! Every day thousands of Americans are saving money, don't be one of the few who miss out! With the money you save, put it towards a new car! >----------- http://srd.yahoo.com/drst/432890/*http://onlinesaleew.com/index.asp?RefID=198478 >----------- dont want any more? http://r.aol.com/cgi/redir-complex?url=http://mo3es@onlinesaleew.com/auto/index.htm From brocky@gte.net Sat Aug 9 05:44:52 2003 From: brocky@gte.net (brocky@gte.net) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:44:52 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) economic woes? Message-ID: hey its me again, i was wondering if you'd be interested in this site Only the banks know about this great offer, now you can too! I hope your ready for lower mortgage repayments! >----------- http://tops@onlinesaleew.com/index.asp?RefID=198478 >----------- dont want any more? http://srd.yahoo.com/drst/23/*http://onlinesaleew.com/auto/index.htm From bceo@erols.com Sun Aug 17 05:39:42 2003 From: bceo@erols.com (bceo@erols.com) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:39:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] Re: H Message-ID: <20030809044423.31A312B9CF@rhubarb.custard.org> holy pork bun! - you have to see this crazy site, I saved $3000... basically it's saved me a ton of money, you're placed up for auction and financers outbid each other on getting you the best deal on your mortgage! >----------- http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://bobby@onlinesaleew.com/index.asp?RefID=198478 >----------- for no more http://srd.yahoo.com/drst/43435/*http://onlinesaleew.com/auto/index.htm From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Sat Aug 9 08:38:57 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 09:38:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <003e01c35c82$2b54fdc0$37db8051@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030807161435.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030808135448.02468600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c35db9$f39b9ae0$8c1afac1@olivier> <000f01c35dde$1d452720$bbad53d4@Default> Message-ID: <003901c35e49$4b244e80$0f1afac1@olivier> > > OB : I don't know why ... but "puppet" in France means something else (3C > / > > 2NT to look for 5 cards major) so "they" have to find another name! > > Il is far less popular that Check Back Stayman (call it "Roudi" in France > > Roudi (rather 'standard' in France) is a kind of Check Back Stayman but be > very careful. Roudi has artificial step reponses while most versions of > Check Back use rather natural answers. > > Puppet is difficult. It is used in a name like Puppet Stayman. But as far as > I know the generic word 'puppet' means (or is used in certain environments > as) a more or less obligatory 'transfer' which doesn't promise a suit (like > 2NT in lebensohl). But I might be wrong. Anybody ? > > Jaap No, you are right, A puppet is a transfert for a suit that you may or maynot have, Lebensohl is a typical exemple, A transfert, is a transfert for a suit that you have, Rubensohl, Ping-pong is what we called a "pre-sequence" when i used to play artificial system : a bid witch mean nothing in itself but will be precised later on : 1C 1S 1NT 2NT is inv with 4 spades 1C 1S 1NT 2C* 2D* 2NT is inv with 5 spades or 1C 1S 1NT 2H is 54 weakish 1C 1S 1NT 2C* 2D* 2H is 54 slightly inv if I remember ping-pong (I don'y play it ...) and Roudi is a kind of CBS, Roudinesco did changed a few sequences, but some people did changed some more after too ... 1C 1H 1NT 2C* : 2D 2H min 2H 3H min (with spades, you can switch 2H/2S answers) 2S 3H max 2NT 2H max and you can add : 3C 3H 5C max 3D/S 3H max showing honnors etc. Olivix > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Olivier Beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:32 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The real world > > > > > > > > > > > > At 20:50 7/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >Dear Alain, > > > > > >Curious that I have to correct a French speaking Belgian on what is > > >'Standard French'. But Olivier has already done it. Walsh is not part of > > >Standard French although of course some pairs play it (actually very > few). > > > > AG : The main source for Standard French once was Roudinesco's "La Majeure > > par 5". He advocates 2C as the only artificial bid (it even became known > > under his name). The combination of this idea with Walsh makes 2D a weak, > > canapé-like bid. > > Okay, perhaps it isn't absolutely classical in France. It is, however, in > > French-speaking Southern Belgium. Please read my previous comments with > > that correction. > > OB: It may be a part of Roudi's system but it isn't the "french standard" > > witch is learned in our clubs. > > It is rather common now, but for pairs playing upgraded system. > > > > >Then I am not so sure if 2D is 'standard Walsh' as Olivier puts it. > > (Almost) > > >everybody advanced enough to play Walsh will have some artificial way to > > end > > >in 2D rather than to bid it naturally. If there is a standard at all, 2C > > >puppet to 2D (normally to play 2D or any INV) and 2D GF might well be it. > > > > AG : yes, that's a more modern idea, known in France as "ping-pong" > (wonder > > why ?) ; I don't know how popular it has become. > > > > OB : I don't know why ... but "puppet" in France means something else (3C > / > > 2NT to look for 5 cards major) so "they" have to find another name! > > Il is far less popular that Check Back Stayman (call it "Roudi" in France > > ...) > > I have a small glossary french/english of conventions names if you come to > > play here :) > > Olivier (Say Olivix in Britanny ...) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sat Aug 9 11:28:42 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:28:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030807142016.01d2a710@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >The WBF alerting policy document which clearly states > >"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: >1. All doubles. >2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, >or suggests a no-trump contract. >3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of >conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, >players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. ...." > > AG : I've said before that this policy is absurd. Perhaps it's a good idea to ask to alert neither takeout, penalty or optional doubles, so as to limit UI risks, but clearly artificial doubles should be alerted. Your example of 1NT-X is a good one ; an SOS redouble of 1NT showing any long suit is another classical case). Or a redouble of a transfer bid, asking partner to bid the suit himself. And umpteen other cases. +++ I have to say I'm amazed - I expected some denial or post explaining why this is the WBF policy. I agree with Alain that "normal" doubles TO, optional penos etc should not be alerted. We still alert negative doubles in Ireland which is daft. Anyway ... .... but surely doubles which convey an agreed upon, non obvious meaning have to be alerted. The opps aren't psychic. If you don't alert any double then we are 200% going to get cases as per original post ... and what do you expect ?? The opps are entitled to ask about a bid or else be accused of not covering themselves. Catch 22 they ask and are then accused of passing UI. Why put players in this position ?? But I don't agree with the contention that this lead-directing double should be alerted. What else could it be ? +++ What could it be ?? Anything a pair so wishes. Not the point, double says you think the opponents have over reached. Double meaning lead 1 out of 4 suits is very specific and clearly an agreement and should be alerted, regardless how obvious you think it is (if experience has taught me anything, its that obvious is not obvious at all !!) If double means pd use your head and lead what on the bidding will most likely knock the contract fair enough. This was not the case. This was lead clubs (normally 1st suit bid by dummy) - a clearcut specific alertable agreement. Anyway not alerting all doubles ... well I aint the boss .. but seems a very ropey premise. Karel From HauffHJ@aol.com Fri Aug 8 17:21:49 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:21:49 EDT Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights Message-ID: --part1_ad.31bd45eb.2c65281d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all This is what I believe: the Law is based on "comparing like with like" and "equal rights to everybody". But it seems there is an exsception: If you are a very good players, you have more rights than your co-competitors. this is what LAW88 says. Please inform: Who invented this and when ?? Any reason to do so ?? have a nice weekend regards Paul Hauff www. bridgdeassistant & Precision Scoring --part1_ad.31bd45eb.2c65281d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all
This is what I believe: the Law is based on "comparing like with like"
and "equal rights to everybody".
But it seems there is an exsception:
If you are a very good players, you have more rights than your
co-competitors. this is what LAW88 says.

Please inform:
Who invented this and when ??
Any reason to do so ??

have a nice weekend
regards
Paul Hauff
www. bridgdeassistant & Precision Scoring --part1_ad.31bd45eb.2c65281d_boundary-- From nancy@dressing.org Sat Aug 9 03:55:22 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:55:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Spam Message-ID: <001801c35e21$ad85baa0$6501a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C35E00.263256B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C35E00.263256B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is anyone else receiving spam via=20 BLML??
 
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C35E00.263256B0-- From henk@ripe.net Sat Aug 9 14:52:10 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:52:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Spam In-Reply-To: <001801c35e21$ad85baa0$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? Yes, I noticed it too, looking into it. 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 Sat Aug 9 17:00:36 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 09:00:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights References: Message-ID: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Paul Hauff: > Hi all > This is what I believe: the Law is based on "comparing like with like" > and "equal rights to everybody". > But it seems there is an exsception: > If you are a very good players, you have more rights than your > co-competitors. this is what LAW88 says. > > Please inform: > Who invented this and when ?? > Any reason to do so ?? > The "reason" is that a pair who thru no fault of their own get an artificial score adjustment should not have their percentage standing in the session impaired because of that. More interesting is what the pair at fault get. In ACBL-land, that is the remainder from 100% after the no-fault pair get their 60% or 60+%. This was an ACBLLC interpretation. The justification for that is the assumption that an at-fault pair playing a 65% pair would not do as well on a board as when playing a 50% pair. The hidden assumption is that every pair playing a 65% pair would figure to score 35% when playing them, but of course that is nonsense. What happens when two 65% pairs meet? If an artificial score adjustment for the at-fault pair is going to be based on the performance of the no-fault pair, then that should work the other way too. The no-fault pair should get 60% augmented as above, but with the augmentation limited to the difference between their percentage on other boards and the at-fault pair's percentage. That is, a 70% pair would get 64%, not 70%, if playing a 66% pair, and the latter would get 36%, not 30%. If two 65% pairs are involved, the split is 60-40. This may not be mathematically defensible, but it's a step in the right direction. As I remember, other Zones just give the at-fault pair 40%, that's it. As Steve Wilner has pointed out, that could lead a weaker pair to arrange for an avg- result when playing against Meckwell. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From aa14south2@angelfire.com Sat Aug 9 20:47:03 2003 From: aa14south2@angelfire.com (aa14south2@angelfire.com) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:47:03 +0900 Subject: [blml] removes viruses automatically Message-ID: VIRUS ALERT the next email you receive could contain a virus. are you protected? Receive TOTAL protection with Norton. btw, you look great today. Click here for TOTAL PROTECTION. http://ppa1232@profitableproducts.com/default.asp?id=3000 ps. dont want any more of this shit? http://profitableproducts.com/remove/remove.html From aa1462@acorn.net Sat Aug 9 20:47:00 2003 From: aa1462@acorn.net (aa1462@acorn.net) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:47:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) most trusted antivirus solution Message-ID: POSSIBLE TROJAN DETECTED! WARNING.. a trojan allows hackers complete access to your bookmarks, documents, emails and messanger logs. Norton Antivirus is a complete package that offers you TOTAL protection! btw, you look great today. Total PC Protection RIGHT NOW. http://appqov@profitableproducts.com/default.asp?id=3000 ps. dont want any more of this shit? http://oo6q212@profitableproducts.com/remove/remove.html From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Aug 10 00:09:49 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:09:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <200308081911.h78JBGh05775@athena.CCRS.NRCAN.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001101c35ecb$56d3d0c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > Jaap van der Neut writes: > > > > Puppet is difficult. It is used in a name like Puppet Stayman. But as far as > > I know the generic word 'puppet' means (or is used in certain environments > > as) a more or less obligatory 'transfer' which doesn't promise a suit (like > > 2NT in lebensohl). But I might be wrong. Anybody ? > > > I don't think there's a totally accepted "standard" meaning. Though Bridge > World is trying to get one. > > Their glossary distinguishes between puppet (transfer) and marionette > (transfer to cheapest bid but partner is permitted to bid higher with > special hands). > Yes, as Danny Kleinman explained to me today: "Puppet Stayman" is today a misnomer, it should be "Marionette Stayman." The original version was a puppet, forcing opener to bid 2D. One of its uses was to show diamonds, with other uses to deny 4-card majors by bidding a major not held at responder's next turn. Very soon after this "Puppet Stayman" was invented, Kit Woolsey introduced a modification, allowing opener to bid a five-card major, making 2D a marionette. The old name stuck, even though no longer appropriate. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 10 04:02:48 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:02:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights References: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005701c35eec$500b0c60$c2fe193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights > (Paul Hauff: This is what I believe: the Law is based on "comparing like with like" and "equal rights to everybody". But it seems there is an exception: If you are a very good players, you have more rights than your co-competitors. this is what LAW88 says.) > > > The "reason" is that a pair who thru no fault of > their own get an artificial score adjustment should > not have their percentage standing in the session > impaired because of that. > > More interesting is what the pair at fault get. > > In ACBL-land, that is the remainder from 100% > after the no-fault pair get their 60% or 60+%. This > was an ACBLLC interpretation. < > If an artificial score adjustment for the at-fault pair > is going to be based on the performance of the > no-fault pair, then that should work the other way > too. The no-fault pair should get 60% augmented > as above, but with the augmentation limited to the > difference between their percentage on other > boards and the at-fault pair's percentage. That is, > a 70% pair would get 64%, not 70%, if playing a > 66% pair, and the latter would get 36%, not 30%. > If two 65% pairs are involved, the split is 60-40. > This may not be mathematically defensible, but > it's a step in the right direction. > > As I remember, other Zones just give the at-fault > pair 40%, that's it. As Steve Willner has pointed > out, that could lead a weaker pair to arrange for > an avg- result when playing against Meckwell. > +=+ WBFLC minute of 6th Sep 2000: " The Committee addressed any situation when, as the result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained and an artificial score would normally be awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. If the circumstances allow the Director may assign a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E. " Some authorities regulate the manner in which artificial scores.shall be assessed (stronger than simply giving guidance to TDs). I presume they do so as an exercise of Law 78D. Given the principle adopted for assigned scores in minute 2 of 30 August 1998, and the principle expressed more than once in the laws that each player is to be judged by his own level of expertise, it is possible that the WBFLC would find no objection to the use of such powers in the manner of the ACBL. Turning to this: "As I remember, other Zones just give the at-fault pair 40%, that's it. As Steve Willner has pointed out, that could lead a weaker pair to arrange for an avg- result when playing against Meckwell", one has to allow that it may be difficult to establish that such a purpose can be considered seriously to have motivated an irregularity; however, where there are grounds to believe it possible there can be recourse to Law 72B1, and also to 72B2 if it is considered evident it was the case Incidentally, I think the reference to 'other Zones' is perhaps too sweeping; we would probably find the practice is not universal outside of Zone 2, whether Zonally or by NBOs. Again, Paul Hauff's reference to equality of treatment is not wrong but incompletely stated - players have equal rights to be judged by their own levels of expertise where applicable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Aug 10 06:57:43 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:57:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c35f04$51e054b0$704726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> We are PROHIBITED from alerting ANY doubles (or redoubles) in Aus. = These are "self-alerting" and the declaring side must offer to explain all self-alerting calls (i.e. All X, XX and bids over 3NT) before the = opening lead. regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Karel Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:29 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? >The WBF alerting policy document which clearly states > >"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: >1. All doubles. >2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or = >suggests a no-trump contract. 3. Any call at the four level or higher,=20 >with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the=20 >auction. Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as = >well as the letter. ...." > > AG : I've said before that this policy is absurd. Perhaps it's a good = idea to ask to alert neither takeout, penalty or optional doubles, so as to = limit UI risks, but clearly artificial doubles should be alerted. Your example = of 1NT-X is a good one ; an SOS redouble of 1NT showing any long suit is another classical case). Or a redouble of a transfer bid, asking partner = to bid the suit himself. And umpteen other cases. +++ I have to say I'm amazed - I expected some denial or post explaining = +++ why this is the WBF policy. I agree with Alain that "normal" doubles TO, optional penos etc should not be alerted. We still alert negative = doubles in Ireland which is daft. Anyway ... .... but surely doubles which convey an agreed upon, non obvious meaning have to be alerted. The opps aren't psychic. If you don't alert any = double then we are 200% going to get cases as per original post ... and what do = you expect ?? The opps are entitled to ask about a bid or else be accused = of not covering themselves. Catch 22 they ask and are then accused of = passing UI. Why put players in this position ?? But I don't agree with the contention that this lead-directing double = should be alerted. What else could it be ? +++ What could it be ?? Anything a pair so wishes. Not the point,=20 +++ double says you think the opponents have over reached. Double meaning lead 1 = out of 4 suits is very specific and clearly an agreement and should be = alerted, regardless how obvious you think it is (if experience has taught me anything, its that obvious is not obvious at all !!) If double means pd use your head and lead what on the bidding will most likely knock the contract fair enough. This was not the case. This was lead clubs (normally 1st suit bid by dummy) - a clearcut specific = alertable agreement. Anyway not alerting all doubles ... well I aint the boss .. but seems a = very ropey premise. Karel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a_painter2@dell.com Mon Aug 18 07:00:21 2003 From: a_painter2@dell.com (a_painter2@dell.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:00:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] help defend your PC against new viruses Message-ID: You are receiving this email as a warning. the most common viruses are transmitted and installed behind the scenes while you're on the internet! Norton Antivirus Stops hackers, trojans and viruses in their tracks! btw, you look great today. Download Protection NOW. http://9302fs@profitableproducts.com/default.asp?id=3000 ps. dont want any more of this shit? http://FDSA2PP@profitableproducts.com/remove/remove.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 10 13:08:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:08:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? References: <000001c35f04$51e054b0$704726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <001001c35f38$315d20e0$e639e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 6:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? We are PROHIBITED from alerting ANY doubles (or redoubles) in Aus. ------------------- \x/ ---------------------- >The WBF alerting policy document which clearly states > >"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: >1. All doubles. ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------- AG : I've said before that this policy is absurd. Perhaps it's a good idea to ask to alert neither takeout, penalty or optional doubles, so as to limit UI risks, but clearly artificial doubles should be alerted. Your example of 1NT-X is a good one ; an SOS redouble of 1NT showing any long suit is another classical case). Or a redouble of a transfer bid, asking partner to bid the suit himself. And umpteen other cases. +++ I have to say I'm amazed - I expected some denial or post explaining why this is the WBF policy. < +=+ It may be that the WBF anticipates a standard of player who will be aware of situations in which doubles may have obscure meanings - and can ascertain at the end of the auction, or ask earlier if they need to do so. I am not keen on the description 'absurd' for an alerting regulation. Regulators have discretion to establish alerting rules that best meet the needs, standards and customs of the location, and they might be thought best qualified to make the judgement. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Aug 10 19:44:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:44:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <001401c35e59$33c03280$571ae150@endicott> References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030808080348.01f64a60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030810132240.01f56ab0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:28 AM 8/9/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Perhaps we need a new lawbook with two > > sections, one containing the "real" laws that > > we are all expected to follow, and a second > > listing those areas of law which are, by > > intention, not covered by the lawbook, > > but instead left to be determined by the > > preferences of individual zones (whose laws > > might in turn delegate lawmaking authority in > > specified areas under their jurisdiction to their > > component NCBOs, SOs, or whatever). > > There is no point in having nominal written > > "laws" that, by the force of other written laws, > > just "don't count". > >+=+ I do not intend to respond on blml. We >can go on fruitlessly for ever on the subject. >I have to accept that you > (a) misunderstand the construction of the >laws, in which specific stand-alone enablements >are not subject to the more general law but are >exceptions to it. As for example 78D or 84E. I do not misunderstand this point, but I confess that I understand it only thanks to reading BLML, in which Grattan and others have raised and elucidated it. Sadly, most who read TFLB do not have this advantage. In the case of specific stand-alone enablements that are not subject to specific restrictions stated elsewhere in the laws, all I'm really suggesting is the addition to such laws as L78D or L84E the words "not subject to other provisions of these Laws", "not subject to Law XX", or something similar. If we did that, readers of TFLB would understand exactly what was intended, and we wouldn't find ourselves forced, with Grattan, to accept that they don't. > (b) seem to think that the small drafting >subcommittee could hope to override the >wishes of the Zones, especially 1 and 2, as >put via the WBF Executive and their members >on the WBFLC. Well, I don't, really, although I might well wish it were so. I admit to a tendency to write in a rhetorical style that perhaps makes in less than clear that "The WBFLC should write a law that says..." does not imply "I believe that, as a matter of practical politics, the WBFLC could write a law that says...", and when I write that TFLB should be totally restructured I do not intend to imply that I believe that the WBFLC might consider doing so in the next revision on the strength of my irrefutable arguments. All I can do is deplore the practical politics, and make my own small contributions to these debates in the hope of helping to influence them appropriately, if minutely. The specific context of the remarks Grattan cited above, however, was L40D, and here I do have a specific suggestion to the WBFLC for the next revision of TFLB. There has been a great deal of confusion and debate on BLML, and among a much wider constituency of serious bridge players in the ACBL, over the legitimacy of specific regulations made under L40D which unambiguously contradict either specific provisions of L40A (enforcement of various "rules of n") or the definition of "convention" (the ACBL's backhanded prohibition of 9 HCP 1NT openings). We are told that the WBFLC has made a minuted pronuouncement that these regulations are legitimate, which has ended the debate on that point (if not on the issue of whether they should be) on BLML, but has done very little for the wider constituency of lawbook readers. So my suggestion to the law writers is: End the debate. This is trivial. To make it clear that such regulations are legitimate, add to the beginning of L40D, "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Laws,". To de-legitimatize such prohibitions, add to the end of L40D, ", provided such regulations do not conflict with any other Laws." Now, I do understand why they are reluctant to get off the fence and make that particular law clear one way or the other. The ACBL is the 800-pound gorilla of organized bridge, and has a couple of smaller gorillas on its side for good measure; if the committee wrote draft language for TFLB that explicitly de-legitimatized their regulations the apes would get angry and crush them to a pulp; in Grattan's words, they "could [not] hope to override the wishes of the Zones". On the other hand, if they wrote words that explictly legitimatized those regulations, I have no doubt that they would leave the session sick to their stomachs at the perversions they had just sanctioned as being legitimately perpetrated on the game they, and we, love. I would feel exactly the same way. I too would be sorely tempted to escape such a dilemma by muddling along for another 10 years with a law that says "A player may make any call or play..." and an only-nominally-public "official interpretation" that says "...unless some ZO doesn't like that rule and makes their own." Or a law that says "may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions" and an interpretation that says "or any other calls or plays they might wish to". But this does nothing for the credibility of the laws or the law writers. See, Grattan, I do understand. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Aug 10 21:23:16 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:23:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030808080348.01f64a60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030810132240.01f56ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002301c35f7d$3df939c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > > So my suggestion to the law writers is: End the debate. This is > trivial. To make it clear that such regulations are legitimate, add to > the beginning of L40D, "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other > Laws,". To de-legitimatize such prohibitions, add to the end of L40D, > ", provided such regulations do not conflict with any other Laws." > > Now, I do understand why they are reluctant to get off the fence and > make that particular law clear one way or the other. The ACBL is the > 800-pound gorilla of organized bridge, and has a couple of smaller > gorillas on its side for good measure; if the committee wrote draft > language for TFLB that explicitly de-legitimatized their regulations > the apes would get angry and crush them to a pulp; in Grattan's words, > they "could [not] hope to override the wishes of the Zones". On the > other hand, if they wrote words that explictly legitimatized those > regulations, I have no doubt that they would leave the session sick to > their stomachs at the perversions they had just sanctioned as being > legitimately perpetrated on the game they, and we, love. I would feel > exactly the same way. I too would be sorely tempted to escape such a > dilemma by muddling along for another 10 years with a law that says "A > player may make any call or play..." and an only-nominally-public > "official interpretation" that says "...unless some ZO doesn't like > that rule and makes their own." Or a law that says "may regulate the > use of bidding or play conventions" and an interpretation that says "or > any other calls or plays they might wish to". But this does nothing > for the credibility of the laws or the law writers. > Considering that the ACBL refuses to abide by the By-Laws of the WBF, (1) the ACBL and the WBF should be divorced. That would end the dilemma. (2) Another solution is for the WBF to acknowledge the *de facto* separation and change its By-Law to say that the WBFLC is responsible for writing and interpreting the Laws, except for those zones/NCBOs who wish to do those things themselves. That has been the solution for basketball, with the USA having rules that differ considerably from the international rules. (3) Another solution is to have the WBF change its By-Law to say that the ACBL is reponsible for writing and interpreting the Laws, which is what the ACBL constitution currently says. (4) Another solution is to force the ACBL to abide by the WBF By-Law, which it agreed to do when signing on to the WBF organization. When American soccer rules began to deviate from the international rules, a hint that there would be no more international games in the USA stopped that nonsense. The ACBL has strong representation on the WBFLC, in fact it is over-represented going by membership numbers, so there is little justification for not following its decisions. I am fairly certain that the majority of ACBL members want one set of Laws that is applicable world-wide and uniquely interpreted, which means solution (4). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Aug 10 22:49:05 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:49:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights In-Reply-To: <005701c35eec$500b0c60$c2fe193e@4nrw70j> References: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030810174009.009fed90@pop.starpower.net> At 11:02 PM 8/9/03, grandeval wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marvin French" > > > >(Paul Hauff: This is what I believe: the Law is based >on "comparing like with like" and "equal rights to >everybody". But it seems there is an exception: If >you are a very good players, you have more rights >than your co-competitors. this is what LAW88 says.) > > > The "reason" is that a pair who thru no fault of > > their own get an artificial score adjustment should > > not have their percentage standing in the session > > impaired because of that. > > > > More interesting is what the pair at fault get. > > > > In ACBL-land, that is the remainder from 100% > > after the no-fault pair get their 60% or 60+%. This > > was an ACBLLC interpretation. >< > > If an artificial score adjustment for the at-fault pair > > is going to be based on the performance of the > > no-fault pair, then that should work the other way > > too. The no-fault pair should get 60% augmented > > as above, but with the augmentation limited to the > > difference between their percentage on other > > boards and the at-fault pair's percentage. That is, > > a 70% pair would get 64%, not 70%, if playing a > > 66% pair, and the latter would get 36%, not 30%. > > If two 65% pairs are involved, the split is 60-40. > > This may not be mathematically defensible, but > > it's a step in the right direction. > > > > As I remember, other Zones just give the at-fault > > pair 40%, that's it. As Steve Willner has pointed > > out, that could lead a weaker pair to arrange for > > an avg- result when playing against Meckwell. > > >+=+ WBFLC minute of 6th Sep 2000: > " The Committee addressed any situation >when, as the result of an irregularity, a result cannot >be obtained and an artificial score would normally >be awarded. If a non-offending side would be >disadvantaged by an award of average plus (60%, >or higher where Law 88 allows) the Committee does >not consider a higher percentage may be awarded >under Law 12C1. If the circumstances allow the >Director may assign a score under Law 12A1 or >Law 84E. " > >Some authorities regulate the manner in which >artificial scores.shall be assessed (stronger than >simply giving guidance to TDs). I presume they >do so as an exercise of Law 78D. Given the >principle adopted for assigned scores in minute 2 >of 30 August 1998, and the principle expressed >more than once in the laws that each player is to be >judged by his own level of expertise, it is possible >that the WBFLC would find no objection to the use >of such powers in the manner of the ACBL. > >Turning to this: "As I remember, other Zones just >give the at-fault pair 40%, that's it. As Steve >Willner has pointed out, that could lead a weaker >pair to arrange for an avg- result when playing >against Meckwell", one has to allow that it may be >difficult to establish that such a purpose can be >considered seriously to have motivated an >irregularity; however, where there are grounds to >believe it possible there can be recourse to Law >72B1, and also to 72B2 if it is considered evident >it was the case Incidentally, I think the >reference to 'other Zones' is perhaps too >sweeping; we would probably find the practice >is not universal outside of Zone 2, whether Zonally >or by NBOs. Again, Paul Hauff's reference to >equality of treatment is not wrong but incompletely >stated Cogent analysis so far... > - players have equal rights to be judged by >their own levels of expertise where applicable. ...but I can't let this unrelated coda stand unchallenged. The conclusion we are led to is that players have the right to be judged (as to their entitlement to an assigned score when they are the NOS) by their proven performance in the session or event in the context of which the score is being adjusted. That's a far cry from being judged by some inherently subjective notion like their "level of expertise". Although all of us make such distinctions every day, the law should be blind to differences like that between "the best team in the event" and "the winner". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Aug 10 23:17:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:17:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] HCP In-Reply-To: <002301c35f7d$3df939c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030808080348.01f64a60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030810132240.01f56ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030810175540.01f837c0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:23 PM 8/10/03, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > So my suggestion to the law writers is: End the debate. This is > > trivial. To make it clear that such regulations are legitimate, add to > > the beginning of L40D, "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other > > Laws,". To de-legitimatize such prohibitions, add to the end of L40D, > > ", provided such regulations do not conflict with any other Laws." > > > > Now, I do understand why they are reluctant to get off the fence and > > make that particular law clear one way or the other. The ACBL is the > > 800-pound gorilla of organized bridge, and has a couple of smaller > > gorillas on its side for good measure; if the committee wrote draft > > language for TFLB that explicitly de-legitimatized their regulations > > the apes would get angry and crush them to a pulp; in Grattan's words, > > they "could [not] hope to override the wishes of the Zones". On the > > other hand, if they wrote words that explictly legitimatized those > > regulations, I have no doubt that they would leave the session sick to > > their stomachs at the perversions they had just sanctioned as being > > legitimately perpetrated on the game they, and we, love. I would feel > > exactly the same way. I too would be sorely tempted to escape such a > > dilemma by muddling along for another 10 years with a law that says "A > > player may make any call or play..." and an only-nominally-public > > "official interpretation" that says "...unless some ZO doesn't like > > that rule and makes their own." Or a law that says "may regulate the > > use of bidding or play conventions" and an interpretation that says "or > > any other calls or plays they might wish to". But this does nothing > > for the credibility of the laws or the law writers. > > >Considering that the ACBL refuses to abide by the By-Laws of the WBF, (1) >the ACBL and the WBF should be divorced. That would end the dilemma. > >(2) Another solution is for the WBF to acknowledge the *de facto* >separation >and change its By-Law to say that the WBFLC is responsible for writing and >interpreting the Laws, except for those zones/NCBOs who wish to do those >things themselves. That has been the solution for basketball, with the USA >having rules that differ considerably from the international rules. > >(3) Another solution is to have the WBF change its By-Law to say that the >ACBL is reponsible for writing and interpreting the Laws, which is >what the >ACBL constitution currently says. > >(4) Another solution is to force the ACBL to abide by the WBF By-Law, >which >it agreed to do when signing on to the WBF organization. When American >soccer rules began to deviate from the international rules, a hint that >there would be no more international games in the USA stopped that >nonsense. >The ACBL has strong representation on the WBFLC, in fact it is >over-represented going by membership numbers, so there is little >justification for not following its decisions. > >I am fairly certain that the majority of ACBL members want one set of Laws >that is applicable world-wide and uniquely interpreted, which means >solution (4). There's also a fifth way out: Have the international code of laws address only those matters on which the Zones are prepared to genuinely and unhypocritically follow it while explicitly relegating those matters on which the Zones disagree to the rule-making authority of the Zones. Sort of a combination of (2), (3) and (4) all at once. It was that suggestion, made with tongue only partially in cheek, to which Grattan responded, prompting me to write the paragraphs Marv cites. Whatever Marv, I, BLML, or the majority of ACBL members want with respect to the question of whether (in any given area of law) there should be one set of rules throughout the WBF, there must be only one set of meta-rules, agreed upon throughout the WBF, that tell us who has the authority to decide questions such as whether there should be one set of rules throughout the WBF. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Aug 10 23:52:04 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: <200308102252.h7AMq4WP012836@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > A case on another forum was reported as follows You don't say where the deal was played. Alerting is a matter of SO regulation, and that is critically important in this case. > W N E S > 1S P 2C P > 2D P 2H P > 2NT P 3NT DBL > P% P 4S All Pass > The more interesting issue for me was the alert/non alert of the double. I > felt that as the double was conventional (ie) it was an agreement to lead a > specific suit, clubs, in this case that it should be alertable. Clearly not alertable under WBF "no-screen" rules. Also not alertable in the ACBL, I believe, although nobody knows for sure. Not alertable in Australia if I understand their rules correctly. I expect it probably is alertable in the EBU and therefore presumably also in Ireland. > % At this stage, west (a player of international standard) asks what is the > significance of the double. He is told it is lead directing. He passes and > East pulls to 4S's. If many doubles are not alertable, I think asking about the double should be automatic for West, regardless of the hand he holds. He will often need to know what the double is, and asking with some hands and not with others is very bad. As long as West asks every time in this sort of position, though, there is no UI. In a jurisdiction where any double other than pure penalty is alertable, asking about an unalerted double is indeed dubious. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 11 02:17:03 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:17:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Well Done Frances! Message-ID: <00b901c35fa6$75f1da20$309868d5@default> Congratulations to new Grand Master Frances Hinden who, with Jeffrey Allerton, won the EBU Brighton Congress Pairs! From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 11 03:11:08 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:11:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] HCP References: <008801c35c51$8f080640$cc43e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20030807084636.0229f6b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030808080348.01f64a60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030810132240.01f56ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003101c35fad$f43375e0$bb4de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HCP > At 05:28 AM 8/9/03, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The specific context of the remarks Grattan cited above, > however, was L40D, and here I do have a specific > suggestion to the WBFLC for the next revision of TFLB. < +=+ You seem to be discussing here a message sent to you privately. I stll intend not to be drawn, although I will say that the drafting subcommittee is a long way ahead of you on Law 40. Even so, we will both have to wait and see how it works out in due course. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Aug 11 08:01:03 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:01:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights References: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030810174009.009fed90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002201c35fd6$58d4ffa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Some authorities regulate the manner in which > >artificial scores.shall be assessed (stronger than > >simply giving guidance to TDs). I presume they > >do so as an exercise of Law 78D. The ACBLLC did not cite L78D as the basis for its decision that avg- and avg+ should add to 100%. It was just their way of telling TDs how to implement L12C1, based on their reading of it. > Given the > >principle adopted for assigned scores in minute 2 > >of 30 August 1998, and the principle expressed > >more than once in the laws that each player is to be > >judged by his own level of expertise, it is possible > >that the WBFLC would find no objection to the use > >of such powers in the manner of the ACBL. If so, the WBFLC would be admitting that determining what avg- gets per L12C1 is an implementation decision that each authority may establish for itself. By putting that decision in the 1998 WBFLC minutes, the LC was entering an area that it ought to stay out of, which is the area of implementation. The ACBLLC also put its (contrary) opinion in its minutes, but that LC properly makes implementation decisions, since they are official only in ACBL-land. For instance, the ACBLLC established guidelines for the implementation of L12C2 and gave guidance to TDs/ACs for determining LAs, which are subjects the WBFLC properly avoids. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 11 09:45:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:45:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <001001c35f38$315d20e0$e639e150@endicott> References: <000001c35f04$51e054b0$704726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811103959.024576a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:08 10/08/2003 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: It may be that the WBF anticipates a standard of player who will be aware of situations in which doubles may have obscure meanings - and can ascertain at the end of the auction, or ask earlier if they need to do so. AG : the only problem is : how can they guess they do need it ? > I am not keen on the description 'absurd' for >an alerting regulation. Regulators have discretion >to establish alerting rules that best meet the needs, >standards and customs of the location, and they >might be thought best qualified to make the >judgement. AG : okay, forget about absurdity and speak of evilness. When players, as it now happens, begin devising obscure doubles or redoubles in non-obscure situations, just for the sake of troubling the opponents who won't expect it -which I think is too much gamesmanship- we may assume that the laws that allow for this (I'd say : that encourage it) are wrong. And that a new law must be implemented to meet these new "standards and customs". Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 11 09:39:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:39:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <000001c35f04$51e054b0$704726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811102633.0246f1e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:57 10/08/2003 +1000, Noel and Pamela wrote: >We are PROHIBITED from alerting ANY doubles (or redoubles) in Aus. These >are "self-alerting" and the declaring side must offer to explain all >self-alerting calls (i.e. All X, XX and bids over 3NT) before the opening >lead. AG : fair enough as far as high-level bids are concerned ; but artificial doubles, especially if they convey some specific distributional meaning, must be understood immedaitaley. How can you properly defend against 1C (2D) X (transfer to H) if you don't know it is ? And how can you imagine it could be necessary to ask ? One case where the laws say we were not guilty, but nevertheless annoys me : 1NT 2D* X** 3H X*** p p p *Transfer ** suggests (or more) penalty double of 2H *** as a consequence of **, was made without any apparent problem, on two small hearts and many quick tricks. Declarer asks about the double of 3H, and is told it's penalties. It is : I expect them to go down and want to increase the score, which is the aim of a penlaty double ... and declarer makes one extra undertrick because he couldn't imagine to heart position (IIRC, partner had KJx). Yes, he could have asked about the double of 2D. But the meaning was *too* unexpected. Yes, partner could have volunteered to explain his own bid, too. But he wasn't allowed, because the bidding wasn't over yet (the question was asked by overcaller at his time to bid). And in Belgium, there is no provision for automatic explanation of self-alerting bids. When people are legally trapped, then the laws are responsible. Best regards, Alain. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 11 11:53:09 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:53:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? References: <000001c35f04$51e054b0$704726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <5.1.0.14.0.20030811103959.024576a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01c35ff6$c272c1c0$10673b3e@Default> Alain, I agree with the basic ideas that doubles should be non alertable. That is as long as they are some kind of penalty or some kind of take out. But I do agree with your objection that a double should remain alertable if it has a specific conventional meaning. Examples 1NT - x meaning a onesuiter. Or 1D - 1H - 1S - x when this double asks for a heart lead. Grattan: > It may be that the WBF anticipates a standard > of player who will be aware of situations in which > doubles may have obscure meanings - and can > ascertain at the end of the auction, or ask earlier > if they need to do so. Grattan, this is a nice and polite text but it has no serious meaning. Doubles may have obscure meanings in most situations and alerting obscure meanings helps a lot. You don't want every player to start asking about every double just in case it has an obscure meaning do you. And your 'end of auction' remark is close to 'silly'. Doubles by nature occur in competitive auctions, and their meaning is normally needed before the end of the auction. > > I am not keen on the description 'absurd' for > >an alerting regulation. Regulators have discretion > >to establish alerting rules that best meet the needs, > >standards and customs of the location, and they > >might be thought best qualified to make the > >judgement. Here you raise three issues. One. I think absurd is a rather good word for the problem Alain mentions. It is a good idea to drastically limit the number of alertable doubles (hold true for bids as well by the way). It is IMHO absurd also to exempt doubles with obscure meanings, or to put it more formally, doubles with a specific conventional meaning. Two. Of course appointed (or whatever) regulators have the discretion to regulate. This does not necessarly mean that what they regulate makes any sense. There are enough examples in history of that. Three. They might be thought to be the best qualified, but then they might not be thought so. In the bridge world I tend to be very sceptical about that. For most posts good connections is way more important than competence. Why should this be very different for these regulators. Anyway the regulators IMHO have never shown any serious competence introducing the concept of the alert, and redefining and maintaining the alerting rules over time. Grattan, always keep in mind, don't take it personal. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? > At 13:08 10/08/2003 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > It may be that the WBF anticipates a standard > of player who will be aware of situations in which > doubles may have obscure meanings - and can > ascertain at the end of the auction, or ask earlier > if they need to do so. > > AG : the only problem is : how can they guess they do need it ? > > > I am not keen on the description 'absurd' for > >an alerting regulation. Regulators have discretion > >to establish alerting rules that best meet the needs, > >standards and customs of the location, and they > >might be thought best qualified to make the > >judgement. > > AG : okay, forget about absurdity and speak of evilness. When players, as > it now happens, begin devising obscure doubles or redoubles in non-obscure > situations, just for the sake of troubling the opponents who won't expect > it -which I think is too much gamesmanship- we may assume that the laws > that allow for this (I'd say : that encourage it) are wrong. > And that a new law must be implemented to meet these new "standards and > customs". > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 11 12:42:51 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:42:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <000e01c35ff6$c272c1c0$10673b3e@Default> References: <000001c35f04$51e054b0$704726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <5.1.0.14.0.20030811103959.024576a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811133537.0246e4c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:53 11/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Alain, > >I agree with the basic ideas that doubles should be non alertable. That is >as long as they are some kind of penalty or some kind of take out. > >But I do agree with your objection that a double should remain alertable if >it has a specific conventional meaning. Examples 1NT - x meaning a >onesuiter. Or 1D - 1H - 1S - x when this double asks for a heart lead. > >Grattan: > > It may be that the WBF anticipates a standard > > of player who will be aware of situations in which > > doubles may have obscure meanings - and can > > ascertain at the end of the auction, or ask earlier > > if they need to do so. > >Grattan, this is a nice and polite text but it has no serious meaning. >Doubles may have obscure meanings in most situations and alerting obscure >meanings helps a lot. AG : I once played a double of a one-bid that showed "4+ in highest unbid suit, 4+ in another suit, 8+ HCP". Perfectly legal. We alerted, which answered the demand that "any call whose meaning could be unexpected shall be alerted". Since nobody would alert 1x-Dbl if it was a classical takeout, the alert was enough to make opponents react. I can only imagine what kinds of -perfectly legal- problems the present rules could create. Who on earth would but imagine asking what 1x-Dbl means ? Yet, as I mentioned it, we risk seeing such doubles proliferate *because* of the havoc that might ensue -to the doubler's profit. From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Aug 11 12:40:45 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 11 Aug 2003 13:40:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: <20030811114046.16B862A644E@front.interia.pl> > At 12:53 11/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Alain, > AG : I once played a double of a one-bid that showed "4+ in highest unbid >=20 > suit, 4+ in another suit, 8+ HCP". Perfectly legal. We alerted, which=20 > answered the demand that "any call whose meaning could be unexpected shal= l >=20 > be alerted". Since nobody would alert 1x-Dbl if it was a classical > takeout,=20 > the alert was enough to make opponents react. > I can only imagine what kinds of -perfectly legal- problems the present= =20 > rules could create. Who on earth would but imagine asking what 1x-Dbl > means ? In Poland where doubles are all non-alertable regardless of its meaning such a double requires a PRE-alert. I am surprised that it doesn't in Belgium. =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 11 13:07:52 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:07:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <20030811114046.16B862A644E@front.interia.pl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811140720.02472830@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:40 11/08/2003 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > At 12:53 11/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >Alain, > > > AG : I once played a double of a one-bid that showed "4+ in highest unbid > > > > suit, 4+ in another suit, 8+ HCP". Perfectly legal. We alerted, which > > answered the demand that "any call whose meaning could be unexpected shall > > > > be alerted". Since nobody would alert 1x-Dbl if it was a classical > > takeout, > > the alert was enough to make opponents react. > > I can only imagine what kinds of -perfectly legal- problems the present > > rules could create. Who on earth would but imagine asking what 1x-Dbl > > means ? > >In Poland where doubles are all non-alertable regardless >of its meaning such a double requires a PRE-alert. >I am surprised that it doesn't in Belgium. AG : so am I. But what if you play dozens of "special" doubles and redoubles ? From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 11 12:45:00 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? References: <20030811114046.16B862A644E@front.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001601c35ffe$00c44320$b663a63e@Default> PreAlerts are also an approach. But as far as I know the WBF, the EBL, and quite some number of NCBO's (among them NBB and FFB together half of EBL membership) don't use the concept of the PreAlert. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? > At 12:53 11/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Alain, > AG : I once played a double of a one-bid that showed "4+ in highest unbid > > suit, 4+ in another suit, 8+ HCP". Perfectly legal. We alerted, which > answered the demand that "any call whose meaning could be unexpected shall > > be alerted". Since nobody would alert 1x-Dbl if it was a classical > takeout, > the alert was enough to make opponents react. > I can only imagine what kinds of -perfectly legal- problems the present > rules could create. Who on earth would but imagine asking what 1x-Dbl > means ? In Poland where doubles are all non-alertable regardless of its meaning such a double requires a PRE-alert. I am surprised that it doesn't in Belgium. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From elandau@starpower.net Mon Aug 11 13:26:24 2003 From: elandau@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:26:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Apology Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030811081941.00a3b2f0@pop.starpower.net> I wish to publically apologize to Grattan for having replied to BLML to a message which I failed to notice had been sent to me only. May I humbly suggest that we adopt the convention of heading private replies with the words "PRIVATE REPLY", or some such, especially when leaving "[blml]" in the subject line, to prevent me, and others, from making such errors in the future? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Aug 11 16:14:13 2003 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:14:13 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: > From: Alain Gottcheiner > How can you properly defend against 1C > (2D) X (transfer to H) if you don't know it is ? And how can you imagine it > could be necessary to ask ? In a jurisdiction where no doubles are alertable, surely it is automatic to ask about all doubles, regardless of one's hand. And especially in this situation, I can imagine any number of uses for a double. > 1NT 2D* X** 3H > X*** p p p > > *Transfer > ** suggests (or more) penalty double of 2H > *** as a consequence of **, was made without any apparent problem, on two > small hearts and many quick tricks. > > Declarer asks about the double of 3H, and is told it's penalties. It is : I > expect them to go down and want to increase the score, which is the aim of > a penlaty double Depending on the jurisdiction, this might or might not be considered MI. A better explanation would have described the hand type rather than merely stating a name. Still, the problem is primarly the opponents' fault for having failed to ask about the double of 3D. All that said, there are merits to a rule that requires alerts for doubles with specific meanings. The disadvantage, of course, is that the alert rule is then more complex. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 11 17:00:58 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:00:58 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811175107.02460c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:14 11/08/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > How can you properly defend against 1C > > (2D) X (transfer to H) if you don't know it is ? And how can you imagine it > > could be necessary to ask ? > >In a jurisdiction where no doubles are alertable, surely it is automatic to >ask about all doubles, regardless of one's hand. AG : this is contradictory. Why is it asked not to alert doubles and redoubles ? Because one is afraid that the alert could transmit UI. Why else would one deprive the opponents of the information ? And if you ask, the problem reappears, only magnified. >All that said, there are merits to a rule that requires alerts for doubles >with specific >meanings. The disadvantage, of course, is that the alert rule is then more >complex. AG : right, but only those who play "strange" doubles will have to use their judgment about it. Serves them right. Still, the difference between tO and pen should rather be left unalerted. An interesting case from a recent tournament : AKQ J109xxx 109xx Ax --- AJ9x QJ10xxx A 1S 2C* (2D) X** 4S *** * GF ** intended as penalties *** West's bid sounds as if he was answering a T/O double. No alert, no way to know this. East guessed wrong and passed. Best regards, Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 11 16:53:05 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:53:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? References: Message-ID: <004e01c36020$abc2dbc0$9c9468d5@default> [Steve Wilner] In a jurisdiction where no doubles are alertable, surely it is automatic to ask about all doubles, regardless of one's hand [...SNIP...] All that said, there are merits to a rule that requires alerts for doubles with specific meanings. The disadvantage, of course, is that the alert rule is then more complex. [Nigel Guthrie] My earlier suggestion would nullify these problems, simply, with some time saving, and with an enormous reduction in UI... ... no alerts (but CC highlights and mandatory explanations at the end of the auction). ... * option * to request an auction explanation (opponents then explain every call by their partners, in real time, as they are made). ... You need explain only divergence from the *standard system * (if you can't be bothered to learn the standard, just explain every call). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 11 16:53:31 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:53:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000f01c35c43$39acdc60$aaae53d4@Default> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 13:23 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > But he managed to produce an English statement '... and inferior play > is > irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' which I didn't > understand. > A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. Maybe too harsh. You don't understand something, so you call it "logical nonsense"? Interesting approach. > But nobody said I was wrong in that assertion. That doesn't necessarily mean you were right. > Maybe you can explain what the above DWS phrase means. In the end > it is supposed to be his objection (to what by the way). It doesn't > happen > that often that I am really lost trying to understand an English > phrase. IIRC, someone (Sven?) said he would "rule inferior play, rather than misinformation". David's reply included "there is no law against inferior play, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is misinformation". What that says to me is that when there is misinformation, and that misinformation causes damage, you adjust the score. And if there was inferior play also, that does not affect the score adjustment. I think David perhaps misinterpreted what Sven meant - which it seems to me was that he would rule, or would have ruled at the point he wrote the statement, that any damage was caused by inferior play, rather than by misinformation. Does it make more sense now? From adam@irvine.com Mon Aug 11 17:09:14 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:09:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:55:22 EDT." <001801c35e21$ad85baa0$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <200308111609.JAA00878@mailhub.irvine.com> Nancy wrote: > Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? It's happened in the past . . . every now and then a Spam message would sneak its way through. It's been happening much more frequently the last couple days, though. Thanks, Henk, for looking into the problem. -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Aug 10 18:17:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:17:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Spam In-Reply-To: <001801c35e21$ad85baa0$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030810131514.01f66620@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_626545==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:55 PM 8/8/03, Nancy wrote: >Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? Yes, but in small quantities, more often than not clearly labeled as spam by Henk's helpful spam-filtering software. A drop in the bucket compared to my everyday intake of spam; not yet enough to cause concern. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_626545==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 10:55 PM 8/8/03, Nancy wrote:

Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML??

Yes, but in small quantities, more often than not clearly labeled as spam by Henk's helpful spam-filtering software.  A drop in the bucket compared to my everyday intake of spam; not yet enough to cause concern.

Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_626545==.ALT-- From henk@ripe.net Mon Aug 11 19:46:37 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:46:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Spam In-Reply-To: <200308111609.JAA00878@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Folks, > > Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? > > It's happened in the past . . . every now and then a Spam message > would sneak its way through. It's been happening much more frequently > the last couple days, though. I spoke to our sysadmin and it appears that spammers have found a trick to fool mailman into believing that the spam is from a subscriber. There is a patch for it and it will be installed in the coming days. Besides filtering and removing spam, we also add a header "X-RIPE-Spam-Level:" followed by 0 or more * characters to every mail. The more *'s, the more likely that the mail is spam. Those of you running procmail, may want to add: :0: * ^X-RIPE-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\* /dev/null and never see 80 to 90% of the incoming spam. 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 henk@ripe.net Mon Aug 11 19:51:43 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:51:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Spam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030810131514.01f66620@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:55 PM 8/8/03, Nancy wrote: > > >Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? > > Yes, but in small quantities, more often than not clearly labeled as > spam by Henk's helpful spam-filtering software. A drop in the bucket > compared to my everyday intake of spam; not yet enough to cause concern. Take a look at Spamassassin (www.spamassassin.org). 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 11 21:46:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:46:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c36049$9af9b100$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ....... > IIRC, someone (Sven?) said he would "rule inferior play, rather than > misinformation". David's reply included "there is no law against > inferior play, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > misinformation". What that says to me is that when there is > misinformation, and that misinformation causes damage, you adjust the > score. And if there was inferior play also, that does not affect the > score adjustment. I think David perhaps misinterpreted what Sven meant > - which it seems to me was that he would rule, or would have ruled at > the point he wrote the statement, that any damage was caused by > inferior play, rather than by misinformation. > > Does it make more sense now? What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress for damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) damage caused by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated to the misinformation) I shall not rule redress for the damage caused by the inferior play alone. To make it even more clear (if possible at this stage) damage can be caused from misinformation and separately also from inferior play unrelated to the misinformation. The former damage justifies redress, the latter does not. Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 11 21:59:40 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:59:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: Message-ID: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> Dear Ed, By now I guess this was closed. But if we have to reopen. Jaap: > > But he managed to produce an English statement '... and inferior play > > is > > irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' which I didn't > > understand. > > A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. Maybe too harsh. Ed: > You don't understand something, so you call it "logical nonsense"? > Interesting approach. Please Ed, I call something logical nonsense when I think it is logical nonsense. This is something quite different from me not understanding something (but of course I can be wrong on one or both accounts). As far as I can parse that DWS sentence it translates to IF FALSE THEN or the like. I said before: playing naked is also irrelevant to whether there is misinformation. Anyway you also don't tell me what the DWS sentence is supposed to mean in the English language. So this is not really helpful. Ed: > IIRC, someone (Sven?) said he would "rule inferior play, rather than > misinformation". David's reply included "there is no law against > inferior play, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > misinformation". What that says to me is that when there is > misinformation, and that misinformation causes damage, you adjust the > score. Please Ed, it might say that to you but if that is the intended meaning why not phrase it in a sensible way. The whole concept of damage is missing in the original sentence. This is not unimportant because there is a school that says if there is MI (or an infraction) hang them. To this school there will always be damage, if necessary they invent it. > And if there was inferior play also, that does not affect the > score adjustment. This means nothing. Once we have decided on an adjusment we already decided that the 'inferior play' or whatever you call it had no or not enough consequences. The performance of the NOS is always part of the decision, at least when I am on a AC. > I think David perhaps misinterpreted what Sven meant > - which it seems to me was that he would rule, or would have ruled at > the point he wrote the statement, that any damage was caused by > inferior play, rather than by misinformation. Well I fail to see how one can misinterpret Sven on this one. He uses very clear consise English, specially for those who know the relevant laws (DWS does). But Sven latter explained in great detail what he meant. If DWS really managed to misinterpret the original statement (I don't really think so) he could have corrected that latter. And I really think it is better to close the matter by now given that one relevant person dropped out of this discussion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 13:23 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > But he managed to produce an English statement '... and inferior play > > is > > irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' which I didn't > > understand. > > A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. Maybe too harsh. > > You don't understand something, so you call it "logical nonsense"? > Interesting approach. > > > But nobody said I was wrong in that assertion. > > That doesn't necessarily mean you were right. > > > Maybe you can explain what the above DWS phrase means. In the end > > it is supposed to be his objection (to what by the way). It doesn't > > happen > > that often that I am really lost trying to understand an English > > phrase. > > IIRC, someone (Sven?) said he would "rule inferior play, rather than > misinformation". David's reply included "there is no law against > inferior play, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > misinformation". What that says to me is that when there is > misinformation, and that misinformation causes damage, you adjust the > score. And if there was inferior play also, that does not affect the > score adjustment. I think David perhaps misinterpreted what Sven meant > - which it seems to me was that he would rule, or would have ruled at > the point he wrote the statement, that any damage was caused by > inferior play, rather than by misinformation. > > Does it make more sense now? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 11 23:22:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:22:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Apology References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030811081941.00a3b2f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c36057$5838bb00$071ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:26 PM Subject: [blml] Apology > I wish to publically apologize to Grattan for having replied to > BLML to a message which I failed to notice had been sent to > me only. > > May I humbly suggest that we adopt the convention of > heading private replies with the words "PRIVATE REPLY", > or some such, especially when leaving "[blml]" in the > subject line, to prevent me, and others, from > making such errors in the future? > > > Eric Landau < +=+ No offence was taken, but I was surprised. It did occur to me that perhaps you had not noticed that it was sent to you only - but I believed this was apparent from the content of the message. Sorry about that, and thank you for the act of contrition! No great harm done - it was just that I was stressing the particular power of Zones 1or 2 to block, without in any way wishing to deny the values of the input from other zones. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 11 23:30:04 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:30:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> Message-ID: <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Ed Reppert" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > > A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. > >> Maybe too harsh. > > Ed: > > You don't understand something, so you call it > > "logical nonsense"? inferior play, rather than by > > misinformation. > +=+ I am having language trouble. What is intended by the description 'logical nonsense'? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 11 23:54:51 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:54:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I am having language trouble. What is intended > by the description 'logical nonsense'? Said an eminent Sinologue, "How Shall I tell you of that which is Tao? It is yes, it is no, It is come, it is go, But it's neither. You understand now?" If the drive towards equity prevails, I suggest that this passage replace the "Scope of the Laws". It will do as well as any other. David Burn London, England From petern@sercit.fujitsu.com.au Tue Aug 12 01:37:40 2003 From: petern@sercit.fujitsu.com.au (Peter Newman) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:37:40 +1000 (EST) Subject: [blml] Australian alerting rules Message-ID: Hi everybody, The ABF is currently reviewing Australian alerting rules. I am sure that they are interested in comments. Please go to the following web page if you would like to have a look at the current rules and there is also opportunity to comment as well ;-) http://www.abf.com.au/members/liaison/alerts.html Cheers, Peter From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 12 03:16:51 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:16:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> I understand the word "Equity" to describe the state of being "impartial" and "fair"; implying equality under the law; with an element of "justice" being seen to be done. IMO, for a game, equitable rules are as simple, clear, universal, consistent, and objective as possible. Easy to to understand; infraction easy to recognise; remedies easy to enforce uniformly. For example, I'd regard as equitable a law that: if you revoke, you are penalised several tricks. Some Rubber Bridge players may regard this as a bit soft given that infraction is profitable and hard to detect; but I like to imagine that Bridge is still a game for Ladies and Gentlemen. Of course, I'd prefer if such mechanical errors were prevented automatically (e.g. on-line). But in an imperfect world, rules should take into account potential damage; frequency of detection; and difficulty of demonstrating deliberate infraction. Some BLMLers object to universal, simple, clear, objective laws because, in some sense that I don't understand, "they deny equity". I realise that your argument is not that complex/ subjective/ incomprehensible/ inconsistent/ chauvinist laws are really more equitable. But please don't let me put words in your mouth. If possible, please explain your argument. How do you prefer to define "Equity" in relation to the rules of a game like Bridge? Please will you give an example of an "Equitable Law", using your "Equity" definition and illustrate it with a practical application. Would an offender be able to understand the justice of this "Equitable Law". Would infraction be reliably recognised? Would this "Equitable law" treat friends, strangers, and foreigners alike? How would your law deal with recidivism? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 12 03:31:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:31:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> Message-ID: <25DF7A72-CC6D-11D7-A48E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 16:59 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > By now I guess this was closed. But if we have to reopen. [snip] We do not. I was simply catching up on mail to which I had not responded. > And I really think it is better to close the matter by now given that > one > relevant person dropped out of this discussion. Never mind then. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 12 03:36:37 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:36:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> Message-ID: On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 18:30 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I am having language trouble. What is intended > by the description 'logical nonsense'? I had replied to a message from Jaap of last Wednesday, in which he had said of a statement made by DWS two things: he didn't understand it, and it is logical nonsense. It seemed to me that was a rather odd combination of statements. But Jaap has lost interest in the discussion, and I'm not inclined to pursue it any further. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 12 07:39:17 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:39:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule of Law, First Principles [was: Just bad luck?] References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001201c3609c$97844aa0$dec2193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I am having language trouble. What is intended > > by the description 'logical nonsense'? > > Said an eminent Sinologue, "How > Shall I tell you of that which is Tao? > It is yes, it is no, > It is come, it is go, > But it's neither. You understand now?" > > If the drive towards equity prevails, I suggest that this passage > replace the "Scope of the Laws". It will do as well as any other. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ "These Laws are designed to ensure That the wording is wholly obscure - Thus TDs and ACs May do as they please In effecting a requisite cure. " +=+ From ktakitmsvneq@msn.com Tue Aug 12 07:47:25 2003 From: ktakitmsvneq@msn.com (ktakitmsvneq@msn.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:47:25 +0900 Subject: [blml] Drowning in debt? We have the answer. Message-ID: <20030812064355.E2A122B7DD@rhubarb.custard.org> Hey There! Want to wave goodbye to your debt? .. What if we combined your debt into one manageable, LOW interest repayment? - Save you a lot of money by eliminating late fees - Settle your accounts for a substantially reduced amount - Stop creditors calling you on the phone - Avoid bankruptcy ... and more! Why keep dealing with the stress, and headaches? Combine your debt into a low interest repayment and get on with your life today!! Come here and take a look at how we can help. http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://mortgagewinner@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/index.php?N=g dont want any more? http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://mar@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/r.php From ktakitmsvneq@msn.com Tue Aug 12 07:47:31 2003 From: ktakitmsvneq@msn.com (ktakitmsvneq@msn.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:47:31 +0900 Subject: [blml] Drowning in debt? We have the answer. Message-ID: <20030812064400.EBEE42B7DD@rhubarb.custard.org> Hey There! Want to wave goodbye to your debt? .. What if we combined your debt into one manageable, LOW interest repayment? - Save you a lot of money by eliminating late fees - Settle your accounts for a substantially reduced amount - Stop creditors calling you on the phone - Avoid bankruptcy ... and more! Why keep dealing with the stress, and headaches? Combine your debt into a low interest repayment and get on with your life today!! Come here and take a look at how we can help. http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://mortgagewinner@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/index.php?N=g dont want any more? http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://mar@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/r.php From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Tue Aug 12 10:28:14 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:28:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Jaap van der Neut's message of Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:59:40 +0200 Message-ID: > Jaap: > > > But he managed to produce an English statement '... and inferior play > > > is > > > irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' which I didn't > > > understand. > > > A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. Maybe too harsh. > > Ed: > > You don't understand something, so you call it "logical nonsense"? > > Interesting approach. > > Please Ed, I call something logical nonsense when I think it is logical > nonsense. This is something quite different from me not understanding > something (but of course I can be wrong on one or both accounts). As far as > I can parse that DWS sentence it translates to IF FALSE THEN or the like. I > said before: playing naked is also irrelevant to whether there is > misinformation. Anyway you also don't tell me what the DWS sentence is > supposed to mean in the English language. So this is not really helpful. Jaap, The original sentence seems perfect clear to me and many others. Attempts have been made to help you understand it, none of them successful it would appear. That's unfortunate but the problem is yours, not DWS's. --- 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 12 12:02:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:02:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000201c36049$9af9b100$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:46 11/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Ed Reppert >....... > > IIRC, someone (Sven?) said he would "rule inferior play, rather than > > misinformation". David's reply included "there is no law against > > inferior play, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > > misinformation". What that says to me is that when there is > > misinformation, and that misinformation causes damage, you adjust the > > score. And if there was inferior play also, that does not affect the > > score adjustment. I think David perhaps misinterpreted what Sven meant > > - which it seems to me was that he would rule, or would have ruled at > > the point he wrote the statement, that any damage was caused by > > inferior play, rather than by misinformation. > > > > Does it make more sense now? > >What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress for >damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) damage caused >by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated to the misinformation) >I shall not rule redress for the damage caused by the inferior play alone. AG : granted, but ... There are cases where the play is inferior, but nevertheless wouldn't have occurred without the MI. In my experience, TDs and ACs don't pay to those cases the attention they merit. You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has shown a singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since you hold AK and enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy and the bidding should show that a trump return is 100%. However, you try to cash a second spade, and this gives declarer a chance of making his contract. One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior play wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. Best regards, Alain. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 12 11:48:25 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:48:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: Message-ID: <004a01c360bf$4580e100$30ec7f50@Default> Ian: > The original sentence seems perfect clear to me and many others. > Attempts have been made to help you understand it, none of them > successful it would appear. That's unfortunate but the problem > is yours, not DWS's. I am sure I have a problem. But what means: 'and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' For me it means nothing, it is a trivially true statement. I fail to grasp the logic or in other words what has the inferior play to do with there being MI or not. MI or its absense is a fact in itself. Given MI, (the degree of) inferior play might/will influence the rulling. And this is a subject that causes permanent discussion because everybody wants to draw the line somewhere else. So I guess what I tried to say with 'logical nonsense' is that in the above sentence you can substitute anything you like for 'inferior play' without really changing the meaning (assuming the statement means something). Anyway I still don't understand the point DWS wanted to make since nobody has ever tried to suggest that inferior play or whatever is relevant for there being MI or not. Anyway by now I am willing to buy the suggestion that DWS misunderstood Sven (although this is hard for me to imagine given his subsequent mails, English being his native language, and his knowledge of the rules) and he never wanted to admit it afterwards (also an explanation for the subsequent mails). So I still consider it far more likely that DWS poorly phrased whatever he wanted to say. Also something he didn't want to admit or correct I guess. If there is some truth in the reaction of Gordon this is consistent with DWS's reputation. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian D Crorie" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > > > Jaap: > > > > But he managed to produce an English statement '... and inferior play > > > > is > > > > irrelevant to whether there is misinformation' which I didn't > > > > understand. > > > > A statement which I qualified as logical nonsense. Maybe too harsh. > > > > Ed: > > > You don't understand something, so you call it "logical nonsense"? > > > Interesting approach. > > > > Please Ed, I call something logical nonsense when I think it is logical > > nonsense. This is something quite different from me not understanding > > something (but of course I can be wrong on one or both accounts). As far as > > I can parse that DWS sentence it translates to IF FALSE THEN or the like. I > > said before: playing naked is also irrelevant to whether there is > > misinformation. Anyway you also don't tell me what the DWS sentence is > > supposed to mean in the English language. So this is not really helpful. > > > Jaap, > > The original sentence seems perfect clear to me and many others. > Attempts have been made to help you understand it, none of them > successful it would appear. That's unfortunate but the problem > is yours, not DWS's. > > > > --- > Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, > one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even > vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 12 11:52:58 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:52:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005101c360bf$e6159520$30ec7f50@Default> Alain, I agree with you that these kind of rulings are hard to start with and on top of that different TD/AC's have a different philosophy. In the case you present I probably would rule slam down for the OS. What I would do with the NOS depends on their level, how much effort they made to get the info, and how 'inferior' playing SK is considered to be. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? > At 22:46 11/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >Ed Reppert > >....... > > > IIRC, someone (Sven?) said he would "rule inferior play, rather than > > > misinformation". David's reply included "there is no law against > > > inferior play, and inferior play is irrelevant to whether there is > > > misinformation". What that says to me is that when there is > > > misinformation, and that misinformation causes damage, you adjust the > > > score. And if there was inferior play also, that does not affect the > > > score adjustment. I think David perhaps misinterpreted what Sven meant > > > - which it seems to me was that he would rule, or would have ruled at > > > the point he wrote the statement, that any damage was caused by > > > inferior play, rather than by misinformation. > > > > > > Does it make more sense now? > > > >What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress for > >damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) damage caused > >by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated to the misinformation) > >I shall not rule redress for the damage caused by the inferior play alone. > > AG : granted, but ... > There are cases where the play is inferior, but nevertheless wouldn't have > occurred without the MI. > In my experience, TDs and ACs don't pay to those cases the attention they > merit. > > You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the > bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has shown a > singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since you hold AK and > enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy and the bidding should > show that a trump return is 100%. However, you try to cash a second spade, > and this gives declarer a chance of making his contract. > > One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior play > wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. > > The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 12 11:59:54 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:59:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c360c0$dd1a9500$37db8051@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > There are cases where the play is inferior, but nevertheless wouldn't have > occurred without the MI. > In my experience, TDs and ACs don't pay to those cases the attention they > merit. > You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the > bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has shown a > singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since you hold AK and > enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy and the bidding should > show that a trump return is 100%. However, you try to cash a second spade, > and this gives declarer a chance of making his contract. > One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior play > wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. > The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. The TD should do no such thing. The TD should enquire whether it occurred to the defender to ask about the extent to which the auction had revealed anything about declarer's spade holding. If the defender can give no good reason why this did not occur to him, the TD should let the result stand (for the defending side, at any rate). David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 12 12:02:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:02:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c360c1$37940cf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner ......... > > What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress > > for damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) > > damage caused by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated > > to the misinformation). I shall not rule redress for the damage > > caused by the inferior play alone. > > AG : granted, but ... > There are cases where the play is inferior, but nevertheless wouldn't > have occurred without the MI. > In my experience, TDs and ACs don't pay to those cases the attention > they merit. > > You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the > bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has > shown a singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since > you hold AK and enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy > and the bidding should show that a trump return is 100%. However, > you try to cash a second spade, and this gives declarer a chance of > making his contract. > > One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior > play wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. > > The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. You have a point, but I feel this case is rather marginal and I am not sure I would have adjusted under those particular circumstances: If the auction appears controlled and they land in a small slam with AK in spades missing I believe anybody should expect a singleton somewhere. And if a "careful study of the dummy and the bidding" should tell that a trump return is 100% I certainly would question why on earth the player continued with his SK? Regards Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 12 11:55:01 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:55:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rule of Law, First Principles [was: Just bad luck?] References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <001201c3609c$97844aa0$dec2193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <005f01c360c0$2ee43180$30ec7f50@Default> So the two of you 'agree' for once. Great. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "David Burn" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:39 AM Subject: [blml] Rule of Law, First Principles [was: Just bad luck?] > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > "Them which is of other naturs thinks different." > 'Martin Chuzzlewit'. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ I am having language trouble. What is intended > > > by the description 'logical nonsense'? > > > > Said an eminent Sinologue, "How > > Shall I tell you of that which is Tao? > > It is yes, it is no, > > It is come, it is go, > > But it's neither. You understand now?" > > > > If the drive towards equity prevails, I suggest that this passage > > replace the "Scope of the Laws". It will do as well as any other. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > +=+ > "These Laws are designed to ensure > That the wording is wholly obscure - > Thus TDs and ACs > May do as they please > In effecting a requisite cure. " > +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 12 12:14:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:14:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <005101c360bf$e6159520$30ec7f50@Default> Message-ID: <000101c360c2$ecfbe940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ..........=20 > In the case you present I probably would rule slam down for the OS. Unconditionally?=20 > What I > would do with the NOS depends on their level, how much effort they = made to > get the info, and how 'inferior' playing SK is considered to be. For the purpose of equity would you then examine all the results on this board at the other tables and rule slam down for everybody who bid slam = and made it, and then decide your ruling for each defending side depending = upon their qualities etc.?=20 I cannot believe that is what you mean, but frankly if you rule slam = down at the table in question then isn't that what you have to do as a follow = up? Regards Sven ............ > > You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the > > bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has > shown > a > > singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since you hold = AK > and > > enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy and the bidding > should > > show that a trump return is 100%. However, you try to cash a second > spade, > > and this gives declarer a chance of making his contract. > > > > One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior = play > > wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. > > > > The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 12 13:01:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:01:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000001c360c1$37940cf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812135332.024716d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:02 12/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner >......... > > > What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress > > > for damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) > > > damage caused by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated > > > to the misinformation). I shall not rule redress for the damage > > > caused by the inferior play alone. > > > > AG : granted, but ... > > There are cases where the play is inferior, but nevertheless wouldn't > > have occurred without the MI. > > In my experience, TDs and ACs don't pay to those cases the attention > > they merit. > > > > You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the > > bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has > > shown a singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since > > you hold AK and enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy > > and the bidding should show that a trump return is 100%. However, > > you try to cash a second spade, and this gives declarer a chance of > > making his contract. > > > > One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior > > play wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. > > > > The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. > >You have a point, but I feel this case is rather marginal and I am not sure >I would have adjusted under those particular circumstances: > >If the auction appears controlled and they land in a small slam with AK in >spades missing I believe anybody should expect a singleton somewhere. > >And if a "careful study of the dummy and the bidding" should tell that a >trump return is 100% I certainly would question why on earth the player >continued with his SK? AG: there exists a whole class of players who are unable (or find it very difficult) to imagine the whole play of the hand at trick one -even in a slam- but are able to know that playing a second round of spades is a bad idea if declarer has shown a singleton. When a TD or AC demands that a player make careful and difficult deductions, while the information would have been at hand had the opponents only cared to give them, they're going one step too far. We all make inferior plays. Some are more obvious than others. If the inferiority of the play is more obvious with correct information than without it, then the MI has indeed influenced the result - but in a more subtle way, not detectable without some analysis of the case. Come to think of it (with thanks to Demosthenes) : if the AC say that the player on lead didn't reason deeply enough, and that it may be held against him, then the same may be held against the AC. Best regards, Alain. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 12 13:06:12 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:06:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC7A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 13:58 7/08/2003 +0100, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >In this position, would you describe a pass of 2D as: > > > >(a) normal > >(b) quixotic > >(c) irrational > >(b) quixotic, close to irrational > >Without discussion I would assume that 2D was non-forcing with spades & = >diamonds, >and I might expect 2C to be some form of check-back. >On this hand I have better spades than diamonds, and I would give = preference >back to 2S. It's a 2-way shot: AG : indeed. It is clever. It is even the best bid. That's what you = should=20 do, without doubt, absent UI. But you aren't allowed to "be clever" the right way after having = recieved=20 UI. That has been said on blml several times. And it seems to be a = typical=20 case. Frances: This whole case is of course completely bizarre, as something=20 illegal has already happened. However, I reckon oppo are trying to = restore 'equity' - telling us to have a normal auction pretending we never tried = to open out of turn. In this impossible position, I think I should take = the same approach, and do what I would have done anyway. What's more, I = might be prepared to argue to a committee that pass is not a LA. I don't know if = I'd win, but Ithink I'd have a chance. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 12 13:04:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:04:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <000101c360c2$ecfbe940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001a01c360c9$e91709c0$30ec7f50@Default> Sven, I just gave a rough idea. The facts are not precise enough to really rule something. Jaap: >> In the case you present I probably would rule slam down for the OS. Sven: > Unconditionally? Of course not. The facts are vague. This is why I used the word 'probably' (see also David Burn). Jaap: >> What I >> would do with the NOS depends on their level, how much effort they made to >> get the info, and how 'inferior' playing SK is considered to be. Sven: > For the purpose of equity would you then examine all the results on this > board at the other tables and rule slam down for everybody who bid slam and > made it, and then decide your ruling for each defending side depending upon > their qualities etc.? > I cannot believe that is what you mean, but frankly if you rule slam down at > the table in question then isn't that what you have to do as a follow up? It has nothing to do with equity. But I just assumed that they called the TD and appealed, and I assumed there was indeed (some) MI. In which case the AC has to judge whether the damage was caused by the MI or rather by the poor play (or something in between although I know not everybody accepts such a ruling). But part of the judgement is also whether the NOS has tried 'hard enough' to get the relevant info (see David Burn). Anyway all relevant info is lacking in this case. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:14 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Just bad luck? Jaap van der Neut .......... > In the case you present I probably would rule slam down for the OS. Unconditionally? > What I > would do with the NOS depends on their level, how much effort they made to > get the info, and how 'inferior' playing SK is considered to be. For the purpose of equity would you then examine all the results on this board at the other tables and rule slam down for everybody who bid slam and made it, and then decide your ruling for each defending side depending upon their qualities etc.? I cannot believe that is what you mean, but frankly if you rule slam down at the table in question then isn't that what you have to do as a follow up? Regards Sven ............ > > You're on lead against 6H. You've been told several things about the > > bidding, but not the important piece of information that opener has > shown > a > > singleton spade. You lead SA, which isn't a bad move, since you hold AK > and > > enough small cards. Now, careful study of the dummy and the bidding > should > > show that a trump return is 100%. However, you try to cash a second > spade, > > and this gives declarer a chance of making his contract. > > > > One may prove that playing SK is inferior ; however, this inferior play > > wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. > > > > The TD should adjust, but often one doesn't. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 12 13:22:08 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:22:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000d01c360c0$dd1a9500$37db8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00be01c360cc$60c00e20$719868d5@default> [Alain Gottcheiner SNIPPED] You've [not been told] the important piece of information that opener has shown a singleton spade. One may prove that playing SK is inferior; however, this inferior play wouldn't have happened without the lack of information. [David Burn SNIPPED] The TD should enquire whether it occurred to the defender to ask about the extent to which the auction had revealed anything about declarer's spade holding. If the defender can give no good reason why this did not occur to him, the TD should let the result stand (for the defending side, at any rate). [Nigel] IMO Alain is right. David, please rescue your high reputation by admitting to an over-hasty reply. I cannot believe you gave it any thought. IMO, potential UI is almost always a "good reason" for relying on disclosure rather than prolonged cross-examination. Different considerations may apply if you're playing with screens but in normal circumstances, there is a limit to how far you can go to protect yourself without being accused of harassment and time-wasting. How can it be your fault if you ask about the auction and opponents omit to tell you relevant information, to which you are entitled, important to the defence. Questions on a *particular call* and its meaning may give UI to partner that may inhibit partner from successful actions, that may be so suggested. Similarly, questions about a *particular* suit. Similarly, in Alain's example, there is a significant UI danger about questions during the play. A question will often inhibit poor partner from choosing a successful defensive option. IMO, if opponents are "economical with the truth" the TD should concentrate on their non-disclosure. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 12 13:29:49 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:29:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <7684591.1060691389469.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Nigel wrote: > [Nigel] > > IMO Alain is right. David, please rescue your > high reputation by admitting to an over-hasty > reply. I cannot believe you gave it any thought. Why on Earth should I do that? And why on Earth do you believe that, in a completely straightforward case where a player can and should protect himself from damage, there is anything to think about? I do not say that the principle Alain argues is wrong; it may be that he has simply chosen a particularly poor example. But in the hypothetical situation he gives, any TD who ruled damage due to misinformation would almost certainly be wrong to do so. > IMO, potential UI is almost always a "good reason" > for relying on disclosure rather than prolonged > cross-examination. True, though "almost always" is too much. But this has nothing to do with the example in question. Among good reasons for not enquiring about the auction, a TD should be prepared to accept "I did not want to transmit information to partner". But here is a mak who has cashed the king of spades against a slam. Everyone knows that he has the ace; there is no reason why he cannot ask "Has declarer shown a singleton spade?" or some such question. > Different considerations may apply if you're playing > with screens but in normal circumstances, there is > a limit to how far you can go to protect yourself > without being accused of harassment and time-wasting. There is. But that does not give you an excuse not to protect yourself at all. > How can it be your fault if you ask about the auction > and opponents omit to tell you relevant information, > to which you are entitled, important to the defence? If you ask the wrong questions, you cannot complain that the right answers to them were inadequate for your purposes. If you do not ask a question, you cannot complain that no answer was given to it. > Questions on a *particular call* and its meaning > may give UI to partner that may inhibit partner > from successful actions, that may be so suggested. Yes, I know. But they may not, and if they will not, you should protect yourself by asking them if you want the answers to them. > Similarly, questions about a *particular* suit. > Similarly, in Alain's example, there is a significant > UI danger about questions during the play. A question > will often inhibit poor partner from choosing a > successful defensive option. No, there isn't. As I have said, everyone knows the spade position. > IMO, if opponents are "economical with the truth" > the TD should concentrate on their non-disclosure. So he should. If he finds that they have been deliberately equivocal, he may adjust the score to 6S-1 for North-South, 6S making against East-West. But he should not concentrate on non-disclosure to the exclusion of all else. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 12 13:35:41 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:35:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The real world Message-ID: <2093496.1060691741755.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Frances wrote: >This whole case is of course completely bizarre, as something illegal has already happened. However, I reckon oppo are trying to restore 'equity' - telling us to have a normal auction pretending we never tried to open out of turn. In this impossible position, I think I should take the same approach, and do what I would have done anyway. What's more, I might be prepared to argue to a committee that pass is not a LA. I don't know if I'd win, but Ithink I'd have a chance. Oh, it didn't come to that. When my partner bid two diamonds, I was a bit surprised, because I didn't think he would risk doing that in this "auction" with an unfamiliar partner. As I sat contemplating my options, my RHO alerted 2D for me and smiled. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 12 14:43:04 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:43:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <00f101c360d7$abdb0a80$719868d5@default> [David Burn] If you ask the wrong questions, you cannot complain that the right answers to them were inadequate for your purposes. If you do not ask a question, you cannot complain that no answer was given to it. [Nigel Guthrie] I understand that there are two acceptable forms of question: "Please explain the auction?" or "Please tell me what partner's calls have revealed about his hand?" Without screens, in partner's presence, I believe that you should *never* ask about a *particular* call or suit because of the inevitable danger of UI. [David Burn] No, there isn't [a significant UI danger about questions during the play, in Alain's example]. I have said, everyone knows the spade position. [Nigel Guthrie] You are saying that a player who is incapable of working out that SK is an inferior play is expected to predict all of partner's possible subsequent defensive problems precipitated by the UI inherant in his [doubtfully legal] questions? I am flattered that you think that we all have the analysis skills of Otlik/Helgemo/Burn! (: But I still can't believe you are serious :) From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Aug 12 14:38:51 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:38:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811140720.02472830@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c360d7$11b0f230$644726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Then you say in Aus, when you sit down, as a pre-alert, "most of our = doubles are not standard, we cannot alert them, but you should ask".=20 regards, Noel and/or Pamela=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:08 PM To: Konrad Ciborowski; blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? At 13:40 11/08/2003 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > At 12:53 11/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >Alain, > > > AG : I once played a double of a one-bid that showed "4+ in highest=20 > > unbid > > > > suit, 4+ in another suit, 8+ HCP". Perfectly legal. We alerted,=20 > > which answered the demand that "any call whose meaning could be=20 > > unexpected shall > > > > be alerted". Since nobody would alert 1x-Dbl if it was a classical=20 > > takeout, the alert was enough to make opponents react. > > I can only imagine what kinds of -perfectly legal- problems the = present > > rules could create. Who on earth would but imagine asking what = 1x-Dbl > > means ? > >In Poland where doubles are all non-alertable regardless >of its meaning such a double requires a PRE-alert. >I am surprised that it doesn't in Belgium. AG : so am I. But what if you play dozens of "special" doubles and = redoubles ? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 12 16:09:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:09:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <7684591.1060691389469.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812170656.0246c160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:29 12/08/2003 +0100, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Nigel wrote: > > > [Nigel] > > > > IMO Alain is right. David, please rescue your > > high reputation by admitting to an over-hasty > > reply. I cannot believe you gave it any thought. > >Why on Earth should I do that? And why on Earth do you believe that, in a >completely straightforward case where a player can and should protect >himself from damage, there is anything to think about? I do not say that >the principle Alain argues is wrong; it may be that he has simply chosen a >particularly poor example. But in the hypothetical situation he gives, any >TD who ruled damage due to misinformation would almost certainly be wrong >to do so. > > > IMO, potential UI is almost always a "good reason" > > for relying on disclosure rather than prolonged > > cross-examination. > >True, though "almost always" is too much. But this has nothing to do with >the example in question. Among good reasons for not enquiring about the >auction, a TD should be prepared to accept "I did not want to transmit >information to partner". But here is a mak who has cashed the king of spades AG : please notice that in my example he has cashed the *Ace*, which means he doesn't need to have the King. I've chosen my example carefully. >No, there isn't. As I have said, everyone knows the spade position. AG as I have said, you're wrong. Please read the case more carefully before being categorical. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 12 16:13:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:13:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <000001c360d7$11b0f230$644726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030811140720.02472830@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812171010.0246c320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:38 12/08/2003 +1000, Noel and Pamela wrote: >Then you say in Aus, when you sit down, as a pre-alert, "most of our doubles >are not standard, we cannot alert them, but you should ask". AG : and when there is some standard or semi-standard double, they ask, I reply, and might transmit UI. The whole idea behind not alerting doubles goes away. Not good. I'll stick to my idea of alerting very special doubles, thank you. BTW, one of my partners has a habit of alerting very special doubles, apologizing for doing it, and saying "this is very uncommon, so I feel compelled". Nobody has objected up to now. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 12 16:01:26 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:01:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <3647605.1060700486004.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >AG : please notice that in my example he has cashed the *Ace*, which means he doesn't need to have the King. I've chosen my example carefully. No, you haven't. You have created a fanciful example that is not likely to exist in the real world, where people lead the king from AK against a slam in order to obtain a count signal from partner. Since nobody actually would lead the ace, the fact that you have fortuitously made your fictional defender lead the ace is of almost no significance. None of this matters, though. As I have said, if the defender told the director: "I did not want to ask whether declarer had shown a singleton spade because this could transmit information to partner", I might consider that a "good reason" for the player's failure to protect himself. Or I might not - I might consider that the player could, before deciding whether or not to cash SK, have requested an explanation of the entire auction, since this would (presumably) be UI-free. Similarly, if the defender were not an experienced player, and told the director: "I didn't think I was allowed to ask any more questions after the opening lead", or words to that effect, I might consider that his failure to protect himself was not his fault, and grant him some redress. In every case, though, the duty of a director is to determine to what extent the player could, and should, have protected himself from damage following an infraction. If the player could not protect himself without risking an infraction of his own, or because of lack of experience, or lack of ability, then he may be due redress. But in the normal run of events, a player of better than average standard who tries to cash a winner in a suit where declarer cannot, on the bidding, have amy more cards has no right to claim a foul; he could have found out what he needed to know, and he should have done. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 12 16:21:28 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:21:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812125616.0247aa00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030812135332.024716d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <010b01c360e5$adbb0cc0$719868d5@default> Opponents explain their auction and then my pro partner cashes SA against 6H. Dummy has three small spades. Partner immediately asks dummy to further elucidate opener's shape, particularly, in spades. Dummy again describes what he knows and then says, "He has not shown any specific length in spades". After thought, partner still switches to trumps. Later partner praises my skilful defence to take the contract two down for a complete top. It is not so hard with a blueprint of declarer's hand. Especially as, against my expectations, declarer has two spades. I am also able to take advantage of the knowledge that partner must have SK to justify his questions. Opponents complain about "UI from pro questions". The TD explains that we have a duty to protect ourselves against their likely prevarication. He tells them "It is just your bad luck". (: Luckily, David Burn chairs the AC :) From Martin@SPASE.NL Tue Aug 12 16:41:49 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:41:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A6B2@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I'll stick to my idea of alerting very special doubles, thank you. > BTW, one of my partners has a habit of alerting very special doubles, > apologizing for doing it, and saying "this is very uncommon, > so I feel > compelled". Nobody has objected up to now. Hmm, I seem to remember a case on a different forum some time ago. A player hesitated before doubling. Partner immediately alerts and explains. Everybody on the forum believed that he only alerted to justify his next dubious action (i.e. running away). How is that for objections? As far as I can see, forbidding to alert doubles has its advantages, but certainly its disadvantages (to quote Johan Cruijff: "Elk voordeel hep zijn nadeel" in Amsterdam accent, meaning that every advantage has its disadvantage). I guess we will have to let this rule run a while and then evaluate the pros and contras. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 12 16:52:52 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:52:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real world References: <2093496.1060691741755.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <015501c360e9$d02f19a0$719868d5@default> [David Burns] As I sat contemplating my options, my RHO alerted 2D for me and smiled. [: Nigel Guthrie :] Heart-warming stuff in an unlikely context! More active ethics no bridge-player hath Than to lay down his alert card for an opponent From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 12 16:55:59 2003 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:55:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > It is, I hope, legal to rule "In my opinion (after consultation) the same > inferior play would have been found absent the MI - no damage, no > adjustment." > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > I might have said exactly the > same meaning 'in my judgement the player himself is to blame and not the > MI'. ... > the line between 'a normal error or misjudgement' and > 'evidently irrational wild or gambling' is a matter of judgement. There is, as Jaap has noted without resolving it, a fundamental difference in these two approaches. Tim is asking "What would have happened without the MI?" Jaap is asking "Should the NOS have got the right answer even after the MI?" I believe Tim's (and DWS's) approach is the correct one. > From: "Sven Pran" > What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress for > damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) damage caused > by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated to the misinformation) > I shall not rule redress for the damage caused by the inferior play alone. > To make it even more clear (if possible at this stage) damage can be caused > from misinformation and separately also from inferior play unrelated to the > misinformation. The former damage justifies redress, the latter does not. This seems fair enough. However, Sven's earlier statements seemed to be going much further. In my view, which as far as I can tell is what the WBFLC minute says, any damage that would not have occurred without the MI is "related to" the MI and should be redressed, unless the NOS did something "wild, gambling, or irrational." [Jaap again] > 'inferior play' is not in the law text and > however close it is, according to DWS, to 'normal error and misjudgement' it > is not the same, As a matter of language, "inferior play" is a wider category than "normal error and misjudgment," but in the context in which DWS used it, it seems close enough to me. Perhaps it wasn't the best choice of phrase, but the meaning seemed clear enough. > > WBFLC 1998-08-30#2 > > '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").' Even if the NOS takes a "wild, gambling, or irrational" action, we still adjust the score for the OS, don't we? I am aware that a lot of players don't understand MI rulings, but I am astonished to find such disagreement on BLML. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 12 17:18:56 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:18:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> Message-ID: <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > I understand the word "Equity" to describe the > state of being "impartial" and "fair"; implying > equality under the law; with an element of > "justice" being seen to be done. > For want of a better word, many of us use "equity" in the sense adopted by fair-minded people like Grattan and (in effect) Jeff Rubens. After an irregularity, the tape is rolled back to the point just preceding it, and the NOS/OS each get what they would likely have obtained had there been no irregularity. As an extreme example, that would require a TD to examine the deal after a revoke and if necessary adjust the score of each side to reflect the probable outcome had there been no revoke. No damage, no penalty. That is, an "equitable" ruling is one that restores the equity (in another sense) that each side possessed in the deal just prior to the irregularity, giving the benefit of any significant doubt to the NOS. That is the philosophy behind L12C3, which at first struck me as a great idea. Adam W and others soon convinced me that this so-called "equity" is not only contrary to the spirit of the game, but unworkable when applied to irregularities in general or when applied at lower levels of the game (which do not have expert TDs/ACs with an intimate knowledge of both the game and the players involved). It also removes most of the motivation for following the rules of the game. Simple rules with simple consequences, that is what the general bridge population wants. We have it in the parent game, rubber bridge, so why not in duplicate bridge? The inevitable answer will be that the aim of duplicate bridge is to determine which contestant is the most skillful, reducing the element of luck to a minimum, and that windfalls from opposing irregularities hinder the attainment of that goal. But this kind of luck has always been an integral part of the game, sometimes enabling us inferiors to beat our superiors. Eliminating mechanical errors, as with on-line bridge, is fine. The kind of error that other irregularities represent, and any concomitant windfalls or penalties, is not an undesirable element of the game. You break the law, I don't. You get penalized, I get rewarded. Insuring that my rewards exceed my penalties is a type of skill, after all. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 12 17:33:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:33:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3647605.1060700486004.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <016501c360ef$7df40460$719868d5@default> [David Burn] In every case, though, the duty of a director is to determine to what extent the player could, and should, have protected himself from damage following an infraction. [Nigel Guthrie] IMO, it is hard to protect against a *hypothetical* infraction. A question is an unjustified imputation against the honesty and integrity of your opponents as well as a potential source of UI to partner. e.g. at Brighton, a passed opponent overcalled 1NT, intended as unusual but not alerted until after the next round of bidding. We treated it as natural. We missed game because our mechanisms for reaching game over a natural notrump overcall are rudimentary. Whereas, over an unusual notrump, our sophisticated methods would not permit us to stay out of game. The game is not a particularly good one; but it makes; so we claimed redress. The TD ruled against us and warned us that we sacrificed some of our rights to redress by failing to call him before the end of the hand. The AC upheld the TD decision. I can't remember the AC's conclusions but I think they may have included failure to protect ourselves. I thought the decision was close and it was all amicable. I look forward to the EBU write-up. ): But it seems to support David Burn's contentions :( From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 12 22:30:47 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:30:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: Message-ID: <004301c36119$04371020$c9e77f50@Default> Steve: > There is, as Jaap has noted without resolving it, a fundamental difference in > these > two approaches. Tim is asking "What would have happened without the MI?" > Jaap > is asking "Should the NOS have got the right answer even after the MI?" > I believe Tim's (and DWS's) approach is the correct one. Yes and no. If MI were a discrete thing like a revoke than I probably agree with Tim and you. But MI comes in all kind of flavors, from a completely wrong explanation to a correct but slightly imprecise or slightly incomplete explanation. And not everybody has the same language skills to express himself. So for all kind of practical reasons; 1st the NOS has to make a reasonable effort to get the info they need; 2nd you play bridge in a real world so you cannot take any explanation for the holy and complete truth. Players make mistakes, players deviate from agreements, players (all but top level) are well known to give helpful answers when there is no agreement at all; 3rd taking into account that others might phrase the answer to your question different than you would do yourself is part of the game called bridge. Having said that as an AC I really protect players that came to harm because of MI but players have an own responsibility as well. The better they are the more of a responsability they have. And in the end it is mentioned specifically in the law that the right to redress is limited (the gambling etc. part). So in the end we have to answer the question "Should the NOS have got the right answer even after the MI?" (and the hidden question is 'how serious was the MI'). The real discussion is often the answer to that question. But only to pose the question "What would have happened without the MI?" is contrary to the current law. If you really want to rule like that, play might as well stop play after the MI has been established. Because the play after the MI moment seems to be irrelevant since it is the TD/AC who will decide on the result 'that would have happened without the MI' rather than the players. And it becomes impossible to differentiate between a tiny little bit of MI and big bad MI. When overspeeding it makes a hell of a difference whether you overspeed by 10 speed units or 100 speed units. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > It is, I hope, legal to rule "In my opinion (after consultation) the same > > inferior play would have been found absent the MI - no damage, no > > adjustment." > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > I might have said exactly the > > same meaning 'in my judgement the player himself is to blame and not the > > MI'. > ... > > the line between 'a normal error or misjudgement' and > > 'evidently irrational wild or gambling' is a matter of judgement. > > There is, as Jaap has noted without resolving it, a fundamental difference in > these > two approaches. Tim is asking "What would have happened without the MI?" > Jaap > is asking "Should the NOS have got the right answer even after the MI?" > I believe Tim's (and DWS's) approach is the correct one. > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > What I have tried to express is that I shall (always) rule redress for > > damage caused by misinformation, but if there is (additional) damage caused > > by inferior play (and the inferior play is unrelated to the misinformation) > > I shall not rule redress for the damage caused by the inferior play alone. > > > To make it even more clear (if possible at this stage) damage can be caused > > from misinformation and separately also from inferior play unrelated to the > > misinformation. The former damage justifies redress, the latter does not. > > This seems fair enough. However, Sven's earlier statements seemed to be going > much > further. In my view, which as far as I can tell is what the WBFLC minute > says, any > damage that would not have occurred without the MI is "related to" the MI and > should > be redressed, unless the NOS did something "wild, gambling, or irrational." > > [Jaap again] > > 'inferior play' is not in the law text and > > however close it is, according to DWS, to 'normal error and misjudgement' it > > is not the same, > > As a matter of language, "inferior play" is a wider category than "normal > error > and misjudgment," but in the context in which DWS used it, it seems close > enough > to me. Perhaps it wasn't the best choice of phrase, but the meaning seemed > clear > enough. > > > > WBFLC 1998-08-30#2 > > > '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").' > > Even if the NOS takes a "wild, gambling, or irrational" action, we still > adjust > the score for the OS, don't we? > > I am aware that a lot of players don't understand MI rulings, but I am > astonished > to find such disagreement on BLML. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 12 22:43:46 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:43:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005201c3611a$d093d8a0$c9e77f50@Default> Marvin, I agree with you but for one point (I have said this before). In Europe we tend to use C3 rather than C2. For me this has nothing to with equity. We just think that expectation rounded up is enough for the NOS (and never forget, in real life it is better than that because you had already a go at a good result at the table). The OS might get (much) less than the complement of the NOS. Why? One, C2 can lead to quite silly rulings, and in non knock out there are other stakeholders as well (but ok a revoke can have the same effect). Two, far more important, C2 makes it impossible to take the magnitude of the infraction into account. Some UI/MI cases are hardly infractions. With C3 you have the option to adjust the sanction to the crime. Under C2 I have only the choice between ruling 'no infraction' and 'maximum penalty'. By the way, for all real infractions I am most happy to rule 'maximum penalty'. But then in Europe we tend to have lower maximum penalties than in the States. This is culture, nothing to do with equity. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > I understand the word "Equity" to describe the > > state of being "impartial" and "fair"; implying > > equality under the law; with an element of > > "justice" being seen to be done. > > > For want of a better word, many of us use "equity" in the sense adopted by > fair-minded people like Grattan and (in effect) Jeff Rubens. After an > irregularity, the tape is rolled back to the point just preceding it, and > the NOS/OS each get what they would likely have obtained had there been no > irregularity. > > As an extreme example, that would require a TD to examine the deal after a > revoke and if necessary adjust the score of each side to reflect the > probable outcome had there been no revoke. No damage, no penalty. That is, > an "equitable" ruling is one that restores the equity (in another sense) > that each side possessed in the deal just prior to the irregularity, giving > the benefit of any significant doubt to the NOS. > > That is the philosophy behind L12C3, which at first struck me as a great > idea. Adam W and others soon convinced me that this so-called "equity" is > not only contrary to the spirit of the game, but unworkable when applied to > irregularities in general or when applied at lower levels of the game (which > do not have expert TDs/ACs with an intimate knowledge of both the game and > the players involved). It also removes most of the motivation for following > the rules of the game. > > Simple rules with simple consequences, that is what the general bridge > population wants. We have it in the parent game, rubber bridge, so why not > in duplicate bridge? > > The inevitable answer will be that the aim of duplicate bridge is to > determine which contestant is the most skillful, reducing the element of > luck to a minimum, and that windfalls from opposing irregularities hinder > the attainment of that goal. But this kind of luck has always been an > integral part of the game, sometimes enabling us inferiors to beat our > superiors. Eliminating mechanical errors, as with on-line bridge, is fine. > The kind of error that other irregularities represent, and any concomitant > windfalls or penalties, is not an undesirable element of the game. > > You break the law, I don't. You get penalized, I get rewarded. Insuring that > my rewards exceed my penalties is a type of skill, after all. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bkmnzhatrjvh@msn.com Wed Aug 13 04:18:47 2003 From: bkmnzhatrjvh@msn.com (bkmnzhatrjvh@msn.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:18:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) ... Become free from debt for LIFE!! Read..90fdsanm Message-ID: Read this! Debt sucks, and so do the repayments.. feel like your getting ripped off? We stomp out your debt and give you a fresh start! - Save you a lot of money by eliminating late fees - Settle your accounts for a substantially reduced amount - Stop creditors calling you on the phone - Avoid bankruptcy ... and more! Why keep dealing with the stress, and headaches? Combine your debt into a low interest repayment and get on with your life today!! Come here and take a look at how we can help. http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://money@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/index.php?N=g dont want any more? http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://moy@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/r.php From bkmnzhatrjvh@msn.com Wed Aug 13 04:18:54 2003 From: bkmnzhatrjvh@msn.com (bkmnzhatrjvh@msn.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:18:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) ... Become free from debt for LIFE!! Read..90fdsanm Message-ID: <20030813030445.07D272B938@rhubarb.custard.org> Read this! Debt sucks, and so do the repayments.. feel like your getting ripped off? We stomp out your debt and give you a fresh start! - Save you a lot of money by eliminating late fees - Settle your accounts for a substantially reduced amount - Stop creditors calling you on the phone - Avoid bankruptcy ... and more! Why keep dealing with the stress, and headaches? Combine your debt into a low interest repayment and get on with your life today!! Come here and take a look at how we can help. http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://money@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/index.php?N=g dont want any more? http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://moy@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/r.php From ktakitmsvneq@msn.com Wed Aug 13 05:26:14 2003 From: ktakitmsvneq@msn.com (ktakitmsvneq@msn.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:26:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Stop debt today, live debt free tommorow Message-ID: HEY YOU! :) Have over $5000 worth of debt? Want to get rid of it? We can help! We can consolidate your bills into just one low monthly payment. Start Fresh! - Save you a lot of money by eliminating late fees - Settle your accounts for a substantially reduced amount - Stop creditors calling you on the phone - Avoid bankruptcy ... and more! Why keep dealing with the stress, and headaches? Combine your debt into a low interest repayment and get on with your life today!! Come here and take a look at how we can help. http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://432423@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/index.php?N=g dont want any more? http://btrack.iwon.com/r.pl?redir=http://11@www.slashmonthlypayments.com/r.php From Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com Wed Aug 13 07:09:46 2003 From: Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com (Pekka Viitasalo) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:09:46 +0300 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format Message-ID: <3F39D62A.7090903@AtBusiness.Com> Finnish Bridge Federation has changed the format of one of its primary events, The Pairs Final. The federation has about 1900 members (to give some perspective). The former format: matchpoint scoring 52 pairs 2 boards per round 51 rounds endless Howell movement The new format: matchpoint scoring 64 pairs 4 boards per round 25 rounds Swiss * 1st round #1 seed vs 33, 2 vs 34 ... 32 vs 64. * 2nd round #1 seed vs 34 ...31 vs 64 and 32 vs 33 * rounds 3-25 delayed Swiss Opinions, please. TIA, piv -- http://staff.atbusiness.com/staff/piv For all resources, whatever it is, you need more." - RFC1925 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 08:01:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:01:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <3F39D62A.7090903@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <000001c36168$b8bb1fb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Pekka Viitasalo=20 > Finnish Bridge Federation has changed the format of one of its primary > events, The Pairs Final. The federation has about 1900 members (to = give > some perspective). >=20 > The former format: > matchpoint scoring > 52 pairs > 2 boards per round > 51 rounds > endless Howell movement >=20 > The new format: > matchpoint scoring > 64 pairs > 4 boards per round > 25 rounds > Swiss > * 1st round #1 seed vs 33, 2 vs 34 ... 32 vs 64. > * 2nd round #1 seed vs 34 ...31 vs 64 and 32 vs 33 > * rounds 3-25 delayed Swiss >=20 > Opinions, please. I suppose they have their reasons which I feel nobody outside the = federation has any business to discuss. But generally I will say that any kind of = Swiss schedule is inferior to a complete barometer (endless Howell) movement. Our present masterpoint regulations stipulate that the number of rounds = in a Swiss shall be between one third and one half of the number of = participating pairs, but I understand that tests made here in Norway has shown some 20 rounds of Swiss to be adequate for reliably ranging the first 20 places = even when the number of participating pairs is far above 100.=20 We run our Pairs Final with 82 pairs, 81 rounds and 2 boards per round = and I know of no thoughts on changing that. Incidentally we run a separate open Swiss pairs championship from which = the top 9 (10? 11?) pairs become qualified for the Pairs final in addition = to those already qualified from the regional finals. Regards Sven=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 10:12:15 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <3F39D62A.7090903@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <001601c3617b$05cb7f40$2b9c68d5@default> IMO, if you have many pairs/teams, limited time to play, and limited time between "matches", then Swiss tournaments are the best yardsticks of ability. e.g. It is better to have Swiss matches over several boards than complete Howells over fewer boards. I don't have simulation software but guess that you would be better to have fewer matches of increased length -- say 15 X 8 board matches -- which would take about the same time (because there would be fewer intervals between matches). Your seeding idea seems good to me. Perhaps you should VP each match, (with a lopsided scale, to discourage wild attempts at recovery). Congratulations to Finland on an excellent format. Best wishes, Nigel From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 10:23:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:23:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <001601c3617b$05cb7f40$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000201c3617c$83949e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie=20 > IMO, if you have many pairs/teams, limited time to > play, and limited time between "matches", then Swiss > tournaments are the best yardsticks of ability. > e.g. It is better to have Swiss matches over several > boards than complete Howells over fewer boards. I am not quite sure this argument sticks. One serious problem with Swiss = is that if the "top" pair reaches table 1 too early it will have a tendency = to "bounce" back while a pair lucky enough to "ride" on the "Swiss wave" at = the best time will have an unjust good chance of becoming the winner. For a superior pair this will be no problem, I have seen a pair seated = at table 1 from round three to the very end, but with more competition = among the top pairs . . . . . > I don't have simulation software but guess that you > would be better to have fewer matches of increased > length -- say 15 X 8 board matches -- which would > take about the same time (because there would be > fewer intervals between matches). Are you now thinking Swiss for teams of four rather than Swiss pairs? =20 > Your seeding idea seems good to me. A rather strange result from simulations is that the seeding has very = little effect and thus the initial seating is not important at all. >=20 > Perhaps you should VP each match, (with a lopsided > scale, to discourage wild attempts at recovery). >=20 > Congratulations to Finland on an excellent format. I should certainly hope that their experience with this format will be satisfactory, they have chosen it themselves. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 10:45:33 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:45:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <3F39D62A.7090903@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <002e01c3617f$a618f460$2b9c68d5@default> [Pekka Viitasalo] New format: matchpoint scoring, 64 pairs, 4 boards per round, 25 rounds Swiss * 1st round #1 seed vs 33, 2 vs 34 ... 32 vs 64. * 2nd round #1 seed vs 34 ...31 vs 64 and 32 vs 33 * rounds 3-25 delayed Swiss [Nigel Guthrie] On further thought, another small quibble... Although I approve of seeding in principle, I wonder whether the suggested format is optimal? For example, perhaps the first round could be something like... 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 10:56:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:56:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <002e01c3617f$a618f460$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000301c36181$2926f400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 13. august 2003 11:46 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > [Pekka Viitasalo] > New format: matchpoint scoring, 64 pairs, > 4 boards per round, 25 rounds Swiss > * 1st round #1 seed vs 33, 2 vs 34 ... 32 vs 64. > * 2nd round #1 seed vs 34 ...31 vs 64 and 32 vs 33 > * rounds 3-25 delayed Swiss > > [Nigel Guthrie] > On further thought, another small quibble... > Although I approve of seeding in principle, I wonder > whether the suggested format is optimal? For example, > perhaps the first round could be something like... > 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in the following ranking list after round 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 After round 3 (the first Swiss seated round) you will have something like: 1, 3, 5, 7, .......2, 4, 6, 8, ....... unless the differences in level between the various pairs are extreme. And after a few rounds the top pair will have met so much resistance that some other pair will probably have advanced to the top position simply because of less resistance. When this happens will to some extent depend upon the initial seating, that it happens will not. Eventually there will be no remaining visible effect of the original seating. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 11:26:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:26:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813122152.02474ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:18 12/08/2003 -0700, Marvin French wrote: >The inevitable answer will be that the aim of duplicate bridge is to >determine which contestant is the most skillful, reducing the element of >luck to a minimum, and that windfalls from opposing irregularities hinder >the attainment of that goal. AG : this is a reasonable view. Another, however, is to consider that making fewer irregularities is part of the bridge player's skill. The soccer player who is able to tackle without touching his opponent, the batsman who can divert the ball with the bat rather than the pad, are considered more skilled. That they are never umpired against seems quite fair to the neutral observer. Best regards, Alain. >But this kind of luck has always been an >integral part of the game, sometimes enabling us inferiors to beat our >superiors. >Eliminating mechanical errors, as with on-line bridge, is fine. >The kind of error that other irregularities represent, and any concomitant >windfalls or penalties, is not an undesirable element of the game. > >You break the law, I don't. You get penalized, I get rewarded. Insuring that >my rewards exceed my penalties is a type of skill, after all. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@ripe.net Wed Aug 13 11:05:42 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:05:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <000201c3617c$83949e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > > Your seeding idea seems good to me. > > A rather strange result from simulations is that the seeding has very > little effect and thus the initial seating is not important at all. I don't think this is a strange result. If you play more rounds, the effect of each individual round decreases, while at the same time the chances that you'd have play your round 1 opponent anyway increases. All you are in fact doing, is to reshuffle the order in which you meet your opponents. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com Wed Aug 13 11:17:17 2003 From: Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com (Pekka Viitasalo) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:17:17 +0300 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <3F39D62A.7090903@AtBusiness.Com> References: <3F39D62A.7090903@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <3F3A102D.4090208@AtBusiness.Com> Pekka Viitasalo wrote: > The former format: > matchpoint scoring > 52 pairs > 2 boards per round > 51 rounds > endless Howell movement I forgot to mention that this is barometer with last 3 rounds "blind". piv -- http://staff.atbusiness.com/staff/piv "For all resources, whatever it is, you need more." - RFC1925 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 11:36:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:36:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <3F3A102D.4090208@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <000501c36186$bf208fc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Pekka Viitasalo > > The former format: > > matchpoint scoring > > 52 pairs > > 2 boards per round > > 51 rounds > > endless Howell movement > I forgot to mention that this is barometer with last 3 rounds "blind". In my opinion this makes no difference. And in Norway we have many years = ago abandoned the practice of running the last barometer rounds "blind", we distribute the running scores for each round until the very last. I = believe this change took place with the introduction of computer scoring. The advantage of enabling players to report scoring errors immediately = far outweighs any possible advantage of hiding the last results from the = players and spectators. In fact we doubt that there is any advantage with such hiding at all. Historically we "learned" barometer from Sweden, I wonder if they still = run their last barometer rounds "blind" or have abandoned that practice like = we have done. Regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 12:04:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:04:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <005201c3611a$d093d8a0$c9e77f50@Default> References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813125649.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:43 12/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >One, C2 can lead to quite silly rulings, and in non knock out there are >other stakeholders as well (but ok a revoke can have the same effect). >Two, far more important, C2 makes it impossible to take the magnitude of the >infraction into account. Some UI/MI cases are hardly infractions. AG : this statement makes me uncomfortable. Transmitting UI is an infraction according to definitions and L73. Giving MI is an infraction according to definitions and L75A (and possibly L40). Sometimes, the infraction had a very low probability of affecting the bidding and play. I suppose those are the cases you're referring to here. If this is the case, one might consider the matter closed. This doesn't cancel the infraction status of the act. Best regards, Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 11:53:29 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:53:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000301c36181$2926f400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004901c36189$2a23a9e0$2b9c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] perhaps the first round could be something like... 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. [Sven Pran] If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in the following ranking list after round 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 [Nigel Guthrie] Bridge matches do not always go to form; but on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment condition, I now prefer.... Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. I still maintain that it is better to have fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer intervals and so you can play many more boards (e.g. 10 X 10) Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more seeding matters. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 12:12:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000201c3617c$83949e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006c01c3618b$d0ac3140$2b9c68d5@default> [Sven Pran] I am not quite sure this argument sticks. One serious problem with Swiss is that if the "top" pair reaches table 1 too early it will have a tendency to "bounce" back while a pair lucky enough to "ride" on the "Swiss wave" at the best time will have an unjust good chance of becoming the winner. [Nigel Guthrie] I feel that you are mistaken; but there must be simulations that resolve this argument. I still think that the advantage of Swiss teams that it is the optimal compromise between knockout and round-robin. Swiss pairs is better than a Howell partly because you have far fewer "rounds" so you can play many more boards in the same time. e.g. say 10 X 12 rather than 51 X 2. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Aug 13 12:14:41 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:14:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <004901c36189$2a23a9e0$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000201c3618c$1810b650$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 10:53 p.m. > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > perhaps the first round could be something like... > 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > [Sven Pran] > If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in > the > following ranking list after round 1: > 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 > > [Nigel Guthrie] > Bridge matches do not always go to form; but > on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment > condition, I now prefer.... > Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. > Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > I still maintain that it is better to have > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > intervals and so you can play many more boards > (e.g. 10 X 10) > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > seeding matters. I think some simulations that I did for Swiss Teams suggested the opposite. Wayne > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Wed Aug 13 12:24:11 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:24:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Nigel Guthrie's message of Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:21:28 +0100 Message-ID: [Nigel] > Opponents explain their auction and then my pro > partner cashes SA against 6H. > > Dummy has three small spades. > > Partner immediately asks dummy to further elucidate > opener's shape, particularly, in spades. Dummy > again describes what he knows and then says, > "He has not shown any specific length in spades". > > After thought, partner still switches to trumps. > > Later partner praises my skilful defence to take the > contract two down for a complete top. It is not so > hard with a blueprint of declarer's hand. Especially > as, against my expectations, declarer has two spades. > I am also able to take advantage of the knowledge > that partner must have SK to justify his questions. I suspect David Burn's position on this matter has some weaknesses but I doubt this is the way to get to them. Firstly, if your partner leads the Ace from AK against a small slam then "pro" must be short for "prone from too much alcohol". Isn't King from AK for count and Ace for attitude normal against small slams above the level of average club player? If not, why not? Secondly, we have: > I am also able to take advantage of the knowledge > that partner must have SK to justify his questions. Since information arising from partner's questions are UI, should you be using it? --- 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 12:27:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:27:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <006c01c3618b$d0ac3140$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000901c3618d$f10e38f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > One serious problem with Swiss is that if > the "top" pair reaches table 1 too early it > will have a tendency to "bounce" back while > a pair lucky enough to "ride" on the "Swiss > wave" at the best time will have an unjust > good chance of becoming the winner. > > [Nigel Guthrie] > I feel that you are mistaken; but there must > be simulations that resolve this argument. Chess has used Swiss movements for ages and has a lot of experience which confirms the above. I have experienced the importance of riding on the "Swiss wave" also in bridge tournaments. > I still think that the advantage of Swiss > teams that it is the optimal compromise > between knockout and round-robin. Swiss is indeed a compromise, and might even be the optimal compromise but that doesn't make it comparable in quality to a complete round-robin arrangement. > Swiss pairs is better than a Howell partly > because you have far fewer "rounds" so you > can play many more boards in the same time. > e.g. say 10 X 12 rather than 51 X 2. We do all kinds of schedules in Norway but we still consider a full round-robin schedule superior to any of the alternatives for serious tournaments even when we have to use as few as two boards per round. The fact that all pairs meet and with a reasonably good balance is by our experience more important than anything else. (And I am astonished over the popularity with arrow-switched Mitchell once you get outside Scandinavia. We do use Mitchell also in Norway, but then always with two result lists; one ranking the north-south pairs and another for east-west). Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 12:33:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:33:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <000201c3618c$1810b650$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000a01c3618e$b54cdeb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ............ > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > perhaps the first round could be something like... > > 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in > > the > > following ranking list after round 1: > > 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > Bridge matches do not always go to form; but > > on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment > > condition, I now prefer.... > > Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. > > Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > I still maintain that it is better to have > > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > > intervals and so you can play many more boards > > (e.g. 10 X 10) > > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > > seeding matters. >=20 > I think some simulations that I did for Swiss Teams suggested the > opposite. >=20 > Wayne Well, as I showed above seeding 1 with 64, 2 with 63 and so on until 32 = with 33 in the first round would give a perfect result list after just one = round. So who cares about more than one round tournaments if they can make a correct seeding? Come to think about it: Who cares about playing any round at all, we do = know the ranking already? So in order to save a lot of time we just pick up = the prices and have some social bridge afterwards. What a nice day that = would be! Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Aug 13 13:22:19 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:22:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format Message-ID: "Nigel Guthrie" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 13/08/2003 12:53 =20 Pour : "BLML" cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Tournamet Format [Nigel Guthrie] perhaps the first round could be something like... 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. [Sven Pran] If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in the following ranking list after round 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 [Nigel Guthrie] Bridge matches do not always go to form; but on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment condition, I now prefer.... Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. *** if your goal is some form of equity, you could try: R1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64 R2: 1 v 32, 2 v 31,.., 16 v 17; 33 v 64,.., 48 v 49=20 jp rocafort *** I still maintain that it is better to have fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer intervals and so you can play many more boards (e.g. 10 X 10) Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more seeding matters. =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 13:43:44 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:43:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030813125649.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003901c36198$8b177740$7beb7f50@Default> AG : this statement makes me uncomfortable. I understand, but it is that damned reality. If someone explains 2NT as 'fit' because he cannot remember anymore exactly what kind of fit the agreement was about, or he is to lazy to tell all (often irrelevant) details, I consider this as minor MI. This kind of thing is unlikely to cause damage anyway. After the bidding it can be precisied, besides if you really need to know you can always ask another question. Just compare this with him explaning 'minors' or 'clubs' or 'natural' rather than 'fit'. That would be major MI. With UI you have the same kind of problems. It is not a discrete thing, it is not black and white. Anyway I maintain that handling imperfect explanations and (almost) unavoidable UI is part of bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Marvin French" ; "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > At 23:43 12/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > >One, C2 can lead to quite silly rulings, and in non knock out there are > >other stakeholders as well (but ok a revoke can have the same effect). > >Two, far more important, C2 makes it impossible to take the magnitude of the > >infraction into account. Some UI/MI cases are hardly infractions. > > AG : this statement makes me uncomfortable. > > Transmitting UI is an infraction according to definitions and L73. > Giving MI is an infraction according to definitions and L75A (and possibly > L40). > > Sometimes, the infraction had a very low probability of affecting the > bidding and play. I suppose those are the cases you're referring to here. > If this is the case, one might consider the matter closed. > This doesn't cancel the infraction status of the act. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > From toddz@att.net Wed Aug 13 14:07:08 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:07:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <004901c36189$2a23a9e0$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > [Nigel Guthrie] > Bridge matches do not always go to form; but > on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment > condition, I now prefer.... > Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. > Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. I'm probably confused by the delayed assignment. Does that mean that after the preassigned matches, pairs will be assigned from the top against the highest-scoring pair they haven't yet played? If this is the case, why would you schedule lopsided matches (1 v 64) into a movement that otherwise takes care of itself? Also, it won't be until round 3 that pairs 1-32 will compare any scores against 32-64, assuming that your listing of the pairs is always ns v ew (or vice versa). -Todd From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 14:34:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:34:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <003901c36198$8b177740$7beb7f50@Default> References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030813125649.0246ac00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813153138.02467ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:43 13/08/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >AG : this statement makes me uncomfortable. > >I understand, but it is that damned reality. If someone explains 2NT as >'fit' because he cannot remember anymore exactly what kind of fit the >agreement was about, or he is to lazy to tell all (often irrelevant) >details, I consider this as minor MI. AG : you're 100% right. What I considered as disturbing is not that some pieces of MI are minor, and usually irrelevant : it is the assertion that they don't constitute an infraction. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 14:20:57 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:20:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000301c36181$2926f400$6900a8c0@WINXP> <004901c36189$2a23a9e0$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <00b001c3619d$bf015080$7beb7f50@Default> Seeding ? Swiss ? I don't think it makes any real difference which seeding you use for the 1st couple of rounds in a Swiss. Anything reasonable will do. Anything unreasonable probably will do as well. You might as well start with 1=2, 3=4 under the assumption that they will meet anyway. In one/two day open Swiss tournaments in Holland they normally make groups of 4 (including 1 good, 1 medium and 2 bad teams) and the first three rounds you play 'round=robin'. It speeds up proceedings and after that you have a ranking after which Swiss makes some sense. For me the most important is that the Swiss has enough rounds. If you play two days with 7/8 boards a match you get to play around 14 rounds. To win you get to play (almost) all real contenders. Recently I played the French mixed championship where they play only six rounds (long matches with half time) in a big field. For me this is completely crazy and contrary to the concept of a Swiss. It increases enormously the luck factor, because you have/get to play 20 boards against one opponent. So the draw makes an enormous difference. With so few rounds there is always a couple of 'bad' teams high in the ranking and you can easily win avoiding completely the strongest teams. To play Swiss pairs there are different considerations. Pairs and teams are different. It is in pairs not necessary that 1 plays 2 etc. It is already a big improvement if you have some kind of dynamic scheme with avoids pairs in contention to play pairs out of contention. Besides for practical purposes (speed of play) you probably cannot afford to assign positions every round. But with computers you can improve enormously on Mitchel type of movements. Imagine the computer making an new line up every 4 to 6 tables (depending on #boards) according to some smart algoritm. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > [Nigel Guthrie] > perhaps the first round could be something like... > 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > [Sven Pran] > If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in > the > following ranking list after round 1: > 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 > > [Nigel Guthrie] > Bridge matches do not always go to form; but > on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment > condition, I now prefer.... > Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. > Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > I still maintain that it is better to have > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > intervals and so you can play many more boards > (e.g. 10 X 10) > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > seeding matters. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Aug 13 14:27:32 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:27:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights References: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005701c35eec$500b0c60$c2fe193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <007c01c3619f$7f424650$3682b6d4@LNV> I would like to draw attention for another decision taken by the WBFLC which describes clearly how average-minus should be awarded. When we took that decision we knew the approach the ACBL was following and we decided not to accept that approach. Average-minus in a pairs-event is 40% or the score of the pair in the current session if that is lower. And we made no exeption for the ACBL, it didn't even ask for that. So if Grattan says that the LC might find no objection etc. I have my doubts. On the other hand we are not the watchdog against NBO's who want to '' 'improve' the laws and their interpretations in their own jurisdiction. ton > > > > More interesting is what the pair at fault get. > > > > In ACBL-land, that is the remainder from 100% > > after the no-fault pair get their 60% or 60+%. This > > was an ACBLLC interpretation. > < > > If an artificial score adjustment for the at-fault pair > > is going to be based on the performance of the > > no-fault pair, then that should work the other way > > too. The no-fault pair should get 60% augmented > > as above, but with the augmentation limited to the > > difference between their percentage on other > > boards and the at-fault pair's percentage. That is, > > a 70% pair would get 64%, not 70%, if playing a > > 66% pair, and the latter would get 36%, not 30%. > > If two 65% pairs are involved, the split is 60-40. > > This may not be mathematically defensible, but > > it's a step in the right direction. > > > > As I remember, other Zones just give the at-fault > > pair 40%, that's it. As Steve Willner has pointed > > out, that could lead a weaker pair to arrange for > > an avg- result when playing against Meckwell. > > > +=+ WBFLC minute of 6th Sep 2000: > " The Committee addressed any situation > when, as the result of an irregularity, a result cannot > be obtained and an artificial score would normally > be awarded. If a non-offending side would be > disadvantaged by an award of average plus (60%, > or higher where Law 88 allows) the Committee does > not consider a higher percentage may be awarded > under Law 12C1. If the circumstances allow the > Director may assign a score under Law 12A1 or > Law 84E. " > > Some authorities regulate the manner in which > artificial scores.shall be assessed (stronger than > simply giving guidance to TDs). I presume they > do so as an exercise of Law 78D. Given the > principle adopted for assigned scores in minute 2 > of 30 August 1998, and the principle expressed > more than once in the laws that each player is to be > judged by his own level of expertise, it is possible > that the WBFLC would find no objection to the use > of such powers in the manner of the ACBL. > > Turning to this: "As I remember, other Zones just > give the at-fault pair 40%, that's it. As Steve > Willner has pointed out, that could lead a weaker > pair to arrange for an avg- result when playing > against Meckwell", one has to allow that it may be > difficult to establish that such a purpose can be > considered seriously to have motivated an > irregularity; however, where there are grounds to > believe it possible there can be recourse to Law > 72B1, and also to 72B2 if it is considered evident > it was the case Incidentally, I think the > reference to 'other Zones' is perhaps too > sweeping; we would probably find the practice > is not universal outside of Zone 2, whether Zonally > or by NBOs. Again, Paul Hauff's reference to > equality of treatment is not wrong but incompletely > stated - players have equal rights to be judged by > their own levels of expertise where applicable. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 15:37:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:37:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format, delayed assignment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c361a8$6b940a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd Zimnoch ........ > I'm probably confused by the delayed assignment. Does that mean > that after the preassigned matches, pairs will be assigned from > the top against the highest-scoring pair they haven't yet played? > If this is the case, why would you schedule lopsided matches (1 v > 64) into a movement that otherwise takes care of itself? Also, it > won't be until round 3 that pairs 1-32 will compare any scores > against 32-64, assuming that your listing of the pairs is always > ns v ew (or vice versa). It means that the positions in round 3 is determined from the results in round 1 and announced to the players together with the results for round = 1 while they are playing round 2. Similarly the positions in round 4 is determined from the rankings after round 2 and announced to the players together with the results for round = 2 while they are playing round 3. The principle is always that the highest ranked pair is seated at table = 1 where they will meet the highest ranked pair they have not already met. = At table two the highest ranked pair among the remaining pairs will meet = the highest ranked pair they have not already met, and so on for all the = tables. (It frequently happens that towards the lower end of the ranking list = there are some deviations from this rule in order to avoid anybody meeting the same pair more than once). This process is then repeated for every round until the positions for = all the rounds have been determined. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 15:51:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:51:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <00b001c3619d$bf015080$7beb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <000801c361aa$6c393950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ........... > To play Swiss pairs there are different considerations.=20 > Pairs and teams are different. It is in pairs not necessary > that 1 plays 2 etc. It is already a big improvement if you > have some kind of dynamic scheme with avoids pairs in > contention to play pairs out of contention. Besides for=20 > practical purposes (speed of play) you probably cannot=20 > afford to assign positions every round. You disappoint me with this statement! When we play Swiss pairs in Norway we do just that: The positions in = rounds 1 and 2 are assigned more or less at random, from round 3 positions are assigned for each round according to the rating after the second = previous round (Round 3 determined by the rating after round 1, round 4 = determined by the rating after round 2 and so on to the bitter end). > But with computers you can improve enormously on Mitchel type of > movements. > Imagine the computer making an new line up every 4 to 6 tables = (depending > on > #boards) according to some smart algoritm. >=20 > Jaap I have never heard of anybody in Norway mixing Mitchell and Swiss. We = let the computer do all the work on Swiss: Result reports on the scorings = for round 1 is handed back to each pair while they are playing round 2, that report includes information on where they will be seated in round 3 and that's it. (During the recent bridge festival in Stavanger we managed = more than 70 tables playing Swiss pairs with three boards per round in this fashion, 23 minutes per round all inclusive). Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 16:01:07 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:01:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: Message-ID: <00bb01c361ab$bf9dd640$2b9c68d5@default> [Ian D Crorie] I suspect David Burn's position on this matter has some weaknesses but I doubt this is the way to get to them. Firstly, if your partner leads the Ace from AK against a small slam then "pro" must be short for "prone from too much alcohol". Isn't King from AK for count and Ace for attitude normal against small slams above the level of average club player? If not, why not? [Nigel Guthrie] Hi Ian! I do take your point. But I did not want to change any essentials of the case. In the Alain's example, on which David commented, the leader led Ace from Ace-King. By the way my pro is only an average player. His real forte is not bidding theory or card- technique but legal expertise. There is not much difference among top players in technique but expertise in the convolutions of WBF law and the idiosyncracies of local variations really separate the men from the boys! My pro does not contribute to BLML but revels in each daft new local legal variation or incomprehinsible ruling [Ian D Crorie] Secondly, we have: > I am also able to take advantage of the knowledge > that partner must have SK to justify his questions. Since information arising from partner's questions are UI, should you be using it? [Nigel Guthrie] According to David Burn, in this particular context, there is no question of *UI* (: Ian, please wash your mouth out with carbolic :) David Burn says we *must* ask to afford ourselves the protection of the law. OK I *could* have asked too but then would lay myself open to accusations of time-wasting. David also says "everyone knows the spade position". (: Actually I was not aware that I knew it, without help from partner's questions, so it is reassuring to get this definitive statement from the chairman of the EBU laws committee :) (: In earlier emails I did suggest that David may have replied too hastily :) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 16:15:44 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:15:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000301c36181$2926f400$6900a8c0@WINXP> <004901c36189$2a23a9e0$2b9c68d5@default> <00b001c3619d$bf015080$7beb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <00ca01c361ad$c932ec20$2b9c68d5@default> [Jaap van der Neut] I don't think it makes any real difference which seeding you use for the 1st couple of rounds in a Swiss [SNIP] You might as well start with 1=2, 3=4 under the assumption that they will meet anyway. [Nigel] Apparently simulations confirm your surmise about seeding. When there are only a *few* matches, I still think seeding is a good idea. To me it seems that the top pairs all get at least a couple of cracks at the bunnies, to accelerate the sieve. But I accept that my intuition may be mistaken. [Jaap van der Neuf] For me the most important is that the Swiss has enough rounds. If you play two days with 7/8 boards a match you get to play around 14 rounds. To win you get to play (almost) all real contenders. [Nigel Guthrie] I agree that between 10 and 15 rounds is ideal. 8-12 board matches allow a realistic comparison and you get enough rounds for lots of sieving. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 16:47:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:47:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <00bb01c361ab$bf9dd640$2b9c68d5@default> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813174242.02478770@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:01 13/08/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Ian D Crorie] > >I suspect David Burn's position on this matter >has some weaknesses but I doubt this is the way >to get to them. > >Firstly, if your partner leads the Ace from AK >against a small slam then "pro" must be short >for "prone from too much alcohol". Isn't King >from AK for count and Ace for attitude normal >against small slams above the level of average >club player? If not, why not? AG : it's strange that so many contributors subtlely avoid answering the case by pretending (sometimes rightly) that it's the bad example. This doesn't make the question void. One could surely find examples where the defense doesn't do anything wrong and the knowledge of the singleton is important. Say you lead the King, and partner's card could be a singleton as well as highest from a doubleton. Or that the contract is at a lower level. Or ... This doesn't change the question : do we, in order to protect ourselves, *have* to ask questions that might transmit UI, when the most expected answer is something that should already have been volunteered ? As you have guessed, my personal answer is 'no'. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 16:47:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:47:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813174242.02478770@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c361b2$33426c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner ........ > AG : it's strange that so many contributors subtlely avoid answering = the > case by pretending (sometimes rightly) that it's the bad example. This > doesn't make the question void. >=20 > One could surely find examples where the defense doesn't do anything = wrong > and the knowledge of the singleton is important. > Say you lead the King, and partner's card could be a singleton as well = as > highest from a doubleton. > Or that the contract is at a lower level. > Or ... >=20 > This doesn't change the question : do we, in order to protect > ourselves, *have* to ask questions that might transmit UI, when the = most > expected answer is something that should already have been volunteered = ? > As you have guessed, my personal answer is 'no'. You have to protect yourself in any case. You cannot just relax because "there has been some MI so we cannot fail whatever we do". What surprises me is that nobody has pointed out the obvious ways = defenders can ask questions and be entitled to every piece of information that eventually may turn out to be important with no danger of generating UI: What are we entitled to know from your auction? (My preferred question before the opening lead is faced!) Or: What has declarer shown with his calls? But I would still rule that if defense "should know" that declarer is = void in spades after the first trick and still tries to cash another spade = trick instead of switching to the 100% safe continuation (which we were told = was apparent) he shall have some trouble defending his action and get any redress. In this case it is extremely important whether for instance the contract = is an apparently controlled bid small slam or anything at a lower level. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 17:33:03 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:33:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <001001c361b2$33426c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813174242.02478770@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030813182844.01d42d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:47 13/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >You have to protect yourself in any case. You cannot just relax because >"there has been some MI so we cannot fail whatever we do". AG : this I can't understand. When there is some MI, you don't know it. Therefore, the abovementioned behavior can't happen. Rather, the question is : are we allowed to assume there has been no MI, or do we have to perform an enquiry ? And the second question : assuming that you've done everything you had (if any) to get maximal information, and that you didn't get what you're entitled for, does inferior (ie dominated) play by you deprive you of your rights, in the specific case where said play wouldn't have happened, or would have been less likely to happen, absent MI ? From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 17:24:25 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:24:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000801c361aa$6c393950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002a01c361b7$5d789980$b0e97f50@Default> Sven, > You disappoint me with this statement! I am sure you do great in Norway. But not every organisation is willing to hand out the new lineup to everybody every round. It costs lots of paper (or screens) and labor. Anyway you try to convince say a French TD he has to do all that, I won't even try. And I don't think it is necessary to produce a movement which is fair for all involved. In Finland they play 25 rounds with 64 pairs. Now suppose the computer makes movements for the 5 next rounds picking 5 opponents close to you at that moment (which cuts the movement communication effort by a factor 5). Do you really think it is such a big difference with a strict Swiss. And you can improve on that to play the last couple of rounds real Swiss. But I am sure it is an enormous improvement upon the current silly Mitchell movements they use in big tournaments (big meaning you cannot play all others). By the way, I agree that a real Swiss is always better (although at an early stage it hardly matters). But for practical considerations you have to compromise a little anyway like a delayed Swiss. And a Swiss has another big problem. TD/AC rulings. I can remember some disasters with big pending appeals. And not only the Menton disaster (where they played some early round matches after the tournament was over). One or two big rulings you cannot decide immediatly and your beautiful designed Swiss is completely screwed up. Because by the time the AC finally meets some teams/pairs might get a big score modification. We once had someone win a Swiss that way. That hurts. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format Jaap van der Neut ........... > To play Swiss pairs there are different considerations. > Pairs and teams are different. It is in pairs not necessary > that 1 plays 2 etc. It is already a big improvement if you > have some kind of dynamic scheme with avoids pairs in > contention to play pairs out of contention. Besides for > practical purposes (speed of play) you probably cannot > afford to assign positions every round. You disappoint me with this statement! When we play Swiss pairs in Norway we do just that: The positions in rounds 1 and 2 are assigned more or less at random, from round 3 positions are assigned for each round according to the rating after the second previous round (Round 3 determined by the rating after round 1, round 4 determined by the rating after round 2 and so on to the bitter end). > But with computers you can improve enormously on Mitchel type of > movements. > Imagine the computer making an new line up every 4 to 6 tables (depending > on > #boards) according to some smart algoritm. > > Jaap I have never heard of anybody in Norway mixing Mitchell and Swiss. We let the computer do all the work on Swiss: Result reports on the scorings for round 1 is handed back to each pair while they are playing round 2, that report includes information on where they will be seated in round 3 and that's it. (During the recent bridge festival in Stavanger we managed more than 70 tables playing Swiss pairs with three boards per round in this fashion, 23 minutes per round all inclusive). Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Aug 13 17:50:16 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:16 -0300 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) Message-ID: <021d01c361ba$f93139b0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Hi all, In a tournament I'm playing here in Argentina our local NBO decided that our Moscito system was not legal due to the use of relays. We were using 10-14 openings and Invitational+ relays with 11+ HCP. They stated that relays can only be used with hands that are surely forcing to game opposite a 10-14 opening, so over 10-14 openings a minimum of 15 was needed to use a relay. We changed the system to fullfill the regulations but a really big doubt arised in my head: after a 1h,1s opening what's the difference between a relay and a forcing NT? If they allow 1s-1n to be forcing then a 1s-1n relay with 11+HCP can be banned? Same for the 1h opening since many pairs use 1s as a forcing NT and 1n showing spades then what's the difference between 1h-1s forcing nothing about spades and 1h-1s relay 11+HCP ? Is it just a matter of "names" ? If they allow the 1h-1s and 1s-1n relays then our only problem is the relay after 1d and we have less to fix. So my question is already asked, I'd appreciate your comments. Now if you want to have some fun you can read the following story, you can skip it if not :-) "Third World way for systems regulations" We started on tuesday a National tournament, scoring method: IMPs, mixed-pairs, 10 board matches, 9 round Swiss to qualify 12 pairs for a final. We were playing Moscito, a system that we played in previous national tournaments including the last year edition of this same tournament. System regulations: none written but is known that HUM systems are not allowed. In the second round we opened 1h on 4 cards and an old lady decided to bid 3h in the middle of our relay auction, we doubled and scored 800, after the match the pair complained that our system got them confused. The director, who hates artificial systems said that when he played against us he didn't understand anything so he started a sort-of poll to ask our 1st and 2nd round opponents whether our bids were "strange" to them. Of course they said they were since they were playing SAYC and we were playing Moscito. The director then threatened us to ban the system, I said that it wasn't a TD function to regulate about systems. Before round 3 the TD came to our table and said that he had asked "the guy who knows what can be played and what not" -playing the same tournament- and he said that our system was not legal, so he was banning the system and we were instructed to play natural methods. This incident make my pd have a blood pressure incident, and I lost my concentration for the match completely. We played 2/1 in that round and then went to talk to the "guy who knows what you can play", he said that relays with hands with only 11+HCP opposite a 10-14 hand were not fair to the opposition (?!) and thus the system wasn't legal, we asked about what regulation that was he couldn't answer. We asked if it was ok to relay with 15+ and he said it was because 10+15 was 25 enough for game, we asked about each of our openings and he said they were all legal. (We play 1c=15+, 1d=10-14 no 4M, 1h=10-14 4+h, 1s=10-14 4+s, 1n=10-14 BAL with spades) So our system was admited again provided the relays over 10-14 openings showed 15+HCP. I found this really amazing, since a forcing NT is allowed over 1h,1s with any sort of hand but a relay showing 11+HCP facing an opening hand wasn't, maybe is the "word" relay that scares them, I don't know, I'm puzzled. I might have understood a ban of our 8-11 2nt opening with minors but that is allowed, I can understand why a constructive relay can be banned, anyone has an idea? We have no written regulations about what can be played and what not, there's one or two players from the NCBO who decide "know" what you can play and what you can't. The director acts based on what old ladyes told him (in fact the lady told him we made her bid hearts to get 800! she retracted when we were present) We don't know if our NBO follow the WBF rules, the ACBL rules, both of them or neither. There're strange "verbal" agreements, sort-of legends, about systems that "requiere" a defense and systems that are not "known" or "unpublished" those systems are not banned but they don't like them to be played because they are conflictive. It is known that 2d multi is allowed but 2s weak in a minor is not but nobody knows why nor it is written and some players do play it. It is known that rule of 19 must be used to open but that is not written either and they say it is a "WBF" regulation, if that's true I can't find it. 99% of the pairs don't have a convention card, they don't even have a CC for the finals were screens are in use. And you can play multi 2d forcing NT and whatever you want without a CC. The director shows, in my opinion, a complete lack of interest in the rules of bridge and his rulings -I've posted some in this forum- are usually insolit. I'm starting to understand why having a lot of talented players our country can't produce good international results. Welcome to the third-world. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/2003 From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Aug 13 18:27:25 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:27:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournament Format Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046638@hotel.npl.co.uk> Nevertheless, it can be done. Even coping with rulings that affect the results of matches you can run delayed swiss or even current round swiss. Last weekend at Brighton we had 582 pairs playing swiss pairs with assignments a round in arrears. On Sunday (the hottest day ever in Britain), after 10 matches, the top 128 pairs played the last four matches with assignments based on the current round score. The TDs had lots of rulings and we consulted with each other, with DWS (who was there for consulting with), with good players, etc. We made rulings by the end of the match and we could put our 12C3 rulings in before the assignments were calculated. It was too hot for everything to go completely smoothly but the players seemed happy. (I don't think Frances is complaining.) Robin -----Original Message----- From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] Sent: 13 August 2003 17:24 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format Sven, > You disappoint me with this statement! I am sure you do great in Norway. But not every organisation is willing to hand out the new lineup to everybody every round. It costs lots of paper (or screens) and labor. Anyway you try to convince say a French TD he has to do all that, I won't even try. And I don't think it is necessary to produce a movement which is fair for all involved. In Finland they play 25 rounds with 64 pairs. Now suppose the computer makes movements for the 5 next rounds picking 5 opponents close to you at that moment (which cuts the movement communication effort by a factor 5). Do you really think it is such a big difference with a strict Swiss. And you can improve on that to play the last couple of rounds real Swiss. But I am sure it is an enormous improvement upon the current silly Mitchell movements they use in big tournaments (big meaning you cannot play all others). By the way, I agree that a real Swiss is always better (although at an early stage it hardly matters). But for practical considerations you have to compromise a little anyway like a delayed Swiss. And a Swiss has another big problem. TD/AC rulings. I can remember some disasters with big pending appeals. And not only the Menton disaster (where they played some early round matches after the tournament was over). One or two big rulings you cannot decide immediatly and your beautiful designed Swiss is completely screwed up. Because by the time the AC finally meets some teams/pairs might get a big score modification. We once had someone win a Swiss that way. That hurts. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format Jaap van der Neut ........... > To play Swiss pairs there are different considerations. > Pairs and teams are different. It is in pairs not necessary > that 1 plays 2 etc. It is already a big improvement if you > have some kind of dynamic scheme with avoids pairs in > contention to play pairs out of contention. Besides for > practical purposes (speed of play) you probably cannot > afford to assign positions every round. You disappoint me with this statement! When we play Swiss pairs in Norway we do just that: The positions in rounds 1 and 2 are assigned more or less at random, from round 3 positions are assigned for each round according to the rating after the second previous round (Round 3 determined by the rating after round 1, round 4 determined by the rating after round 2 and so on to the bitter end). > But with computers you can improve enormously on Mitchel type of > movements. > Imagine the computer making an new line up every 4 to 6 tables (depending > on > #boards) according to some smart algoritm. > > Jaap I have never heard of anybody in Norway mixing Mitchell and Swiss. We let the computer do all the work on Swiss: Result reports on the scorings for round 1 is handed back to each pair while they are playing round 2, that report includes information on where they will be seated in round 3 and that's it. (During the recent bridge festival in Stavanger we managed more than 70 tables playing Swiss pairs with three boards per round in this fashion, 23 minutes per round all inclusive). Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 18:30:42 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:30:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament Format References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046638@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000b01c361c0$a0f60a40$b0e97f50@Default> Robin: > Nevertheless, it can be done. Of course it can be done. Everything can be done. The question is rather whether (or not) one can get 80% of the result with 20% of the effort. Robin: > We made rulings by the end of the match and we could put > our 12C3 rulings in before the assignments were > calculated. You need quite some staff to assure all that and I cannot imagine this not to have some effect on the overall speed, specially if you play few boards a table. Anyway, if appeals are allowed you still have a problem. And all this assumes also nobody ever makes a mistake (under all kinds of time presure). Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but forgive me for being sceptical. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:27 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournament Format > Nevertheless, it can be done. Even coping with rulings > that affect the results of matches you can run delayed > swiss or even current round swiss. > > Last weekend at Brighton we had 582 pairs playing swiss > pairs with assignments a round in arrears. On Sunday > (the hottest day ever in Britain), after 10 matches, the > top 128 pairs played the last four matches with assignments > based on the current round score. The TDs had lots of > rulings and we consulted with each other, with DWS (who > was there for consulting with), with good players, etc. > We made rulings by the end of the match and we could put > our 12C3 rulings in before the assignments were > calculated. It was too hot for everything to go > completely smoothly but the players seemed happy. > (I don't think Frances is complaining.) > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > Sent: 13 August 2003 17:24 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > Sven, > > You disappoint me with this statement! > > I am sure you do great in Norway. But not every organisation is willing > to > hand out the new lineup to everybody every round. It costs lots of paper > (or > screens) and labor. Anyway you try to convince say a French TD he has to > do > all that, I won't even try. > > And I don't think it is necessary to produce a movement which is fair > for > all involved. In Finland they play 25 rounds with 64 pairs. Now suppose > the > computer makes movements for the 5 next rounds picking 5 opponents close > to > you at that moment (which cuts the movement communication effort by a > factor > 5). Do you really think it is such a big difference with a strict Swiss. > And > you can improve on that to play the last couple of rounds real Swiss. > But I > am sure it is an enormous improvement upon the current silly Mitchell > movements they use in big tournaments (big meaning you cannot play all > others). > > By the way, I agree that a real Swiss is always better (although at an > early > stage it hardly matters). But for practical considerations you have to > compromise a little anyway like a delayed Swiss. And a Swiss has another > big > problem. TD/AC rulings. I can remember some disasters with big pending > appeals. And not only the Menton disaster (where they played some early > round matches after the tournament was over). One or two big rulings you > cannot decide immediatly and your beautiful designed Swiss is completely > screwed up. Because by the time the AC finally meets some teams/pairs > might > get a big score modification. We once had someone win a Swiss that way. > That > hurts. > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:51 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > Jaap van der Neut > ........... > > To play Swiss pairs there are different considerations. > > Pairs and teams are different. It is in pairs not necessary > > that 1 plays 2 etc. It is already a big improvement if you > > have some kind of dynamic scheme with avoids pairs in > > contention to play pairs out of contention. Besides for > > practical purposes (speed of play) you probably cannot > > afford to assign positions every round. > > You disappoint me with this statement! > When we play Swiss pairs in Norway we do just that: The positions in > rounds > 1 and 2 are assigned more or less at random, from round 3 positions are > assigned for each round according to the rating after the second > previous > round (Round 3 determined by the rating after round 1, round 4 > determined by > the rating after round 2 and so on to the bitter end). > > > But with computers you can improve enormously on Mitchel type of > > movements. > > Imagine the computer making an new line up every 4 to 6 tables > (depending > > on > > #boards) according to some smart algoritm. > > > > Jaap > > I have never heard of anybody in Norway mixing Mitchell and Swiss. We > let > the computer do all the work on Swiss: Result reports on the scorings > for > round 1 is handed back to each pair while they are playing round 2, that > report includes information on where they will be seated in round 3 and > that's it. (During the recent bridge festival in Stavanger we managed > more > than 70 tables playing Swiss pairs with three boards per round in this > fashion, 23 minutes per round all inclusive). > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This 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 Aug 13 18:45:02 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:45:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) Message-ID: <014b01c361c2$a3dfaac0$2b9c68d5@default> [Luis Argerich] After a 1h, 1s opening what's the difference between a relay and a forcing NT? [Nigel Guthrie] None. We who suffer under bizarre local rules, the meanings of which are an enigma even to those who devise them, sympathise with your plight. We have books of local rules that are usually misunderstood, rarely obeyed, almost never enforced. Most rules are as clear as a Rorschach ink-blot. You were just unlucky to meet an imaginative TD who decided to interpret and enforce one. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 18:40:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:40:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <002a01c361b7$5d789980$b0e97f50@Default> Message-ID: <001501c361c1$ecfcd1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut=20 > I am sure you do great in Norway. But not every organisation=20 > is willing to hand out the new lineup to everybody every round.=20 > It costs lots of paper (or screens) and labor. Anyway you try > to convince say a French TD he has to do all that, I won't even > try. Let us look at it this way: Whenever we run a barometer type tournament = we collect all score slips after each round, immediately enter all results = for that round into the computer, print out the resulting slip for each pair = and distribute them to the pairs during the following round. With two boards played in each round we typically print the slips for ten pairs on each sheet of size A4. With three boards per round we get slips for eight = pairs on an A4 sheet. With up to some 15 tables one single director manages all the activities alone although he of course gets some busy. With more tables it is = customary to have a separate scorer at the computer and then they can easily = handle up to some 30 or 40 tables. If the barometer type tournament uses Swiss movements the information on where you are positioned in the next round is found on the slip returned from the computer while you play the current round so it would in fact = be more problems having the computer assign the position for several rounds = at the same time. I have participated in the Eurofestival (a festival for European = corporate sport games) a couple of times and feel really shocked from seeing arrow-switched Mitchell at work. Within the time allotted to playing = bridge we probably managed to play between one half and one third of the number = of boards we are used to play at home in that time. We just relaxed saying = to ourselves: "They probably don't know better". Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 13 18:42:06 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:42:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights References: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005701c35eec$500b0c60$c2fe193e@4nrw70j> <007c01c3619f$7f424650$3682b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <003001c361c3$57565ae0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ton Kooijman" < > I would like to draw attention for another decision taken by the WBFLC which > describes clearly how average-minus should be awarded. > When we took that decision we knew the approach the ACBL was following and > we decided not to accept that approach. > Average-minus in a pairs-event is 40% or the score of the pair in the > current session if that is lower. And we made no exeption for the ACBL, it > didn't even ask for that. So if Grattan says that the LC might find no > objection etc. I have my doubts. On the other hand we are not the watchdog > against NBO's who want to '' > 'improve' the laws and their interpretations in their own jurisdiction. > Surely no one would expect the WBFLC to be the watchdog for compliance with WBF By-Laws. Whoever should be the watchdog is not minding the store. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Aug 13 19:01:46 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:01:46 -0300 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) References: <014b01c361c2$a3dfaac0$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <029301c361c4$f6a48fd0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) > [Luis Argerich] > > After a 1h, 1s opening what's the difference > between a relay and a forcing NT? > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > None. Then I guess I'm calling the 1s-1n relay "forcing" instead of relay "hi opps, we play forcing NT over 1s and 1h...." > Most rules are as clear as a Rorschach ink-blot. > You were just unlucky to meet an imaginative TD > who decided to interpret and enforce one. Please don't use any adjetive that can be interpreted as positive with this TD, it makes me mad :-). Marginal question: What's the worst nightmare a player can do to a TD? -Disclaimer: I ask just for curiosity- Muehehehehe..... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/2003 From rwilley@mit.edu Wed Aug 13 19:34:42 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:34:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) In-Reply-To: <021d01c361ba$f93139b0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <021d01c361ba$f93139b0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <1060799682.3f3a84c26bdbc@webmail.mit.edu> Luis, I certainly understand your frustration with not being allowed to use what you consider to be "constructive" methods. However, I think that you have a much more significant problem. You state >We have no written regulations about what can be played and what not, >there's one or two players from the NCBO who decide "know" what you can play >and what you can't. I find it almost incomprehensible that a regulatory body is allowed to operate with no written documentation. I'd be much more worried about trying to get some consistant regulations in writting rather than worrying about whether or not MOSCITO is legal. Richard Who very much believes that the point of a set of laws/regulations is to protect the players from abuse by the well-meaning officials. From luis@fuegolabs.com Wed Aug 13 19:47:59 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:47:59 -0300 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) References: <021d01c361ba$f93139b0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <1060799682.3f3a84c26bdbc@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <02b401c361cb$6af878f0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> > I find it almost incomprehensible that a regulatory body is allowed to operate > with no written documentation. I'd be much more worried about trying to get > some consistant regulations in writting rather than worrying about whether or > not MOSCITO is legal. > > Richard Unfortunately I think there's no protection.... If you or somebody knows if the WBF can enforce any regulation to its members I'll be delighted to pass the note or report this case. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/2003 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 11 21:52:16 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:52:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Spam References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030810131514.01f66620@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005701c3604b$8ba3fe20$06e67f50@Default> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C3605B.360E40A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eric, The best anti spam technique I know is extremely simple. Just change = your email adress from time to time (the real one not an alias). That = way your adress in not in their database. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Eric Landau=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List=20 Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spam At 10:55 PM 8/8/03, Nancy wrote: Is anyone else receiving spam via BLML?? Yes, but in small quantities, more often than not clearly labeled as = spam by Henk's helpful spam-filtering software. A drop in the bucket = compared to my everyday intake of spam; not yet enough to cause concern. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C3605B.360E40A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Eric,
 
The best anti spam technique I know is = extremely=20 simple. Just change your email adress from time to time (the real one = not an=20 alias). That way your adress in not in their database.
 
Jaap
 
 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C3605B.360E40A0-- From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_lIf769VquA+yVxuGBfw+Aw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Just a question of carryover calculation. Over the years, it has changed to a maximum of 'X' imps. What is that based on, or how is that calculated? Many thanks to those who can shed some light on this for me. John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com --Boundary_(ID_lIf769VquA+yVxuGBfw+Aw) Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Just a question of carryover calculation.
Over the years, it has changed to a maximum of 'X' imps.
What is that based on, or how is that calculated?
 
Many thanks to those who can shed some light on this for me.
 
John
John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director
Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation
San Jose, Costa Rica
johnmacg@racsa.co.cr
www.cacbf.com
--Boundary_(ID_lIf769VquA+yVxuGBfw+Aw)-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Aug 13 16:27:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:27:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <3395836.1060788438618.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_5497_4169300.1060788438615 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nigel wrote: > Hi Ian! I do take your point. But I did not > want to change any essentials of the case. There weren't any "essentials" in the case, which was a fictitious one. An explanation of an auction was said to have omitted the information that declarer had short spades. For this to have been the case, some call showing short spades must have been made and falsely explained (or not explained, but this is impossible - we were told that the leader had asked many questions about the bidding, and it is not to be imagined that he would not have asked about whichever call showed short spades). But we will grant, for the sake of argument, the preposterous hypothesis that an "explanation" of the auction in response to "many" questions somehow contrived to omit, or conceal, the information that declarer had short spades. Then, the opening leader cashed a high spade; then - without asking for more clarification of the auction - he tried to cash another one and let the contract make. Nothing like this situation has ever happened in reality, nor will it ever happen. Attempting to extend what is really a very poor example into some other alternate branches of reality is a completely pointless exercise. > In the Alain's example, on which David > commented, the leader led Ace from Ace-King. This is further evidence that the example did not occur in reality, nor could it have done. > By the way my pro is only an average player. > His real forte is not bidding theory or card- > technique but legal expertise. There is not > much difference among top players in technique > but expertise in the convolutions of WBF law > and the idiosyncracies of local variations > really separate the men from the boys! No, they don't. Almost none of the top players actually knows the rules. You would be amazed at the fuss some of them make when they are told what the penalty is for bidding out of turn, or for not filling in your convention card properly. Most experts regard most of the rules as stupid, an unnecessary obstacle to just getting on with the game. I would bet you any amount of money that none of the best 20 players in the world knows what the Minutes of the WBF Laws Commission are, apart from those players who are actually on the Commission. > My pro does not contribute to BLML but revels > in each daft new local legal variation or > incomprehensible ruling Then he no more exists than the players in Alain's example, and to adduce his actions in support of some argument is to adduce nothing - indeed, it is to adduce less than nothing, for it demonstrates the necessity of invoking an imaginary being to behave in a way that would occur to no real person. > According to David Burn, in this particular context, > there is no question of *UI* (: Ian, please wash your > mouth out with carbolic :) There would be no question of UI if, in this non-example, the player had asked for a further explanation of the auction (including, one imagines, the call that showed a singleton spade); nor if he had led the king of spades. He didn't do either of these things because he doesn't exist. All I am trying to point out is that in a real case, there would be almost no likelihood that the defender could transmit UI by asking more questions. And in any case, what if he did? There would be a difficulty only if this UI were acted upon, and this is also vanishingly unlikely to happen. > David Burn says we *must* ask to afford ourselves the > protection of the law. Ah. At last, a statement with which I agree. But since it appears to be a more or less accurate report of my own opinion, this is perhaps not surprising. > OK I *could* have asked too but then would lay myself > open to accusations of time-wasting. I am really getting seriously fed up with people who adduce some mythical concept of "time-wasting" in order to bolster absurd arguments about anything from the necessity for proper claims to the necessity for proper disclosure to the necessity for proper self-protection from damage. The length of time taken to do any of those things makes absolutely no difference to anything. > David also says "everyone knows the spade position". > > (: Actually I was not aware that I knew it, without > help from partner's questions, so it is reassuring > to get this definitive statement from the > chairman of the EBU laws committee :) It is, of course, quite true - everybody in this imaginary scenario knows the spade position, for all statements about properties of all members of the empty set are true. > (: In earlier emails I did suggest that David may > have replied too hastily :) You have suggested a number of other things also, none of which is any more true than this one. David Burn London, England ------=_Part_5497_4169300.1060788438615-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Aug 13 16:55:54 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:55:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? Message-ID: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_5583_3776476.1060790154043 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alain wrote: >AG : it's strange that so many contributors subtlely avoid answering the case by pretending (sometimes rightly) that it's the bad example. This doesn't make the question void. Indeed not, but it does sometimes mean we have to waste a lot of time discussing a specific case instead of a general principle. Hard cases make bad law, and so do fictitious cases. >One could surely find examples where the defense doesn't do anything wrong and the knowledge of the singleton is important. Perhaps. Let us wait until such a case occurs in practice, and see whether our general principles can help us. >This doesn't change the question : do we, in order to protect ourselves, *have* to ask questions that might transmit UI, when the most expected answer is something that should already have been volunteered ? If there is something we want to know, and we know that we want to know it, and we can discover it, then (in general) we should protect ourselves by discovering it. Whether it should have been volunteered or not does not absolve us from fault if we fail to discover it. There are, as I have said, a number of conditions to be met before we fail to grant redress for the infraction of misinformation on the grounds of failure in self-protetction. But by far the most common way to protect oneself from damage due to misinformation is to ask a question. Now, *if* the question has already been asked and has been answered falsely, or *if* there has been a complete failure to notify opponents that a question is even required because a call may be conventional, then damage arising from the fact that the player has the wrong, or no, answer to the question may be redressed. But in the case of a player who is wondering whether declarer is going to follow suit to a particular card, one may not unreasonably say that if previous questions have left the player in doubt, supplementary questions should be asked. The "UI" argument is something of a red herring. If we have to ask for information because our next action *will* - not merely "may" - be based on the answer we receive, then we have a fundamental right to ask for that information. If this transmits UI to partner, so be it; a separate cause of action may exist if it appears that partner uses this information. But this does not *in fact* release us from our duty to protect oursleves by asking for the information we need, although as I have said, I would sympathise with a player who said "I didn't think I could ask that question" (for whatever reason). David Burn London, England ------=_Part_5583_3776476.1060790154043-- From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Aug 13 18:34:11 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:34:11 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <004901c36189$2a23a9e0$2b9c68d5@default> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I still maintain that it is better to have > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > intervals and so you can play many more boards > (e.g. 10 X 10) > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > seeding matters. This seems true enough. However: my impression of the original post was that the organizers wanted to keep the number of boards approximately fixed (at 4 sessions), and find 'the best game for 64 pairs that plays the same number of boards as our old 52-pair game did.' The obvious solution for 64 pairs would be to extend the game to 126 boards and stick with the Howell. Presumably, someone decided that 32-board sessions or 5-session events were unacceptable. Now the question before is, *given a fixed total game length*, how many matches is the best number to have (anything from 51 or 52 2-board rounds on down to six 17-board rounds is an option, but there's a sense that the best number is somewhere in the middle.) I, personally, have doubts that a Swiss can actually do better than a carefully seeded curtailed Howell / 'three-quarter' type movement could, if you arrange it so that the twelve pairs you miss are evenly spread over the strength spectrum. The main plus of the Swiss is that if you seed it wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. GRB From rwilley@mit.edu Wed Aug 13 21:10:11 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:10:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) In-Reply-To: <02b401c361cb$6af878f0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <021d01c361ba$f93139b0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <1060799682.3f3a84c26bdbc@webmail.mit.edu> <02b401c361cb$6af878f0$a100a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <1060805411.3f3a9b23305f3@webmail.mit.edu> > Unfortunately I think there's no protection.... If you or somebody knows if > the WBF can enforce any regulation to its members I'll be delighted to pass > the note or report this case. 'Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.' Or in this case, don't expect the WBF to bail you out, since they have no interest in provoking their member organizations. I would very much like to see a more muscular WBF that actively tried to reign in abuses my its member organizations. I've concluded that it isn't going to happen. Individuals players who want to protect themselves need to find some way to take matters into your own hands. Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 13 21:11:36 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:11:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights References: <001701c35e8f$60dc7220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030810174009.009fed90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c361d7$6c9b8420$64d1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] (BLML) 88 Rights > At 11:02 PM 8/9/03, grandeval wrote: > > > - players have equal rights to be judged by > >their own levels of expertise where applicable. > > ...but I can't let this unrelated coda stand > unchallenged. The conclusion we are led to is > that players have the right to be judged (as to > their entitlement to an assigned score when > they are the NOS) by their proven performance > in the session or event in the context of which > the score is being adjusted. That's a far cry from > being judged by some inherently subjective > notion like their "level of expertise". > > Although all of us make such distinctions every > day, the law should be blind to differences like > that between "the best team in the event" and > "the winner". > > Eric Landau < +=+ I would want to make two comments: 1. Perhaps I should have written 'WHERE APPLICABLE' like this. 2. It is not law but regulation/practice that does what is objectionable to Eric. He should take that up with the regulator. All I have argued is that under the current laws such a regulation would probably be considered lawful by the WBFLC. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 21:41:15 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:41:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: Message-ID: <005601c361db$66861060$7ee87f50@Default> Gordon: > The main plus of the Swiss is that if you seed it > wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. And the big advantage of a Swiss is that in the end you play pairs still in contention (so no last rounds against pairs who already started their beers). This is for me the real issue at pairs. Not whether 1 plays 2 or 3 or 4 (probably has played them all by then anyway). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Nigel Guthrie" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > I still maintain that it is better to have > > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > > intervals and so you can play many more boards > > (e.g. 10 X 10) > > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > > seeding matters. > > This seems true enough. > > However: my impression of the original post was that the organizers wanted > to keep the number of boards approximately fixed (at 4 sessions), and find > 'the best game for 64 pairs that plays the same number of boards as our > old 52-pair game did.' > > The obvious solution for 64 pairs would be to extend the game to 126 > boards and stick with the Howell. Presumably, someone decided that > 32-board sessions or 5-session events were unacceptable. > > Now the question before is, *given a fixed total game length*, how many > matches is the best number to have (anything from 51 or 52 2-board rounds > on down to six 17-board rounds is an option, but there's a sense that the > best number is somewhere in the middle.) > > I, personally, have doubts that a Swiss can actually do better than a > carefully seeded curtailed Howell / 'three-quarter' type movement could, > if you arrange it so that the twelve pairs you miss are evenly spread over > the strength spectrum. The main plus of the Swiss is that if you seed it > wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Aug 13 21:54:48 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:54:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <005601c361db$66861060$7ee87f50@Default> Message-ID: <008401c361dd$22a967a0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> > And the big advantage of a Swiss is that in the end you play pairs still in > contention (so no last rounds against pairs who already started their > beers). Eh? No pair can be in contention that has not already started its beers. Only the pairs who have finished them in order to drive home without waiting for the results are out of the event. David Burn London, England From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 21:54:03 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:54:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <001501c361c1$ecfcd1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006b01c361dd$1a5ee840$7ee87f50@Default> Sven: > and feel really shocked from seeing > arrow-switched Mitchell at work. They often don't even bother about the switch (in France they 'never' switch). But this type of movement has some advantages. It is as fool proof as it gets. And easy to adjust to no shows and late guests. So even your little brother or your dog can run a tournament without doing any harm that way. Never mind you end up with two winners. Never mind there are (far) more boards in play than you get to play (nice when comparing with your friends). Besides try to explain an older French lady she has to move once he got a NS position. You will be considered the anti-christ or worse. Anyway, in Holland the situation is not like in France. Sven: > We just relaxed saying to > ourselves: "They probably don't know better". Well French TD's are among the best paid. Whether they offer the best service is another question. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:40 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format Jaap van der Neut > I am sure you do great in Norway. But not every organisation > is willing to hand out the new lineup to everybody every round. > It costs lots of paper (or screens) and labor. Anyway you try > to convince say a French TD he has to do all that, I won't even > try. Let us look at it this way: Whenever we run a barometer type tournament we collect all score slips after each round, immediately enter all results for that round into the computer, print out the resulting slip for each pair and distribute them to the pairs during the following round. With two boards played in each round we typically print the slips for ten pairs on each sheet of size A4. With three boards per round we get slips for eight pairs on an A4 sheet. With up to some 15 tables one single director manages all the activities alone although he of course gets some busy. With more tables it is customary to have a separate scorer at the computer and then they can easily handle up to some 30 or 40 tables. If the barometer type tournament uses Swiss movements the information on where you are positioned in the next round is found on the slip returned from the computer while you play the current round so it would in fact be more problems having the computer assign the position for several rounds at the same time. I have participated in the Eurofestival (a festival for European corporate sport games) a couple of times and feel really shocked from seeing arrow-switched Mitchell at work. Within the time allotted to playing bridge we probably managed to play between one half and one third of the number of boards we are used to play at home in that time. We just relaxed saying to ourselves: "They probably don't know better". Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 13 22:09:34 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:09:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: Message-ID: <001101c361df$5251ce00$e09868d5@default> [Gordon Bower] >From the standpoint of determining a champion in a pairs field, Swisses are a darn sight worse than just a simple random draw every round. [Nigel Guthrie] Wow! Yet another statement with which I disagree, intuitively. As I said before, given that you should have time to play much longer matches, I reckon a Swiss mist be better than a Howell. Please, please, is there a mathematical analysis or simulation to settle these matters. On the web at http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/memories/john.manning.htm I found an analysis of a simulation by Dr John Manning Round 1 0.474 Round 6 0.775 Round 11 0.844 Round 2 0.605 Round 7 0.793 Round 12 0.853 Round 3 0.669 Round 8 0.810 Round 13 0.861 Round 4 0.708 Round 9 0.833 Round 14 0.867 Round 5 0.750 Round 10 0.846 Round 15 0.879 This shows the correlation between "merit value" and VPs scored in a 15 X 9 board simulation, under various assumptions. As expected it shows that that each extra round improves the sieve by less and less. But it does not address the question as to whether a Swiss produces a better correlation than a Howell over similar numbers of boards. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 22:00:53 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:00:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <005601c361db$66861060$7ee87f50@Default> <008401c361dd$22a967a0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <007c01c361dd$fd67a280$7ee87f50@Default> Yes David, I know for you your beer is very important. But it is not really about the beer. I guess I will have to use another way of putting things next time. It is just that two years ago I played the last round of a round robin against a team that had nothing more to win or lose (happens often in RR) and they were drinking lots of beer. There are still rumours I (or rather my sponsor) paid for that binge. The result was 25-0 with some imps to spare and yes we still had something to win. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > And the big advantage of a Swiss is that in the end you play pairs > still in > > contention (so no last rounds against pairs who already started their > > beers). > > Eh? No pair can be in contention that has not already started its beers. > Only the pairs who have finished them in order to drive home without > waiting for the results are out of the event. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Aug 13 22:42:11 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:42:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <000201c3618c$1810b650$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <003601c361e3$c14486f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 11:15 p.m. > To: 'BLML' > Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 10:53 p.m. > > To: BLML > > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > perhaps the first round could be something like... > > 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in > > the > > following ranking list after round 1: > > 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > Bridge matches do not always go to form; but > > on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment > > condition, I now prefer.... > > Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. > > Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > I still maintain that it is better to have > > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > > intervals and so you can play many more boards > > (e.g. 10 X 10) > > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > > seeding matters. > > I think some simulations that I did for Swiss Teams suggested the > opposite. > > Wayne My comment was intended to be after "I still maintain that it is better to have fewer matches" Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 13 22:38:38 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:38:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005201c3611a$d093d8a0$c9e77f50@Default> Message-ID: <004c01c361e3$43331ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Marvin, > > I agree with you but for one point (I have said this before). > > In Europe we tend to use C3 rather than C2. For me this has nothing to with > equity. We just think that expectation rounded up is enough for the NOS (and > never forget, in real life it is better than that because you had already a > go at a good result at the table). The OS might get (much) less than the > complement of the NOS. > > Why? > One, C2 can lead to quite silly rulings, and in non knock out there are > other stakeholders as well (but ok a revoke can have the same effect). "Protecting the field" is a principle that has been rejected over and over again throughout the history of duplicate bridge. C3 has always struck me as having that principle behind it, regardless of statements that its purpose is just to achieve equity. > Two, far more important, C2 makes it impossible to take the magnitude of the > infraction into account. C2 does not address the magnitude of the infraction, true. The TD has L90 to deal with such things. C2 deals with the magnitude of the damage, what's wrong with that? >Some UI/MI cases are hardly infractions. With C3 > you have the option to adjust the sanction to the crime. You should adjust the sanction to the damage, not to the "seriousness" of the crime. But what you probably mean is that when my score is to be possibly adjusted to 4H after the opponents have used UI to bid a possibly successful 4S sacrifice, then the probability of my making 4H, perhaps doubled, or of their defeating 4H, must be calculated in order to achieve an equitable adjustment. Say 4H depends on a squeeze that is not automatic, and one that can be broken up with fairly normal defense by a good player. Knowing only that I have less than 3000 masterpoints despite becoming a life master (300) in 1956, you might charitably assume that I would find the squeeze with 20% probability. What you don't know is that I am very good at squeezes, having written an unpublished book on the subject, and my probability is 100%. Presumably you will be fair and debate that probability with me, even though my testimony should be irrelevant and your decision should be based on the general level of skill for players in the event. so anyway you perhaps come up with 60%. As for the defense, if you don't know the players you will have to look at the general level of players in the event. Which you should do, if everyone in the event, known or unknown, is going to be treated equally. Anyway, you decide whether the squeeze would be broken, and come up with a number that gives the benefit of doubt to the NOS, say a 40% chance. Then you figure the probabilities of successful squeeze (0.60 x 0.40 = 0.24 and unsuccessful squeeze, 0.76). But wait, maybe 4H would be doubled had there been no UI. Say 50% probability, so 0.12 4H doubled, 0.12 4H undoubled, 0.76 table result. L2 would give me the squeeze in 4H doubled, end of story. That's what I have coming, and I want it. Unfair to the OS? Who cares? Let them not use UI in the future. Unfair to the field? There is no way to tell, and that is why "protecting the field" is wrong. > Under C2 I have > only the choice between ruling 'no infraction' and 'maximum penalty'. You have the choice of no-damage or damage. If there is damage, you follow the guidelines of L2. > By the > way, for all real infractions I am most happy to rule 'maximum penalty'. All infractions are real. >But > then in Europe we tend to have lower maximum penalties than in the States. Not understood. The Laws are essentially the same in both places, except for L3. Yes, that's a difference. > This is culture, nothing to do with equity. L12B. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. In any culture. Doesn't that state, or at least imply, a principle that applies to L2? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Aug 13 22:49:34 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:49:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <005601c361db$66861060$7ee87f50@Default> <008401c361dd$22a967a0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <007c01c361dd$fd67a280$7ee87f50@Default> Message-ID: <00b801c361e4$c91f1100$7ad28051@pbncomputer> > Yes David, I know for you your beer is very important. But it is not really > about the beer. It's all right, Japp. I know what you mean. In the Europeans in Salsomaggiore, Italy were winning by a mile. I met Versace and Bocchi in the bar on Main Street after they had played the match that meant they could not lose; suffice to say that this would have been the first time that Versace and Bocchi had not gone to bed before midnight, sober as judges. I congratulated them on their triumph, and they informed me that Angelini would play against England the following day. He did, and England won 22-8, a result that could not affect Italy's position, but that could obviously affect everyone else's chances of qualifying for the Bermuda Bowl. Were the Italians being derelict in their duty? They were not. Is a Round Robin a stupid format, given that qualification for a higher tournament is involved? Of course it is. Does it matter what form of scoring you use, or when you bring the results out? It does not. What the bridge world needs is a Kenneth Arrow, the great economist who demonstrated that democracy is impossible, to convince it that it does not really matter whether you play arrow-switched Mitchells or Swedish barometers or Herman de Wael (what happened to him, by the way?) Aschermanised Bastille. If you play OK, you win; if you don't, you grumble about the scoring method. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Aug 13 22:57:51 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:57:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <005601c361db$66861060$7ee87f50@Default> Message-ID: <003901c361e5$f212a8a0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 8:41 a.m. > To: Gordon Bower; Nigel Guthrie > Cc: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > Gordon: > > The main plus of the Swiss is that if you seed it > > wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. > > And the big advantage of a Swiss is that in the end you play > pairs still in > contention (so no last rounds against pairs who already started their > beers). This is for me the real issue at pairs. Not whether 1 > plays 2 or 3 > or 4 (probably has played them all by then anyway). With 25 rounds I think there will be plenty of mismatches on the last round. Wayne > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Bower" > To: "Nigel Guthrie" > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > > > I still maintain that it is better to have > > > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > > > intervals and so you can play many more boards > > > (e.g. 10 X 10) > > > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > > > seeding matters. > > > > This seems true enough. > > > > However: my impression of the original post was that the > organizers wanted > > to keep the number of boards approximately fixed (at 4 > sessions), and find > > 'the best game for 64 pairs that plays the same number of > boards as our > > old 52-pair game did.' > > > > The obvious solution for 64 pairs would be to extend the game to 126 > > boards and stick with the Howell. Presumably, someone decided that > > 32-board sessions or 5-session events were unacceptable. > > > > Now the question before is, *given a fixed total game > length*, how many > > matches is the best number to have (anything from 51 or 52 > 2-board rounds > > on down to six 17-board rounds is an option, but there's a > sense that the > > best number is somewhere in the middle.) > > > > I, personally, have doubts that a Swiss can actually do > better than a > > carefully seeded curtailed Howell / 'three-quarter' type > movement could, > > if you arrange it so that the twelve pairs you miss are > evenly spread over > > the strength spectrum. The main plus of the Swiss is that > if you seed it > > wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. > > > > 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 > From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 22:53:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:53:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <006b01c361dd$1a5ee840$7ee87f50@Default> Message-ID: <000001c361e5$4f1b7370$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > > and feel really shocked from seeing > > arrow-switched Mitchell at work. > > They often don't even bother about the switch (in France they 'never' > switch). But this type of movement has some advantages. It is as fool > proof > as it gets. And easy to adjust to no shows and late guests. So even your > little brother or your dog can run a tournament without doing any harm > that > way. Never mind you end up with two winners. Never mind there are (far) > more > boards in play than you get to play (nice when comparing with your > friends). > Besides try to explain an older French lady she has to move once he got a > NS > position. You will be considered the anti-christ or worse. Anyway, in > Holland the situation is not like in France. > > > Sven: > > We just relaxed saying to > > ourselves: "They probably don't know better". > > Well French TD's are among the best paid. Whether they offer the best > service is another question. Well, just for the record neither France nor Holland are so far among the foreign countries in which I have played bridge. And I do not buy the argument about late arrivals or no shows. We handle such cases with little problems also in our barometer tournaments using Howell movements provided we know about the need for correction before starting the second round. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 22:58:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:58:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <001101c361df$5251ce00$e09868d5@default> Message-ID: <000101c361e6$12ad3760$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 13. august 2003 23:10 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format >=20 > [Gordon Bower] > From the standpoint of determining a champion in a > pairs field, Swisses are a darn sight worse > than just a simple random draw every round. >=20 > [Nigel Guthrie] > Wow! Yet another statement with which I disagree, > intuitively. As I said before, given that you should > have time to play much longer matches, I reckon a > Swiss mist be better than a Howell. > Please, please, is there a mathematical analysis or > simulation to settle these matters. >=20 > On the web at > http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/memories/john.manning.htm > I found an analysis of a simulation by Dr John Manning >=20 > Round 1 0.474 Round 6 0.775 Round 11 0.844 > Round 2 0.605 Round 7 0.793 Round 12 0.853 > Round 3 0.669 Round 8 0.810 Round 13 0.861 > Round 4 0.708 Round 9 0.833 Round 14 0.867 > Round 5 0.750 Round 10 0.846 Round 15 0.879 >=20 > This shows the correlation between "merit value" and VPs > scored in a 15 X 9 board simulation, under various > assumptions. As expected it shows that that each extra > round improves the sieve by less and less. >=20 > But it does not address the question as to whether a Swiss > produces a better correlation than a Howell over similar > numbers of boards. >From experience it is critical with Swiss schedules that the number of rounds is less than the number of tables! If there are too many rounds = one will eventually have to match together pairs that are too far away from = each other on the ranking list. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 13 23:01:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:01:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <007c01c361dd$fd67a280$7ee87f50@Default> Message-ID: <000201c361e6$7756b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut=20 > Yes David, I know for you your beer is very important. But it is not > really > about the beer. I guess I will have to use another way of putting = things > next time. It is just that two years ago I played the last round of a > round > robin against a team that had nothing more to win or lose (happens = often > in > RR) and they were drinking lots of beer. There are still rumours I (or > rather my sponsor) paid for that binge. The result was 25-0 with some = imps > to spare and yes we still had something to win. In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find themselves = in serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary committee of the Norwegian federation. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Aug 13 23:27:52 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:27:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000201c361e6$7756b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00d501c361ea$22f48e80$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find themselves in serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary committee of the Norwegian federation. Crumbs. How few Victory Points do you have to score in Norway before you can drink beer while the last round is in progress? David Burn London, England From bbickford@charter.net Wed Aug 13 23:43:06 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:43:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000201c361e6$7756b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00d501c361ea$22f48e80$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <07b401c361ec$436710f0$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > Crumbs. How few Victory Points do you have to score in Norway before you > can drink beer while the last round is in progress? > I once won a two session Regional Open Pairs in Richmond, VA when my partner and I drank 3 25.6 oz bottles of Jack Daniels Black Label during the two sessions (2 afternoon and 1 evening). For anyone who is not familiar, the 25.6 oz is the US fifth (no longer sold and replace by 750 ml) and is an 86 proof Tennessee Sipping Whiskey. Cheers.............................../Bill Bickford > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 23:41:22 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:41:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000201c361e6$7756b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003501c361ec$0c50bda0$7ee87f50@Default> Sven: In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find themselves in serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary committee of the Norwegian federation. You are right but also wrong. It was extreme but hey it was a couple of students that were happy they couldn't lose their competition level anymore and they were mentally over Sunday afternoon. Is having some beers for them so different from Italy fielding their sponsor against a team still trying to qualify for the Bowl (see David's mail). We all know this kind of thing happen in RR formats and it happens in all sports. Besides we really killed them and they had some bad luck. The beers didn't help of course but even sober they wouldn't be motivated enough to play well. We were the better team anyway and we didn't really need 25, any reasonable win was good enough and we were odds on to beat that team under any conditions. Guess what, I had a beer myself halfway that match. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:01 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format Jaap van der Neut > Yes David, I know for you your beer is very important. But it is not > really > about the beer. I guess I will have to use another way of putting things > next time. It is just that two years ago I played the last round of a > round > robin against a team that had nothing more to win or lose (happens often > in > RR) and they were drinking lots of beer. There are still rumours I (or > rather my sponsor) paid for that binge. The result was 25-0 with some imps > to spare and yes we still had something to win. In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find themselves in serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary committee of the Norwegian federation. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 13 23:32:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:32:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <003901c361e5$f212a8a0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <003201c361ec$0b875320$7ee87f50@Default> Wayne: > With 25 rounds I think there will be plenty of mismatches on the last > round. You are dead right if the number of matches is too high compared to the #players. At a certain moment you run out of opps. Still to win you will have played 'everybody'. Which is more than can be said for the normal Mitchell approach. Anyway if you cannot stand it you can always play Danish (Swiss allowing rematches) the last couple of rounds. But David is right in his last mail. The only format which makes any sense is Knock Out. Pairs tournaments are hopeless events to start with whatever you do. But pairs is a fun game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Gordon Bower'" ; "'Nigel Guthrie'" Cc: "'BLML'" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:57 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 8:41 a.m. > > To: Gordon Bower; Nigel Guthrie > > Cc: BLML > > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > Gordon: > > > The main plus of the Swiss is that if you seed it > > > wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. > > > > And the big advantage of a Swiss is that in the end you play > > pairs still in > > contention (so no last rounds against pairs who already started their > > beers). This is for me the real issue at pairs. Not whether 1 > > plays 2 or 3 > > or 4 (probably has played them all by then anyway). > > With 25 rounds I think there will be plenty of mismatches on the last > round. > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gordon Bower" > > To: "Nigel Guthrie" > > Cc: "BLML" > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > > > > > I still maintain that it is better to have > > > > fewer matches (10-15) because there are fewer > > > > intervals and so you can play many more boards > > > > (e.g. 10 X 10) > > > > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > > > > seeding matters. > > > > > > This seems true enough. > > > > > > However: my impression of the original post was that the > > organizers wanted > > > to keep the number of boards approximately fixed (at 4 > > sessions), and find > > > 'the best game for 64 pairs that plays the same number of > > boards as our > > > old 52-pair game did.' > > > > > > The obvious solution for 64 pairs would be to extend the game to 126 > > > boards and stick with the Howell. Presumably, someone decided that > > > 32-board sessions or 5-session events were unacceptable. > > > > > > Now the question before is, *given a fixed total game > > length*, how many > > > matches is the best number to have (anything from 51 or 52 > > 2-board rounds > > > on down to six 17-board rounds is an option, but there's a > > sense that the > > > best number is somewhere in the middle.) > > > > > > I, personally, have doubts that a Swiss can actually do > > better than a > > > carefully seeded curtailed Howell / 'three-quarter' type > > movement could, > > > if you arrange it so that the twelve pairs you miss are > > evenly spread over > > > the strength spectrum. The main plus of the Swiss is that > > if you seed it > > > wrong the damage fades away after the first couple rounds. > > > > > > 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 > > From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 14 00:01:34 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:01:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <00d501c361ea$22f48e80$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000301c361ee$d8078cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > Sven wrote: >=20 > >In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find > themselves in > serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary > committee of the Norwegian federation. >=20 > Crumbs. How few Victory Points do you have to score in Norway before = you > can drink beer while the last round is in progress? I think minus ten would be sufficient. (As you know our scales doesn't = go below zero). Seriously: Smoke and/or alcohol are completely forbidden in the rooms = where (serious) tournaments are played in Norway. Contempt of the game (as if = just kidding during the last rounds of a tournament in which the competitor = has no more interest) is considered a grave violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1 normally resulting in disciplinary actions. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 14 00:34:38 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:34:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3395836.1060788438618.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004901c361f4$19733140$e09868d5@default> Quibbling with David Burn about an example with which he is unhappy is a waste of time. In fact, as Ian Crorie says: any quibbling at all about this issue is inappropriate. Sorry Ian. IMO, the *principle* is wrong that I must ask follow-up questions in order to merit redress when opponents may have committed an infraction. So let's take a typical pure example. David, if you don't like this example, please change it. Opponents reach 6H. You ask for a complete explanation of opponents' auction and they comply (as far as you are aware). You lead the SK (To avoid David's wrath, you have recently decided to lead King from Ace-King but you have still been known to lead King from other holdings like King doubleton). Dummy appears with a spade suit. Partner's card is ambiguous. In his earlier explanation, Dummy did not say that opener's bidding showed short spades. You wonder whether to risk a trump switch but you reckon SA may cash and, anyway, may give nothing away. Wrong. Declarer ruffs and makes the contract. After several minutes analysis, partner explains that a trump switch was "obvious", was unlikely to cost, and would, in fact, defeat the contract. As you leave the table, you hear opponents discuss the auction and dummy says that declarer's bidding definitely implied a singleton spade. You call the TD. If the TD asks you why, when dummy appeared, you asked no follow-up questions about spades, you answer... 1. Such questions may give UI to partner -- but you readily admit that you spent no time considering exactly how they may give UI to partner. 2. Questions imply that opponents have been economical with the truth; You feel that such insults are inappropriate in a gentleman's game. Now, presumably the TD will penalize opponents. But will the TD award you redress if you are a tyro? An ordinary player? An expert? An expert playing with a beginner? How should the TD rule? What laws should he cite? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 14 00:55:34 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:55:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000301c361ee$d8078cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00eb01c361f6$63125220$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >I think minus ten would be sufficient. (As you know our scales doesn't go below zero). What, even in the winter? >Seriously: Smoke and/or alcohol are completely forbidden in the rooms where (serious) tournaments are played in Norway. Contempt of the game (as if just kidding during the last rounds of a tournament in which the competitor has no more interest) is considered a grave violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1 normally resulting in disciplinary actions. I appreciate that. I say only that the quest to prevent "random" factors from influencing any mode of scoring at all is an illusion (just as Arrow demonstrated that you could not construct a voting system that satisfied all reasonable criteria in terms of expressing the will of the people). Any scoring system is bound to be flawed in terms of some objection that cannot be gainsaid, just as stone blunts scissors cuts paper wraps stone. The intransitive nature of apparently transitive relationships is part of life, and almost anything you do to overcome it is not worth a hill of beans. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 14 01:37:07 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3395836.1060788438618.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004901c361f4$19733140$e09868d5@default> Message-ID: <00f101c361fc$31302ec0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Nigel wrote: > Quibbling with David Burn about an example with > which he is unhappy is a waste of time. Not necessarily. In fact, I spent about an hour this evening trying to put Alain's example into the context of a possible deal. I got close, but I could not quite hack it - and yet, I think that a "real" version is possible (not one where the leader had SAK, of course - this was a complete fiction). > In fact, as Ian Crorie says: any quibbling at all > about this issue is inappropriate. Sorry Ian. Oh, don't worry. Crorie and I have never had the slightest doubt about anything. I was a bit worried when he said that my argument "may have some weaknesses", but that's probably because I owe him a tenner from the last time I was up in Scotland. > IMO, the *principle* is wrong that I must ask > follow-up questions in order to merit redress > when opponents may have committed an infraction. The principle is the same whether opponents "may have committed an infraction" or "may be Tinkerbell and the Sugar Plum Fairy" or may not. You "must" not do anything. But if what you do does not work, and you later claim that you would have done something else had you not been "misinformed", then you need to substantiate (a) that claim; (b) that you are an idiot. > So let's take a typical pure example. David, > if you don't like this example, please change it. > Opponents reach 6H. > > You ask for a complete explanation of opponents' > auction and they comply (as far as you are aware). > > You lead the SK (To avoid David's wrath, you have > recently decided to lead King from Ace-King but > you have still been known to lead King from other > holdings like King doubleton). > > Dummy appears with a spade suit. Partner's > card is ambiguous. In his earlier explanation, > Dummy did not say that opener's bidding showed > short spades. > > You wonder whether to risk a trump switch but you > reckon SA may cash and, anyway, may give nothing > away. Wrong. Declarer ruffs and makes the contract. > > After several minutes analysis, partner explains > that a trump switch was "obvious", was unlikely to > cost, and would, in fact, defeat the contract. > > As you leave the table, you hear opponents discuss > the auction and dummy says that declarer's bidding > definitely implied a singleton spade. You call the TD. > > If the TD asks you why, when dummy appeared, you > asked no follow-up questions about spades, you > answer... > > 1. Such questions may give UI to partner -- but you > readily admit that you spent no time considering > exactly how they may give UI to partner. > > 2. Questions imply that opponents have been > economical with the truth; You feel that such > insults are inappropriate in a gentleman's game. > > Now, presumably the TD will penalize opponents. > > But will the TD award you redress if you are a tyro? > An ordinary player? > An expert? > An expert playing with a beginner? > > How should the TD rule? What laws should he cite? I don't know. Show me the hands. The problem as you have posed it is strictly illusory - there cannot be such a deal. Don't you understand (well, I guess that you don't, because you ask these questions) that your argument begins with the premise "Given a square circle..."? You promised to show me a "pure example", and you have shown me nothing at all that could actually exist in the real world. My arguments, the "real world" arguments that apply to all I know (which is based on many thousands of cases in which I have really had to apply the rules) may or may not stand up in the presence of the deal you show me, but until you show me, how will I know? You refer in your non-example to such emotive concepts as "a gentleman's game"; "economical with the truth"; "readily admit". The fact that you use these expressions leads me to believe that you are more or less incapable of considering what the rules of a game should consist of. Talk about the pews and steeples, and the cash that goes therewith... David Burn London, England From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 14 07:25:36 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:25:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000101c361e6$12ad3760$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001601c3622c$f5047920$efeb7f50@Default> > [Gordon Bower] > From the standpoint of determining a champion in a > pairs field, Swisses are a darn sight worse > than just a simple random draw every round. > > [Nigel Guthrie] > Wow! Yet another statement with which I disagree, > intuitively. As I said before, given that you should > have time to play much longer matches, I reckon a > Swiss mist be better than a Howell. > Please, please, is there a mathematical analysis or > simulation to settle these matters. [Sven] >From experience it is critical with Swiss schedules that the number of rounds is less than the number of tables! If there are too many rounds one will eventually have to match together pairs that are too far away from each other on the ranking list. Well I think all of us tend to forget a fundamental problem in a Swiss format. Swiss originates in Chess competitions. And in chess other than in bridge you don't have to delay the Swiss (it is much slower), and far more important there are only two results, 1-0 and draw. Which makes it next to impossible to win after being in the middle most of the time. The problem in Bridge is that two or three big wins might propel you from nowhere to one of the top spots. So the ranking has far less meaning than people think (when ik comes to making a lineup). Another factor is that in Chess, Swiss is often used in a rather small homogenous field with rather a lot of #rounds, at least a lot compared to #players. Given the length of a Chess match, it is easy to understand they might decide to play say 9 rounds with say 14 players rather than 13 rounds. In Bridge this problem doesn't exist. Now in a typical Bridge Swiss the field is often large (the main reason to play Swiss in the first place) and often very uneven which is a problem for any format. Swiss handles it better than most, but don't believe for a second it doesn't suffer as well. Now if you play rather few #rounds the 'who I get to play' luck factor becomes enormous, if you play many #rounds the leader runs out of opps in the top 10. And other than in the typical Chess environment the leader might get some real soft opponents as a result (there is always someone who gets some points in that big unstable middle). Anyway, these problem have been adressed by playing with duplicated boards and by playing Danish in the end. But Danish can also be very unfair and there is a much better solution (IMHO). My own favorite format (often used in Dutch tournaments) is Swiss with a final (it can also be done as a swiss=KO). After a certain #matches you take the 2 (or 4 or ....) top teams who get to play a final (or semi and final). Only advantages. There is a clear visible play off for the title which is nice for the SO and spectators. To win you have to win the final. You cannot win by getting 25 the last round after a lucky draw or an all or nothing effort at say table 3. Don't tell me, I once won the former Forbo (a big international teams event) out of the blue from table 3. I remember very well. We took 25 against Austria after a crazy match (but they also needed 25 to have some change so what do you expect) and then there were only two table 1 results and five table 2 result that would allow us to overtake all (with only seven rounds on Sunday the first 4 teams could still play each other). It dully materialised. Great fun but do you want an serious prestigious tournament to end like that ? Now if you move the Swiss concept to Pairs the problems get worse. Fields are often huge and uneven. You typically play many #rounds which means that by the end all the top pairs have already played each other. Unlike teams you cannot really do a final because you need the field anyway to compare your scores. So you probably have to play Danish in the end if your objective is to have serious last rounds. Danish is good for getting a winner but it tends to be terrible for the other top spots. Often some late high scoring pairs overtake those who get slaugthered repeatetly by the winner. Now I am not against Swiss. The idea is sound. But the two twin objectives to play as many different pairs as possible and to have a meaningful lineup in the end is hard to achieve. In a way Swiss is too strict, a smart algoritm could save a couple of critical matches for the last trounds. What about the leader always having to play the fourth highest ranked team he has not yet played (and something similar for the rest). This way you save him some opponents for the last three matches. This is just an idea by the way, you need to run some simulations to test it. Anyway, Swiss existed before we had computers so it had to be simple. With computers we should be able to do better on that type of problems. Just look what some smart algoritms (Yield Management) have done to the bottom line of Discount Carriers. The basics of the above algoritm are very simple by the way. Given a ranking you let the computer calculate 4 (or whatever is the optimum) rounds of Swiss style lineups (assuming all matches in all virtual rounds end in 15=15). You use number 4 (or whatever) rather than number 1 (normal Swiss). I am quite sure it works great if the #rounds is high. Jaap _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Thu Aug 14 07:28:03 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:28:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format Message-ID: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> To Sven Pran: We never hide results in barometer tournaments any more. We skipped that = many years ago. To the Finns: I personally think that you should keep your barometer. An important = reason is that the players find it very fair if alla play all. To everybody: I don=B4t understand how you could use Mitchell and Swiss at the same = time. And with good instructions it should not be impossible to use arrow = switches. Jaap must be joking when he writes that it takes about the = double amount of time. In Sweden we hate to have two winners when we can = have one. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 14 07:56:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:56:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <000301c361ee$d8078cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003901c36231$21299a40$efeb7f50@Default> Sven: Seriously: Smoke and/or alcohol are completely forbidden in the rooms where (serious) tournaments are played in Norway. Ok ok, of course I respect that. But most NCBO's have only banned smoke which bothers others a lot. They refrain from formally outlawing alcohol. Even at the highest level it is just a hobby for at least 95% of the participants and why bother to stop them from having one or two beers towards the end which bothers nobody. There might be a law against being 'drunk' (and unruly behaviour in general) though, but that is more of a problem in Britsh/Scandinavian culture (where drinking tends to be more concentrated in time than in Central/West and South Europe). In Holland I know exactly one case of a player being 'drunk' when playing something serious (the guy had a personal problem at that stage) and we don't need formal laws to handle an individual case like that. Anyway as David said, the real problem of RR last rounds is not two beers too many or Angelini playing England. The fundamental problem is that you get matches where one side is fully motivated and the other side couldn't care less. There is no solution for that other than to play KO. In the example I mentioned the real problem was that their motivation was lacking so obviously (I guess you are supposed to hide it but letting Angelini play is also not hiding things very well) rather than that they drunk beer. They didn't drink that much beer (I guess around four in a couple of hours which is nowhere near the amount where you get 'drunk') and having a beer around four o'clock in Holland in itself is normal behaviour. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:01 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format > David Burn > Sven wrote: > > >In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find > themselves in > serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary > committee of the Norwegian federation. > > Crumbs. How few Victory Points do you have to score in Norway before you > can drink beer while the last round is in progress? I think minus ten would be sufficient. (As you know our scales doesn't go below zero). Seriously: Smoke and/or alcohol are completely forbidden in the rooms where (serious) tournaments are played in Norway. Contempt of the game (as if just kidding during the last rounds of a tournament in which the competitor has no more interest) is considered a grave violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1 normally resulting in disciplinary actions. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@ripe.net Thu Aug 14 09:15:53 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:15:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Tournament format In-Reply-To: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, [iso-8859-1] Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > To everybody: > I don=B4t understand how you could use Mitchell and Swiss at the same > time. Done that years ago: The first night is a random draw. For the second night, the top 14 pairs enter a Mitchell (7, 4 boards rounds, pairs 1,4,5,8,9,12,13 NS), the pairs ranked 15 through 28 enter a second Mitchell, 29-42 a third etc. The game is matchpointed accross the field, % scores are added up. For third night, the top 14 again enters a Mitchell. Repeat until you have had enough. So, yes, 2 pairs can meet each other every week, but for an event where the sessions are a week apart, that isn't considered a big problem. The big advantage is that the TD doesn't have to do any scoring during the game. This was in the pre-computer age. In the computer age, it can be done even better: night one at random. For the second session, make a line up, assume that everybody scores exactly average (so the ranking won't change), make a second line up, etc. So pair #1 will play #2 through #7. #2 will play #1 and #3-#7, etc. Again, the advantage is that all opponents are known and the TD doesn't have to do scoring during the game. Henk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/h= enk 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 Thu Aug 14 09:26:48 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:26:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <000301c361ee$d8078cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > > David Burn > > Sven wrote: > > > > >In Norway a pair (or team) behaving like that would soon find > > themselves in > > serious trouble with first the director and next with the disciplinary > > committee of the Norwegian federation. > > > > Crumbs. How few Victory Points do you have to score in Norway before you > > can drink beer while the last round is in progress? > > I think minus ten would be sufficient. (As you know our scales doesn't go > below zero). > > Seriously: Smoke and/or alcohol are completely forbidden in the rooms > where (serious) tournaments are played in Norway. I've seen Helgemo with a small bottle of illegally produced liquor... > Contempt of the game (as if just kidding during the last rounds of a > tournament in which the competitor has no more interest) is considered a > grave violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1 normally resulting in disciplinary > actions. There is a huge grey area there: if two pairs, both out of contention, quickly play the last boards semi-seriously so can go home (or be first in line at the bar), I doubt that you can do much about it. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Aug 14 09:33:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:33:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <001601c3622c$f5047920$efeb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <001101c3623e$cf817c90$c4ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 6:26 p.m. > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > > [Gordon Bower] > > From the standpoint of determining a champion in a > > pairs field, Swisses are a darn sight worse > > than just a simple random draw every round. > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > Wow! Yet another statement with which I disagree, > > intuitively. As I said before, given that you should > > have time to play much longer matches, I reckon a > > Swiss mist be better than a Howell. > > Please, please, is there a mathematical analysis or > > simulation to settle these matters. > > [Sven] > From experience it is critical with Swiss schedules that the number of > rounds is less than the number of tables! If there are too > many rounds one > will eventually have to match together pairs that are too far > away from each > other on the ranking list. > > > Well I think all of us tend to forget a fundamental problem in a Swiss > format. Swiss originates in Chess competitions. And in chess > other than in > bridge you don't have to delay the Swiss (it is much slower), > and far more > important there are only two results, 1-0 and draw. Which > makes it next to > impossible to win after being in the middle most of the time. > The problem in > Bridge is that two or three big wins might propel you from > nowhere to one of > the top spots. So the ranking has far less meaning than > people think (when > ik comes to making a lineup). > > Another factor is that in Chess, Swiss is often used in a rather small > homogenous field with rather a lot of #rounds, at least a lot > compared to > #players. Given the length of a Chess match, it is easy to > understand they > might decide to play say 9 rounds with say 14 players rather > than 13 rounds. > In Bridge this problem doesn't exist. > > Now in a typical Bridge Swiss the field is often large (the > main reason to > play Swiss in the first place) and often very uneven which is > a problem for > any format. Swiss handles it better than most, but don't believe for a > second it doesn't suffer as well. Now if you play rather few > #rounds the > 'who I get to play' luck factor becomes enormous, if you play > many #rounds > the leader runs out of opps in the top 10. And other than in > the typical > Chess environment the leader might get some real soft > opponents as a result > (there is always someone who gets some points in that big > unstable middle). > > Anyway, these problem have been adressed by playing with > duplicated boards > and by playing Danish in the end. But Danish can also be very > unfair and > there is a much better solution (IMHO). My own favorite > format (often used > in Dutch tournaments) is Swiss with a final (it can also be done as a > swiss=KO). After a certain #matches you take the 2 (or 4 or > ....) top teams > who get to play a final (or semi and final). Only advantages. > There is a > clear visible play off for the title which is nice for the SO and > spectators. To win you have to win the final. You cannot win > by getting 25 > the last round after a lucky draw or an all or nothing effort > at say table > 3. Don't tell me, I once won the former Forbo (a big > international teams > event) out of the blue from table 3. I remember very well. We took 25 > against Austria after a crazy match (but they also needed 25 > to have some > change so what do you expect) and then there were only two > table 1 results > and five table 2 result that would allow us to overtake all > (with only seven > rounds on Sunday the first 4 teams could still play each > other). It dully > materialised. Great fun but do you want an serious > prestigious tournament to > end like that ? > > Now if you move the Swiss concept to Pairs the problems get > worse. Fields > are often huge and uneven. You typically play many #rounds > which means that > by the end all the top pairs have already played each other. > Unlike teams > you cannot really do a final because you need the field > anyway to compare > your scores. So you probably have to play Danish in the end if your > objective is to have serious last rounds. Danish is good for getting a > winner but it tends to be terrible for the other top spots. > Often some late > high scoring pairs overtake those who get slaugthered > repeatetly by the > winner. > > Now I am not against Swiss. The idea is sound. But the two > twin objectives > to play as many different pairs as possible and to have a > meaningful lineup > in the end is hard to achieve. In a way Swiss is too strict, a smart > algoritm could save a couple of critical matches for the last > trounds. What > about the leader always having to play the fourth highest > ranked team he has > not yet played (and something similar for the rest). This way > you save him > some opponents for the last three matches. This is just an > idea by the way, > you need to run some simulations to test it. Anyway, Swiss > existed before we > had computers so it had to be simple. With computers we > should be able to do > better on that type of problems. Just look what some smart > algoritms (Yield > Management) have done to the bottom line of Discount Carriers. > > The basics of the above algoritm are very simple by the way. > Given a ranking > you let the computer calculate 4 (or whatever is the optimum) > rounds of > Swiss style lineups (assuming all matches in all virtual rounds end in > 15=15). You use number 4 (or whatever) rather than number 1 > (normal Swiss). > I am quite sure it works great if the #rounds is high. I have thought of diminishing the distance between the top team and its opponents as the round increases. So near the beginning you play a 'team' near the bottom (or whereever) and you gradually get closer and closer opponents as the rounds progress. Until at the end the leaders play the closest unplayed 'team'. Wayne > > Jaap > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 14 09:44:48 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:44:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <003b01c36241$8535d5c0$d2eb7f50@Default> HO And with good instructions it should not be impossible to use arrow switches. Jaap must be joking when he writes that it takes about the doub= le amount of time. In Sweden we hate to have two winners when we can have on= e. I never said such a thing. I said somewhere that a full Swiss pairs (new lineup every round) probabl= y cost some time compared to other less communication intensive procedures. I said somewhere else that in France they normally don't even do an arrow switch when playing their Mitchells. I guess they consider ease of use an= d the thing being fool proof more important than other considerations. Whic= h makes some sense if you know their club/festival reality. Probably in certain events (maybe the national pairs final) they might deviate from their strict standard procedure, but I have extensive experience in Franc= e and I haven't seen it so far. Anyway in large multi session events (like = the French festivals) the arrow switch is not that relevant (given all other random luck factors involved). Anyway the EBL seems to think so too becau= se the recent Menton Pairs EC was run with dumb no arrow switch Mitchells. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Hans-Olof Hall=E9n" To: Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:28 AM Subject: [blml] Tournament format To Sven Pran: We never hide results in barometer tournaments any more. We skipped that many years ago. To the Finns: I personally think that you should keep your barometer. An important reas= on is that the players find it very fair if alla play all. To everybody: I don=B4t understand how you could use Mitchell and Swiss at the same tim= e. And with good instructions it should not be impossible to use arrow switches. Jaap must be joking when he writes that it takes about the doub= le amount of time. In Sweden we hate to have two winners when we can have on= e. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 14 09:51:30 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:51:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format References: <001101c3623e$cf817c90$c4ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003c01c36241$88fa30c0$d2eb7f50@Default> Wayne: > I have thought of diminishing the distance between the top team and its > opponents as the round increases. > > So near the beginning you play a 'team' near the bottom (or whereever) > and you gradually get closer and closer opponents as the rounds > progress. Until at the end the leaders play the closest unplayed > 'team'. You got the idea. But with a good computer program you can make 'sure' as well that everybody in the top will play everybody else in the top. If you start too high with that 'distance' some top matches will be left unplayed, if you start too low you will run out of good opps too soon. On top of that it is a dynamic problem. I guess it is NP complete as well. But we don't need an optimal solution. We need just a good solution. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Sven Pran'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 6:26 p.m. > > To: Sven Pran; blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournamet Format > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Gordon Bower] > > > From the standpoint of determining a champion in a > > > pairs field, Swisses are a darn sight worse > > > than just a simple random draw every round. > > > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > > Wow! Yet another statement with which I disagree, > > > intuitively. As I said before, given that you should > > > have time to play much longer matches, I reckon a > > > Swiss mist be better than a Howell. > > > Please, please, is there a mathematical analysis or > > > simulation to settle these matters. > > > > [Sven] > > From experience it is critical with Swiss schedules that the number of > > rounds is less than the number of tables! If there are too > > many rounds one > > will eventually have to match together pairs that are too far > > away from each > > other on the ranking list. > > > > > > Well I think all of us tend to forget a fundamental problem in a Swiss > > format. Swiss originates in Chess competitions. And in chess > > other than in > > bridge you don't have to delay the Swiss (it is much slower), > > and far more > > important there are only two results, 1-0 and draw. Which > > makes it next to > > impossible to win after being in the middle most of the time. > > The problem in > > Bridge is that two or three big wins might propel you from > > nowhere to one of > > the top spots. So the ranking has far less meaning than > > people think (when > > ik comes to making a lineup). > > > > Another factor is that in Chess, Swiss is often used in a rather small > > homogenous field with rather a lot of #rounds, at least a lot > > compared to > > #players. Given the length of a Chess match, it is easy to > > understand they > > might decide to play say 9 rounds with say 14 players rather > > than 13 rounds. > > In Bridge this problem doesn't exist. > > > > Now in a typical Bridge Swiss the field is often large (the > > main reason to > > play Swiss in the first place) and often very uneven which is > > a problem for > > any format. Swiss handles it better than most, but don't believe for a > > second it doesn't suffer as well. Now if you play rather few > > #rounds the > > 'who I get to play' luck factor becomes enormous, if you play > > many #rounds > > the leader runs out of opps in the top 10. And other than in > > the typical > > Chess environment the leader might get some real soft > > opponents as a result > > (there is always someone who gets some points in that big > > unstable middle). > > > > Anyway, these problem have been adressed by playing with > > duplicated boards > > and by playing Danish in the end. But Danish can also be very > > unfair and > > there is a much better solution (IMHO). My own favorite > > format (often used > > in Dutch tournaments) is Swiss with a final (it can also be done as a > > swiss=KO). After a certain #matches you take the 2 (or 4 or > > ....) top teams > > who get to play a final (or semi and final). Only advantages. > > There is a > > clear visible play off for the title which is nice for the SO and > > spectators. To win you have to win the final. You cannot win > > by getting 25 > > the last round after a lucky draw or an all or nothing effort > > at say table > > 3. Don't tell me, I once won the former Forbo (a big > > international teams > > event) out of the blue from table 3. I remember very well. We took 25 > > against Austria after a crazy match (but they also needed 25 > > to have some > > change so what do you expect) and then there were only two > > table 1 results > > and five table 2 result that would allow us to overtake all > > (with only seven > > rounds on Sunday the first 4 teams could still play each > > other). It dully > > materialised. Great fun but do you want an serious > > prestigious tournament to > > end like that ? > > > > Now if you move the Swiss concept to Pairs the problems get > > worse. Fields > > are often huge and uneven. You typically play many #rounds > > which means that > > by the end all the top pairs have already played each other. > > Unlike teams > > you cannot really do a final because you need the field > > anyway to compare > > your scores. So you probably have to play Danish in the end if your > > objective is to have serious last rounds. Danish is good for getting a > > winner but it tends to be terrible for the other top spots. > > Often some late > > high scoring pairs overtake those who get slaugthered > > repeatetly by the > > winner. > > > > Now I am not against Swiss. The idea is sound. But the two > > twin objectives > > to play as many different pairs as possible and to have a > > meaningful lineup > > in the end is hard to achieve. In a way Swiss is too strict, a smart > > algoritm could save a couple of critical matches for the last > > trounds. What > > about the leader always having to play the fourth highest > > ranked team he has > > not yet played (and something similar for the rest). This way > > you save him > > some opponents for the last three matches. This is just an > > idea by the way, > > you need to run some simulations to test it. Anyway, Swiss > > existed before we > > had computers so it had to be simple. With computers we > > should be able to do > > better on that type of problems. Just look what some smart > > algoritms (Yield > > Management) have done to the bottom line of Discount Carriers. > > > > The basics of the above algoritm are very simple by the way. > > Given a ranking > > you let the computer calculate 4 (or whatever is the optimum) > > rounds of > > Swiss style lineups (assuming all matches in all virtual rounds end in > > 15=15). You use number 4 (or whatever) rather than number 1 > > (normal Swiss). > > I am quite sure it works great if the #rounds is high. > > I have thought of diminishing the distance between the top team and its > opponents as the round increases. > > So near the beginning you play a 'team' near the bottom (or whereever) > and you gradually get closer and closer opponents as the rounds > progress. Until at the end the leaders play the closest unplayed > 'team'. > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 14 10:30:39 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:30:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <004c01c361e3$43331ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005201c3611a$d093d8a0$c9e77f50@Default> <004c01c361e3$43331ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F3B56BF.9070109@hdw.be> Sorry Marvin, but ... Marvin French wrote: > > "Protecting the field" is a principle that has been rejected over and over > again throughout the history of duplicate bridge. C3 has always struck me as > having that principle behind it, regardless of statements that its purpose > is just to achieve equity. > > Sorry Marvin, but that argument might work in some twenty years' time, when the world has finally accepted that Herman De Wael is the greatest authority on calculation, and when all my ideas about calculation have been moved from eccentric babble into mainstream canon. The way I would calculate (in a pairs' tournament) the affect of a 12C3 weighted score would influence the scores of all other participants - even if only very slightly. But the way the WBF currently deals with 12C3 scores is far less complicated, and the result is that the scores for the other competitors does not change when a 12C2 score is transformed into a 12C3 one. So there can be no question of "protecting the field" about L12C3. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 14 12:25:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:25:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:55 13/08/2003 +0100, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >The "UI" argument is something of a red herring. If we have to ask for >information because our next action *will* - not merely "may" - be based >on the answer we receive, then we have a fundamental right to ask for that >information. If this transmits UI to partner, so be it; a separate cause >of action may exist if it appears that partner uses this information. AG : therefore, you admit that a player could be placed in a Morton's Fork situation as follows : - I don't ask : I'll be deemed to have failed to protect myself ; - I do ask : partner might be ruled against because I've transmitted UI. All of this because opponents' explanations weren't detailed enough. If this is what the Laws say to us, then the Laws must be changed immediately. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 14 12:17:57 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:17:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c36255$bcfdd5c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > AG : therefore, you admit that a player could be placed in a Morton's Fork > situation as follows : > - I don't ask : I'll be deemed to have failed to protect myself ; > - I do ask : partner might be ruled against because I've transmitted UI. > All of this because opponents' explanations weren't detailed enough. > If this is what the Laws say to us, then the Laws must be changed immediately. Indeed they must. Screens should be made compulsory. Failing that, it should be mandatory for all alerts to be followed by a question and explanation. I have said this very many times, and whenever I do, idiots on the English laws commission (and elsewhere) bleat that this will "waste time". But the Laws are created on the basis that partner is deaf and blind to questions asked by me and answers given by the opponents; it is not possible to construct a playable game otherwise. You must not fall into the trap of believing your own example. You say "all of this because opponents' explanations weren't detailed enough". All whose explanations? You have created a scenario in which a defender does not know that declarer has a singleton spade when he "should" have been told; I contend that this scenario cannot exist in the real world, and that all arguments based on it are specious. If something like it ever did occur in the real world, I imagine that a director or a committee would sympathise with the defender and would rule accordingly. That's fine with me. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 14 13:05:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:05:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <004c01c361e3$43331ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005201c3611a$d093d8a0$c9e77f50@Default> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030814075914.009ef910@pop.starpower.net> At 05:38 PM 8/13/03, Marvin wrote: >From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > Two, far more important, C2 makes it impossible to take the > magnitude of >the > > infraction into account. > >C2 does not address the magnitude of the infraction, true. The TD has >L90 to >deal with such things. C2 deals with the magnitude of the damage, what's >wrong with that? Some have suggested in the past that our Laws are analogous to a body of civil law, focused on equity, except for L90-91, which are analogous to criminal laws, focused on punishment. If that's a reasonable analogy, it supports Marv's position here. It is only in criminal law that penalties are supposed to be proportional to the severity of the offence; in civil law penalties are supposed to be proportional to the magnitude of the damage done by the offence, as Marv suggests. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 14 16:38:52 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:38:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3395836.1060788438618.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004901c361f4$19733140$e09868d5@default> <00f101c361fc$31302ec0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003c01c3627a$43f57dc0$5e9468d5@default> [David Burn] I spent about an hour this evening trying to put Alain's example into the context of a possible deal. [Nigel Guthrie] David, please throw off such constraints and supply any typical example with which you are happy. Back to principles for now ... IMO, the *principle* is wrong that, when opponents have committed infractions of which I'm unaware, and I suffer as a consequence, that, in order to merit redress, I must ask them to deny that they have committed such infractions, before committing myself to any action that may be affected by them. Yes. Yes. David says that the laws are different for "idiots" but lets not rehearse that again. Of course, it would not surprise me at all if David is right according to TFLB. But I'd like to know which laws. It would also amuse me to find out how this can be in accord with any concept of "equity" (even as the word is redefined by the WBFLC) since... Usually, (not just in my examples, but also, I reckon, in any typical example that you can come up with)... (1) My questions imply I suspect opponents may have committed infractions. Hence they may regard my questions as a slur on their honesty. Especially if I have previously requested a complete detailed explanation of the auction. For the purpose of argument, please may we assume that opponents have "complied" with this request but so far, we have asked no follow-up questions specifically directed at particular bids or suit holdings. (2) I understand David to say that to protect myself, I must ask. Almost always, my interest will be in a specific aspect not mentioned in opponent's earlier "complete detailed description" (e.g. a particular suit holding). I can try to disguise my concerns in my follow-up questions but partner will still guess what I'm worried about unless he's David's proverbial "idiot", But David says the implications of my questions are UI to partner. It is difficult to analyse the play; but it's much harder to empathise with all partner's play decisions and to surmise how UI may affect each of them. Almost always, opponents will *not* have committed any infraction. Hence "protection" can only be risked by *a pair of idiots or cheats* In summary, this law seems to be of most use to pros and offensive idiots. (:I hope David doesn't think this is emotive:) From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 14 16:36:44 2003 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:36:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) In-Reply-To: <200308131936.h7DJaSMI010834@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > From: "Luis Argerich" > after a 1h,1s opening what's the > difference between a relay and a forcing NT? In the ACBL, the difference is whether a second relay follows. There are many other examples, but quite often the first relay is legal, while a second one is not. This information is hidden in the ACBL's definition of a "relay system." The ACBL allows relay systems starting with opener's rebid and also after opening bids of 1NT and higher. Of course this means the mama-papa Blackwood sequence 4NT then 5NT (immediately in response to an opening bid) is illegal, but that will never be enforced. > System regulations: none > written but is known that HUM systems are not allowed. As others have said, this is bizarre. And here some of us thought the ACBL was the world's worst example. If the rule is "Whatever the TD dislikes is illegal," I don't see anything you can do except get pre-approval somehow. I suppose you could play what you want and then appeal any decision against you, but that is unlikely to be satisfactory. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 14 16:54:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:54:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3395836.1060788438618.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004901c361f4$19733140$e09868d5@default> <00f101c361fc$31302ec0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003d01c3627c$6b2bb880$5e9468d5@default> [In reply to..] >IMO, the *principle* is wrong that I must ask >follow-up questions in order to merit redress >when opponents may have committed an infraction." [David] The principle is the same whether opponents "may have committed an infraction" or "may be Tinkerbell and the Sugar Plum Fairy" or may not. You "must" not do anything. But if what you do does not work, and you later claim that you would have done something else had you not been "misinformed", then you need to substantiate (a) that claim; (b) that you are an idiot'. {Nigel] You have just repeated what I said in different words: You still seem to believe that to merit redress for consequent damage when I may guess that opponents may have committed an infraction, I *must* ask questions that could protect me from the hypothetical infraction. For the sake of argument, please assume that I'm not an idiot; I'm happy to make that assumption about you. [In reply to...] >So let's take a typical pure example. David, >if you don't like this example, please change it." >[long example with lots of questions] [David] '...The problem as you have posed it is strictly illusory - there cannot be such a deal. Don't you understand (well, I guess that you don't, because you ask these questions) that your argument begins with the premise "Given a square circle..."?' [Nigel] I omitted trivial details in a futile attempt to avoid quibbles. [David] ...You refer in your non-example to such emotive concepts as "a gentleman's game"; "economical with the truth"; "readily admit". [Nigel] I am sorry if these expressions are emotive to you. They aren't to me. For example, "economy with the truth" is a *euphemism* for the more highly charged "lies by omission" or "prevarication" [David] The fact that you use these expressions leads me to believe that you are more or less incapable of considering what the rules of a game should consist of. Talk about the pews and steeples, and the cash that goes therewith... [:Nigel:] My literary education may be almost worth the exposure to David's impertinence and insolence... [Google] It would greatly, I must own, Soothe me, Smith! If you left this theme alone, Holy Smith! For your legal cause or civil You fight well and get your fee; For your God or dream or devil You will answer, not to me. Talk about the pews and steeples And the cash that goes therewith! But the souls of Christian peoples... Chuck it, Smith! [from "Antichrist, or the Reunion of Christendom: An Ode" by G K Chesterton] From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 14 16:56:40 2003 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:56:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format In-Reply-To: <200308131936.h7DJaSMI010834@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > And a Swiss has another big > problem. TD/AC rulings. I can remember some disasters with big pending > appeals. And not only the Menton disaster (where they played some early > round matches after the tournament was over). One or two big rulings you > cannot decide immediatly and your beautiful designed Swiss is completely > screwed up. Because by the time the AC finally meets some teams/pairs might > get a big score modification. We once had someone win a Swiss that way. That > hurts. The ACBL mandates that in case of an appeal, matchings are done on the assumption that each side wins the appeal. That isn't perfect, but it greatly reduces the chance that any team will meet an opponent far too weak for their eventual standing. > [Nigel Guthrie] > perhaps the first round could be something like... > 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > [Sven Pran] > If each pair played according to their seeding this will result in > the > following ranking list after round 1: > 1, 2, 3, 4, ........60, 61, 62, 63, 64 > > [Nigel Guthrie] > Bridge matches do not always go to form; but > on further thought, given the *delayed* assignment > condition, I now prefer.... > Round 1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64. > Round 2: 1 v 64, 2 v 63, ..., 32 v 33. > > From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > if your goal is some form of equity, you could try: > R1: 1 v 33, 2 v 34, ..., 32 v 64 > R2: 1 v 32, 2 v 31,.., 16 v 17; 33 v 64,.., 48 v 49 > Obviously, the fewer matches there are, the more > seeding matters. Elsewhere I have suggested for the first round 1 v N+1, 2 v N+2, etc. in the first round, where N is the _number of rounds_. Below 2N it doesn't much matter, and you won't have accurate seedings anyway, so just match at random. This has advantage that teams never meet another grossly different from their own skills, but it would take a simulation to see what it does to the final standings. From: "Jaap van der Neut" > The problem in Bridge is that two or three big wins might propel you from > nowhere to one of the top spots. If this is considered a problem -- and not everyone does -- the solution is obvious. Make the final score for each team the sum of VP's it scored plus a fraction of the VP's scored by each of the team's opponents other than in the head-to-head match. Thus a team that met stronger opponents gets a bonus in its score. At one time I convinced myself that "a fraction" should be 0.5, but I no longer remember the reasoning. > Now if you play rather few #rounds the 'who I get to play' luck factor becomes > enormous, if you play many #rounds the leader runs out of opps in the top 10. The first is solved by the scheme above. However, Sven is right to say there is a real problem. If N rounds are needed to accurately determine first place, N+1 are needed to determine second, N+2 to determine 3 and 4, N+3 to determine 5-8, and so on. No getting around it. > My own favorite format (often used in Dutch tournaments) is Swiss with a final > (it can also be done as a swiss=KO). After a certain #matches you take the 2 > (or 4 or ....) top teams who get to play a inal (or semi and final). This looks very nice. Presumably teams knocked out while the event continues (i.e., if there are two or more KO rounds) go back into the Swiss with some number of VP's. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 14 17:12:51 2003 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <200308131936.h7DJaSMI010834@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > If someone explains 2NT as > 'fit' because he cannot remember anymore exactly what kind of fit the > agreement was about, or he is to lazy to tell all (often irrelevant) > details, I consider this as minor MI. This kind of thing is unlikely to > cause damage anyway. If it doesn't cause damage, there is no adjustment. If the "minor MI" does cause damage, it wasn't so minor, was it? Of course this leads to the question of what questions opponents need ask in given circumstances. At one extreme, if a bid is properly alerted, and the opponents don't ask at all, and the bid turns out to be something weird, no one will protect the non-askers. But what if the opponents ask and get a partial answer? Are they obliged to ask followup questions to get the further information to which they are entitled? Some say yes. The ACBL, FWIW, generally says no. Here's an example that may appeal more than Alain's: 1H-P-4H-all pass. Opening leader asks about the auction and is told only that "4H is preemptive." The actual agreement is that it must include five hearts and a singleton or four hearts and a void, but this additional, specific information is not given. Must the opening leader ask for further clarification, or is he entitled to redress if it turns out the additional information would have changed his opening lead? From: Eric Landau > Some have suggested in the past that our Laws are analogous to a body > of civil law, focused on equity, except for L90-91, which are analogous > to criminal laws, focused on punishment. Kaplan was among the "some." See his "Appeals Committee" booklets for one source. Whether he was the first to make this analogy, I don't know. From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 14 17:37:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:37:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c36282$53a3a550$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ........... > Here's an example that may appeal more than Alain's: 1H-P-4H-all pass. > Opening leader asks about the auction and is told only that "4H is > preemptive." The actual agreement is that it must include five hearts = and > a > singleton or four hearts and a void, but this additional, specific > information > is not given. Must the opening leader ask for further clarification, = or > is he > entitled to redress if it turns out the additional information would = have > changed his opening lead? He is entitled to redress because he asked a general question on the = auction and with the answer to such a question he is entitled to every piece of information relevant to the auction that can happen to be important. The exception to this rule is that if he is told that an auction has shown a hand to contain 5 plus 4 plus 3 cards in three suits he should be able = to deduct for himself that the fourth suit contains maximum one card = without explicitly being told so. On the other hand if he asks specifically something like "what is the strength shown by the 4H bid?" he has no claim for not being told that = the bid promised for instance 4 hearts and a singleton or 5 hearts and a = void. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 14 20:08:29 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:08:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <000601c36282$53a3a550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009701c36298$2f6057e0$5e9468d5@default> [Jana van der Neut] Here's an example that may appeal more than Alain's: 1H-P-4H-all pass. Opening leader asks about the auction and is told only that "4H is preemptive." The actual agreement is that it must include five hearts and a singleton or four hearts and a void. {Nigel Guthrie] Experts ridiculed examples that specified the lead of Ace from Ace-King against as slam as *impossible*. [I hope the many people who do have that agreement never hear of their non-existence. It may be inferior but it is playable, especially if partner gives count]. Now we all discuss a *more realistic* example where opponents have agreed that a preemptive raise to 4H *must* contain a singleton or void. The veriiest tyro can appreciate that such an agreement is daft. Suppose that opener has say xxx AKxxxx AKQJ - he can't safely tell if he is cold for a slam. Obviously there must be some other *lower* bid for a pre-emptive raise *without* a shortage. Even a pair of complete beginners would exchange the meanings of these two bids. No matter. For our purposes, this example is just as good as the others. If opponents don't volunteer their complete agreement in response to your request for an explanation of the auction and you are damaged in consequence, IMO, you are entitled to redress. Especially, as no sane person, in their wildest dreams, could ever imagine such a meaning. (: (: (: in equity :) :) :) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 14 23:36:33 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:36:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> [David Burn] If we have to ask for information because our next action *will* - not merely "may" - be based on the answer we receive, then we have a fundamental right to ask for that information. If this transmits UI to partner, so be it; a separate cause of action may exist if it appears that partner uses this information. But this does not *in fact* release us from our duty to protect ourselves by asking for the information we need [Nigel Guthrie] David's pronouncement casts some light on a practical problem that my team-mates and I often meet. LHO opens 1S, partner passes, RHO bids 4C. You have already perused opponents' CC and such auctions are unmentioned. You double weak jumps for takeout; you double Swiss and cue-bids to show values in the bid suit; and you double splinters to show values in the higher unbid suit. In all cases, if you ask and pass, UI to partner in inevitable. On David's "need to know" basis, are you entitled to ask? May you further argue that it is opponents' incomplete CC that gave you the problem, so UI should not inhibit partner's normal actions? You would like to play the same convention in more complex circumstances, which you would not expect to be covered by an opponent's CC. I suppose your questions are still legitimised by your need to know; but are your UI problems still so-mitigated? Please comment on the legal questions -- rather than just ridicule our methods. (:And yes we do lead K from AK:) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 14 23:45:01 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:45:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> Message-ID: <000701c362b5$b2964120$7ad28051@pbncomputer> > [Nigel Guthrie] > David's pronouncement casts some light on a > practical problem that my team-mates and I > often meet. > LHO opens 1S, partner passes, RHO bids 4C. > You have already perused opponents' CC and > such auctions are unmentioned. > You double weak jumps for takeout; > you double Swiss and cue-bids to show > values in the bid suit; and you double > splinters to show values in the higher > unbid suit. > In all cases, if you ask and pass, UI > to partner in inevitable. > > On David's "need to know" basis, are you > entitled to ask? Of course, but if you play these methods, you should always ask after 1S-4C whatever your hand, in order to avoid ever transmitting UI. David Burn London, England From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 14 22:07:36 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c36255$bcfdd5c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003b01c362b9$949d1460$e83087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > Alain wrote: > > > AG : therefore, you admit that a player could be placed in a Morton's > > Fork situation as follows : > > - I don't ask : I'll be deemed to have failed to protect myself ; > > - I do ask : partner might be ruled against because I've transmitted > > UI. > > > All of this because opponents' explanations weren't detailed enough. > > > If this is what the Laws say to us, then the Laws must be changed > immediately. > DB: > Indeed they must. Screens should be made compulsory. Failing that, it > should be mandatory for all alerts to be followed by a question and > explanation. I have said this very many times, and whenever I do, idiots > on the English laws commission (and elsewhere) bleat that this will > "waste time". But the Laws are created on the basis that partner is deaf > and blind to questions asked by me and answers given by the opponents; > it is not possible to construct a playable game otherwise. > +=+ A possible change of procedure would eliminate all alerting rules and replace them with rules for announcements. If a regulator. were to think it worth trying it would not need a change in the law to introduce such a procedure - they tell me it would hold up the game (without waiting to know what the rules would be). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 15 00:24:39 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:24:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> <000701c362b5$b2964120$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <017301c362bc$0b380420$5e9468d5@default> > [In reply to...] > LHO opens 1S, partner passes, RHO bids 4C. > You double weak jumps for takeout; > you double Swiss and cue-bids to show > values in the bid suit; and you double > splinters to show values in the higher > unbid suit. > On David's "need to know" basis, are you > entitled to ask? [David Burns] Of course, but if you play these methods, you should always ask after 1S-4C whatever your hand, in order to avoid ever transmitting UI. [Nigel] Thank you David. Brilliant answer. Why didn't we think of that? Hmmm... Isn't there a problem under EBU rules? Suppose an opponent becomes declarer and plays the hand on the basis that we must have values to justify our question. When we turn up with a balanced Yarborough, how will the TD rule? Still, it's an excellent suggestion that we never considered before. Do you think we'd be OK if we wrote on our CC: "We always ask about unexpected new suit jumps". (: Perhaps another solution is for partner to *alert* our *question* as "non-value showing" :) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 15 00:58:09 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:58:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c36255$bcfdd5c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <003b01c362b9$949d1460$e83087d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <017b01c362bf$f32268e0$5e9468d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ A possible change of procedure would eliminate all alerting rules and replace them with rules for announcements. If a regulator. were to think it worth trying it would not need a change in the law to introduce such a procedure - they tell me it would hold up the game (without waiting to know what the rules would be). [Nigel] Good thinking Grattan! I think "optional announcement" [or my equivalent "explain card"] removes most of the auction UI problems at a stroke, with drastic simplification of the rules and a faster more pleasant game. You have to explain partner's calls whenever either opponent has an explain card faced. You waste no time with alerting or waiting to be asked. If neither opponent has an explain card faced, the auction proceeds even more rapidly. But then, unfortunately, at the end of the auction, you have to explain your partner's calls. I still think you should normally have to explain calls only when their meanings depart from the *standard system*. This wastes time if you or your opponents don't know the standard system; but soon most people will get to know most of it; and a lot of people will play it, saving any hassle at all. I took up Peter Newman's suggestion and made this proposal on the Australian Web Site as a replacement for their Alert Rules. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Aug 15 02:01:53 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:01:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <009701c36298$2f6057e0$5e9468d5@default> References: <000601c36282$53a3a550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030814205821.01b6a348@mail.vzavenue.net> At 03:08 PM 8/14/2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Jana van der Neut] >Here's an example that may appeal more than >Alain's: 1H-P-4H-all pass. Opening leader >asks about the auction and is told only that >"4H is preemptive." The actual agreement is >that it must include five hearts and a >singleton or four hearts and a void. > >{Nigel Guthrie] >Experts ridiculed examples that specified the >lead of Ace from Ace-King against as slam as >*impossible*. [I hope the many people who do >have that agreement never hear of their >non-existence. It may be inferior but it is >playable, especially if partner gives count]. > >Now we all discuss a *more realistic* example >where opponents have agreed that a preemptive >raise to 4H *must* contain a singleton or void. > >The veriiest tyro can appreciate that such an >agreement is daft. Suppose that opener has say >xxx AKxxxx AKQJ - he can't safely tell if >he is cold for a slam. Goren's bridge books say that the bid promises a singleton or void, so it isn't an absurd agreement. (There is the problem of what to do with xx QJxxxx xx xxx, and I don't know what Goren recommended with that hand; he might have violated the system and bid 6H.) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 15 02:45:06 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 02:45:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3395836.1060788438618.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <01eb01c362cf$19541900$5e9468d5@default> > Nigel wrote: > > > Hi Ian! I do take your point. But I did not > > want to change any essentials of the case. > > There weren't any "essentials" in the case, which was a fictitious one. An explanation of an auction was said to have omitted the information that declarer had short spades. For this to have been the case, some call showing short spades must have been made and falsely explained (or not explained, but this is impossible - we were told that the leader had asked many questions about the bidding, and it is not to be imagined that he would not have asked about whichever call showed short spades). > > But we will grant, for the sake of argument, the preposterous hypothesis that an "explanation" of the auction in response to "many" questions somehow contrived to omit, or conceal, the information that declarer had short spades. > > Then, the opening leader cashed a high spade; then - without asking for more clarification of the auction - he tried to cash another one and let the contract make. Nothing like this situation has ever happened in reality, nor will it ever happen. Attempting to extend what is really a very poor example into some other alternate branches of reality is a completely pointless exercise. > > > In the Alain's example, on which David > > commented, the leader led Ace from Ace-King. > > This is further evidence that the example did not occur in reality, nor could it have done. > > > By the way my pro is only an average player. > > His real forte is not bidding theory or card- > > technique but legal expertise. There is not > > much difference among top players in technique > > but expertise in the convolutions of WBF law > > and the idiosyncracies of local variations > > really separate the men from the boys! > > No, they don't. Almost none of the top players actually knows the rules. You would be amazed at the fuss some of them make when they are told what the penalty is for bidding out of turn, or for not filling in your convention card properly. Most experts regard most of the rules as stupid, an unnecessary obstacle to just getting on with the game. I would bet you any amount of money that none of the best 20 players in the world knows what the Minutes of the WBF Laws Commission are, apart from those players who are actually on the Commission. > > > My pro does not contribute to BLML but revels > > in each daft new local legal variation or > > incomprehensible ruling > > Then he no more exists than the players in Alain's example, and to adduce his actions in support of some argument is to adduce nothing - indeed, it is to adduce less than nothing, for it demonstrates the necessity of invoking an imaginary being to behave in a way that would occur to no real person. > > > According to David Burn, in this particular context, > > there is no question of *UI* (: Ian, please wash your > > mouth out with carbolic :) > > There would be no question of UI if, in this non-example, the player had asked for a further explanation of the auction (including, one imagines, the call that showed a singleton spade); nor if he had led the king of spades. He didn't do either of these things because he doesn't exist. All I am trying to point out is that in a real case, there would be almost no likelihood that the defender could transmit UI by asking more questions. And in any case, what if he did? There would be a difficulty only if this UI were acted upon, and this is also vanishingly unlikely to happen. > > > David Burn says we *must* ask to afford ourselves the > > protection of the law. > > Ah. At last, a statement with which I agree. But since it appears to be a more or less accurate report of my own opinion, this is perhaps not surprising. > > > OK I *could* have asked too but then would lay myself > > open to accusations of time-wasting. > > I am really getting seriously fed up with people who adduce some mythical concept of "time-wasting" in order to bolster absurd arguments about anything from the necessity for proper claims to the necessity for proper disclosure to the necessity for proper self-protection from damage. The length of time taken to do any of those things makes absolutely no difference to anything. > > > David also says "everyone knows the spade position". > > > > (: Actually I was not aware that I knew it, without > > help from partner's questions, so it is reassuring > > to get this definitive statement from the > > chairman of the EBU laws committee :) > > It is, of course, quite true - everybody in this imaginary scenario knows the spade position, for all statements about properties of all members of the empty set are true. > > > (: In earlier emails I did suggest that David may > > have replied too hastily :) > > You have suggested a number of other things also, none of which is any more true than this one. [: Nigel :] Sorry, David, earlier, I overlooked this email so did not reply to it. Brief belated comments (A) Literary critics will confirm that you can make true statements about an imaginary scenario -- even an impossible scenario. (B) Ian Crorie's email was about *my* example which shared some essentials with *Alain's* but diverged in many details e.g. opponents explained the auction *once*, the leader asked further questions and *switched to trumps* and so on. It would be churlish to criticise any of David's comments on a case different from that which Ian and I were discussing. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 15 03:09:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:09:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <000601c36282$53a3a550$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.1.6.0.20030814205821.01b6a348@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <01f901c362d2$590bb6e0$5e9468d5@default> [David J Grabiner] Goren's bridge books say that the bid promises a singleton or void, so it isn't an absurd agreement. [Nigel] After I read my earlier mail about veriiest tyros and so on, I realised that my Outlook Express is infected by the dreaded dal.BURN virus that laces emails with contentious put-downs. Oops there it goes again. Sorry. I am glad I've stuck with Culbertson. (: Some old books advocate Ace from AK, even against slams :) From richard_willey@symantec.com Thu Aug 14 19:00:00 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:00:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] The whole whole S*P*A*M issue Message-ID: Hi All Couple quick comments here from someone who works in the anti-SPAM business. First and foremost, I'd like to thank Henk for the work that he has put in trying to shield this mailing list from SPAM. This is a hard and relatively thankless task and he seems to be doing a good job. Second: There is a great deal of debate in "the industry" regarding where/when SPAM should be filtered. Conceptually, we can compare and contrast two different types of designs: In the first design, responsibility for controlling SPAM rests with the end user. If individuals find SPAM troublesome or burdensome, then they need to take steps to control SPAM by installing "appropriate" technology. There are a wide variety of good third party anti-SPAM applications. Take advantage of this. In the second design, responsibility for controlling SPAM is placed on "infrastructure" providers. In this model, mailing list operators and email service providers manage SPAM centrally. There are advantages and disadvantages to each design. >From my perspective, the first design has two major pluses: (a) A centrally managed solution can not be customized to fit the needs of individual subscribers. This may not be signficant in the case of a mailing list the BLML where there is a farily close consensus regarding the definition of appropriate versus inappropriate traffic, however, this becomes a major issue when service providers such as HOTMAIL start filtering SPAM. False positives - email that is discarded as SPAM which the recipient wanted to receive can be very costly. (b) A distributed solution where responsibility rests with end systems is much more in line with the underlying Internet architecture which is based on a "smart" end nodes connected by a "dumb" network. The major advantage to the the second design is that it dampens SPAM propagation "earlier". End users find SPAM annoying because it clogs their in boxes. However, SPAM also eats up large amounts of system resources. End users never "see" these costs. The earier in the system that SPAM gets discarded, the better. With this said and done, I very much prefer the distributed approach. I have a good set of anti-SPAM filters that not only protects my BLML traffic, but also all of the SPAM that I recieve from a wide variety of tother sources. Personally, I think that this is a much better way to deal with the whole issue. Richard Willey Strategic Marketing Symantec Corporation There are 10 types of people in the world Those who understand binary and those who don't. Office: (408) 517-7740 Interoffice: 6 [408] 7740 Mobile: (408) 410-7112 Email: richard_willey@symantec.com www.symantec.com From Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com Fri Aug 15 08:06:40 2003 From: Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com (Pekka Viitasalo) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:06:40 +0300 Subject: [blml] Tournament format In-Reply-To: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > To the Finns: > I personally think that you should keep your barometer. An important re= ason is=20 > that the players find it very fair if alla play all. I was actually trying to fish out this kind of comments but I wanted to s= tart with an unbiased query just stating the facts. I rephrase (biased): Is there any sense in changing the tournament format from a barometer with complete Howell to Swiss? The number of finalists is regulated by a qualification stage. piv --=20 http://staff.atbusiness.com/staff/piv "For all resources, whatever it is, you need more." - RFC1925 From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 15 08:53:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:53:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format In-Reply-To: <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <000201c36302$5f4556d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Pekka Viitasalo > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > > To the Finns: > > I personally think that you should keep your barometer.=20 > > An important reason is that the players find it very=20 > > fair if alla play all. >=20 > I was actually trying to fish out this kind of comments=20 > but I wanted to start with an unbiased query just stating=20 > the facts. >=20 > I rephrase (biased): >=20 > Is there any sense in changing the tournament format from=20 > a barometer with complete Howell to Swiss? The number of=20 > finalists is regulated by a qualification stage. >=20 > piv I shall answer that question by simply informing you that until 1999 we = had our finals with 72 pairs playing 142 boards through 71 rounds barometer. >From 2000 we have 82 pairs in the final where they play 162 boards = through 81 rounds barometer.=20 The question on changing the format of the finals was to my knowledge = never even considered. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 15 09:04:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournament format References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> [Pekka Viitasalo] Is there any sense in changing the tournament format from a barometer with complete Howell to Swiss? The number of finalists is regulated by a qualification stage. [Nigel] Intuitively, from experience of events like Brighton and the National Pairs, I feel that a delayed Swiss of 10 rounds of 12 boards (say) with the first two rounds crudely seeded (good v bad), will produce a "better" result than a Howell. IMO, it is better to VP each match, with a lopsided scale. Pair matching using "current" rank is even better in the last few rounds. By "better", I mean that over a comparable number of boards, the resulting order will better correlate with the order of merit (as ranked by "God"). There is no need to speculate on the relative merits of the different formats, however, because somebody who is good at sums can perform a mathematical analysis. Failing that, you can write a simulation program. I bet this study has already been done somewhere but I'll try to write a program myself, as soon as I can get my proper computer mended (it has Java on it). Frances Hinden and others have shown that ranking in games need not be transitive but, IMO, transitivity is a valid simplifying assumption. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Aug 14 13:00:25 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:00:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] carryover calculations References: <000a01c360d8$2bde57a0$374e28c4@john> Message-ID: <002001c3625b$bd4b23b0$0480b6d4@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C3626C.68D3B200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not sure whether this has been changed and if so why. But I could = find good reasons for it.=20 It seems strange and even wrong to use a carry over at all when the = format is changed as we do in our championships. The carry over is from = a RR into a K.O event And the strategy to qualify for a K.O when playing a RR is not the same, = or is not necessarily the same, as the one to win a match against one = opponent. Playing in a tiresome RR in an Olympiad with 9 days of 64 = boards needs to be done by three pairs and I know captains who don't = care who the opponent is, they just use a fixed roster. We have clear = examles of teams doing very well with two pairs for 4 or five days and = then collapsing. As we have clear examples of teams who even get through = the RR with two pairs and play quite tired bridge in the K.O.=20 But then we have the problem of giving away matches when a team is = already qualified and thinks that loosing is a better strategy than = winning. We have some remarkable examples.That is a reason to maintain a = carry-over. If you are right and the amount of carry over is lower now = than it was before this ambivalent position might be the explanation. = And for PR reasons it is not very attractive to start a match with a big = difference, which also could be a reason.=20 ton Just a question of carryover calculation. Over the years, it has changed to a maximum of 'X' imps. What is that based on, or how is that calculated? Many thanks to those who can shed some light on this for me. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C3626C.68D3B200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not sure whether this has been = changed and if=20 so why. But I could find good reasons for it.
It seems strange and even wrong to use = a carry over=20 at all when the format is changed as we do in our championships. The = carry over=20 is from a RR into a K.O event
And the strategy to qualify for a K.O = when playing=20 a RR is not the same, or is not necessarily the same, as the one to win = a match=20 against one opponent. Playing in a tiresome RR in an Olympiad with 9 = days of 64=20 boards needs to be done by three pairs and I know captains who don't = care who=20 the opponent is, they just use a fixed roster. We have clear examles of = teams=20 doing very well with two pairs for 4 or five days and then collapsing. = As we=20 have clear examples of teams who even get through the RR with two pairs = and=20 play quite tired bridge in the K.O.
But then we have the problem of giving = away matches=20 when a team is already qualified and thinks that loosing is a better = strategy=20 than winning. We have some remarkable examples.That is a reason to = maintain a=20 carry-over. If you are right and the amount of carry over is lower now = than it=20 was before this ambivalent position might be the explanation. And for PR = reasons=20 it is not very attractive to start a match with a big difference, which = also=20 could be a reason.
ton
Just a question of carryover calculation.
Over the years, it has changed to a maximum of 'X' imps.
What is that based on, or how is that calculated?
 
Many thanks to those who can shed some light on this for = me.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C3626C.68D3B200-- From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 15 09:56:44 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:56:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format In-Reply-To: <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Frances Hinden and others have shown that ranking > in games need not be transitive but, IMO, > transitivity is a valid simplifying assumption. > I think that this is a wrong description of a (perhaps) correct statement. Ranking in itself is transitive. If we say that Kim Clijsters is a better tennis player than Serena Williams (the WPA ranking shows it) and Serena is better than Justine Henin-Hardenne, then obviously Kim is also better than Justine. That is not the same than saying that Kim will beat Serena more often than not, but that is just a consequence of ranking. Where the non-transitivity comes in is when we say that Kim will beat Serena, and Serena will beat Justine, but Justine would beat Kim (quite a true state of affairs IMO at the moment). > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Aug 15 10:45:40 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:45:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <000601c36282$53a3a550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3B660112-CF05-11D7-BA77-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > On the other hand if he asks specifically something like "what is the > strength shown by the 4H bid?" he has no claim for not being told that > the > bid promised for instance 4 hearts and a singleton or 5 hearts and a > void. He does in the ACBL. From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 15 10:56:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:56:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <3B660112-CF05-11D7-BA77-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c36313$740d4120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On the other hand if he asks specifically something like "what is the > > strength shown by the 4H bid?" he has no claim for not being told that > > the > > bid promised for instance 4 hearts and a singleton or 5 hearts and a > > void. > > He does in the ACBL. To quote from a popular song in Norway: "I asked for a slice, not the whole bread" Regards Sven From henk@ripe.net Fri Aug 15 12:10:07 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:10:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 with north to lead: -- -- -- Q J 2 -- K 8 K 8 7 -- -- K -- -- J 6 -- 3 Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with the jack (!), west overruffs. Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 Director! How many tricks to NS and EW? 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 Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com Fri Aug 15 12:12:44 2003 From: Pekka.Viitasalo@AtBusiness.Com (Pekka Viitasalo) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:12:44 +0300 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) In-Reply-To: <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> Herman De Wael wrote: > Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> Frances Hinden and others have shown that ranking in games need not be >> transitive but, IMO, transitivity is a valid simplifying assumption. > > I think that this is a wrong description of a (perhaps) correct statement. > > Ranking in itself is transitive. IMO, it is not. Example: Anna always beats Betty, Betty always beats Cecilia ... Ylva always beats Zandra. Zanra loses to Ylva, Xantippa, Wilma ... Cecilia and Betty. Anna always beats Cecilia, Desiree, Eva ... and Ylva. Anna always loses to Zandra. Why and how? Anna cannot return supersonic serves. All others can. Zandra is the only one with 100% accurate supersonic serve. Zandra can return one serve in fifty. In all other situation Zandra loses. Concequence: Zandra loses 0-2 (0-6,0-6) to all other players but wins Anna 2-0 (7-6,7-6). It sounds very wierd to state that Anna is better than Zandra when Zandra beats Anna every time they meet. (This an extreme example of Rock, Paper and Scissors) br, piv -- http://staff.atbusiness.com/staff/piv "For all resources, whatever it is, you need more." - RFC1925 From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Fri Aug 15 12:21:40 2003 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:21:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: 1 trick to EW; zero to NS.=20 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) [mailto:henk@ripe.net] Verzonden: vrijdag 15 augustus 2003 13:10 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: [blml] 2 revokes. West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 wit= h north to lead: -- -- -- Q J 2 -- K 8 K 8 7 -- -- K -- -- J 6 -- 3 Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with the jack (!), west overruffs. Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 Director! How many tricks to NS and EW? Henk -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.n= et RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home= /henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC= ) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________________= ___ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may cont= ain=20 confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication= =20 unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does no= t =20 guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does = not=20 accept any liability for damages related thereto. = =20 _________________________________________________________________________= ___ From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Aug 15 12:33:37 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:33:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404663F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Great hand! South revoked and won neither the revoke trick or any subsequent tricks: no tricks transferred. West revoked and won the revoke trick and subsequent tricks: two tricks transferred. L64 does not allow for transferred tricks to be retransferred if both sides revokes. L64 does allow for equity if non-offending side are insufficiently compensated, but there is no NOS. NS: 2 tricks, EW: 1 trick. Robin P.S. (in response to a later post) The number of tricks must total three, as L64 only transfers tricks - not creates nor destroys them. -----Original Message----- From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) [mailto:henk@ripe.net] Sent: 15 August 2003 12:10 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 with north to lead: -- -- -- Q J 2 -- K 8 K 8 7 -- -- K -- -- J 6 -- 3 Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with the jack (!), west overruffs. Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 Director! How many tricks to NS and EW? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 15 12:48:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:48:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c36323$169d5240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 = with > north to lead: >=20 > -- > -- > -- > Q J 2 > -- K 8 > K 8 7 > -- -- > K -- > -- > J 6 > -- > 3 >=20 > Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with = the > jack (!), west overruffs. > Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 > Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 >=20 > Director! >=20 > How many tricks to NS and EW? I suppose trick 10 is a misprint for trick 11? This is an interesting case which demonstrates the need for some new = laws on how to handle multiple irregularities. Strictly according to the current laws, ignoring for a moment Law 64C: 1 trick to EW and 2 tricks to NS. There is no penalty for the revoke by South because NS did not win any = of the remaining tricks. There is a two-trick penalty for the revoke by = West because he won both the revoke trick and also a later trick with his KC. However, I should probably apply Law 64C on the revoke by South because = the revoke by West would not have occurred had South not revoked first. Thus West is in a rather curious way "damaged" by South's revoke, and I end = up with: 2 tricks to EW and 1 trick to NS. Further knowledge on the circumstances might influence my decision. I should add that had West used the 7H in dummy on the club return from North he would have received all the remaining 3 tricks, at least as a double-dummy "problem". Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 15 12:50:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:50:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404663F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000901c36323$708cd9b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker ...... > L64 does allow for equity if non-offending side are > insufficiently compensated, but there is no NOS. Sure there is. As long as you treat the two revokes as separate irregularities EW is NOS on the first and NS is NOS on the second!. Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 15 13:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404663F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Robin Wrote: > Great hand! > > South revoked and won neither the revoke trick or > any subsequent tricks: no tricks transferred. > > West revoked and won the revoke trick and subsequent > tricks: two tricks transferred. > > L64 does not allow for transferred tricks to be > retransferred if both sides revokes. > > L64 does allow for equity if non-offending side are > insufficiently compensated, but there is no NOS. > > NS: 2 tricks, EW: 1 trick. South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this might tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. Was East asleep at trick 11? > West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 > with > north to lead: > > -- > -- > -- > Q J 2 > -- K 8 > K 8 7 > -- -- > K -- > -- > J 6 > -- > 3 > > Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with > the > jack (!), west overruffs. > Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 > Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 > > Director! > > How many tricks to NS and EW? From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Aug 15 13:35:16 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:35:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046640@hotel.npl.co.uk> I disagree, South knows that the likely result of revoking is the West will follow suit and that his one and only trump trick will be transfered. South does not know that revoking is likely to damage the opponents. The best that is likely happen is that revoke goes unnoticed and he makes his one trick. Robin -----Original Message----- From: twm@cix.co.uk [mailto:twm@cix.co.uk] Sent: 15 August 2003 13:19 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes. Robin Wrote: > Great hand! > > South revoked and won neither the revoke trick or > any subsequent tricks: no tricks transferred. > > West revoked and won the revoke trick and subsequent > tricks: two tricks transferred. > > L64 does not allow for transferred tricks to be > retransferred if both sides revokes. > > L64 does allow for equity if non-offending side are > insufficiently compensated, but there is no NOS. > > NS: 2 tricks, EW: 1 trick. South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this might tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. Was East asleep at trick 11? > West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 > with > north to lead: > > -- > -- > -- > Q J 2 > -- K 8 > K 8 7 > -- -- > K -- > -- > J 6 > -- > 3 > > Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with > the > jack (!), west overruffs. > Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 > Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 > > Director! > > How many tricks to NS and EW? _______________________________________________ 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Aug 15 13:35:24 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:35:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: Message-ID: <003d01c36329$b36426c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this might > tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by > trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. What do you mean, "nothing to lose"? If South follows suit, he makes one trick in the end position shown; if he revokes and West follows suit, South makes no tricks (since the trick he does make is transferred). David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 15 14:13:09 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:13:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) In-Reply-To: <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <3F3CDC65.4070000@hdw.be> Yes Pekka, I do understand this: Pekka Viitasalo wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> Frances Hinden and others have shown that ranking in games need not >>> be transitive but, IMO, transitivity is a valid simplifying assumption. >> >> >> I think that this is a wrong description of a (perhaps) correct >> statement. >> >> Ranking in itself is transitive. > > > IMO, it is not. Example: > Anna always beats Betty, Betty always beats Cecilia ... Ylva always > beats Zandra. > Zanra loses to Ylva, Xantippa, Wilma ... Cecilia and Betty. > Anna always beats Cecilia, Desiree, Eva ... and Ylva. > Anna always loses to Zandra. Why and how? > Anna cannot return supersonic serves. All others can. Zandra is the > only one with 100% accurate supersonic serve. Zandra can return one > serve in fifty. In all other situation Zandra loses. Concequence: > Zandra loses 0-2 (0-6,0-6) to all other players but wins Anna 2-0 > (7-6,7-6). > > It sounds very wierd to state that Anna is better than Zandra when > Zandra beats Anna every time they meet. > While at the same time it seems weird to state the reverse when Anna wins 24 out of 25, and Zandra only one. > (This an extreme example of Rock, Paper and Scissors) > The point is that when you make a single ranking, then the conclusion is that the ranking determines who is better. It does not mean that the better player will always beat the weaker one. Or even on the majority of cases. To return to my example. The WTA has stated that they believe Kim to be a better player at the moment than Serena. They have not said they think Kim will beat Serena (in fact they go a long way towards saying that they have doctored the rankings so as to get players like the Williamses to play more tournaments). > br, > piv > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 15 14:17:01 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:17:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F3CDD4D.6030702@hdw.be> I have actually had this case once. and put it on blml at the time - look up Kalmthout or Varkenstornooi (the total prizes was one pig). Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > West declarers a heart partial, and this is the situation at trick 10 with > north to lead: > > -- > -- > -- > Q J 2 > -- K 8 > K 8 7 > -- -- > K -- > -- > J 6 > -- > 3 > > Trick 11: North leads the CQ, east discards a spade, south ruffs with the > jack (!), west overruffs. > Trick 12: H8, C2, H7, H6 > Trick 13: CK, CJ, SK, C3 > > Director! > > How many tricks to NS and EW? > South's revoke would have been a two trick one, so he should get no tricks. West's revoke is a two trick one, so South should get two tricks. I decided that the trick transferred is also a trick won, so I ruled that the final trick was being transferred over and again and gave a L64C ruling. In this case one trick to NS. But the Laws do not deal with this one completely. > Henk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Aug 15 14:57:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:57:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> Message-ID: <005901c36335$1c5a43c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Pekka wrote: > Ranking in itself is transitive. > IMO, it is not. The mathematicians can put this better than I, but for anything to be "transitive", it must be a relationship, like "greater than" or "equal to". The relationship "always beats" is not transitive; it is possible that, for example, A always beats B at tennis, B always beats C, but A does not always beat (and may indeed always lose to) C. But if a ranking list has been compiled, the relationship "outranks" is transitive; if A outranks B and B outranks C, then A always outranks C. The compilation of such a ranking list will be based on all matches between A, B, C and the rest of the alphabet. But the ranking list cannot predict what will happen in a match between any two players. If it could, the betting industry would disappear overnight. Not that any of this matters. As I have said many times, it does not make much, or any, difference what seeding methods you use for tournaments or what scoring methods you use. Those who play with the most effective combination of skill and luck on the day will win; those who do not will lose; and neither of those factors is a function of what the organisers do. David Burn London, England From henk@ripe.net Fri Aug 15 17:02:35 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:02:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <000801c36323$169d5240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > However, I should probably apply Law 64C on the revoke by South because the > revoke by West would not have occurred had South not revoked first. Thus > West is in a rather curious way "damaged" by South's revoke, and I end up > with: Why? West doesn't know that south revokes, I don't revoke anytime my RHO ruffs a trick... > 2 tricks to EW and 1 trick to NS. > > Further knowledge on the circumstances might influence my decision. The problem was mailed to me as "pair game, none of the players probably had a full count of the hand when this incident occured". 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 henk@ripe.net Fri Aug 15 17:05:10 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:05:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Tim West-Meads wrote: > South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this might > tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by > trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. I think this is a bit far-fetched. If south followed suit, he'd win a trick. If south revokes and west doesn't (as is usual), he won't. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 15 17:07:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:07:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] The whole whole S*P*A*M issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030815115527.021d30e0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:00 PM 8/14/03, Richard wrote: >Couple quick comments here from someone who works in the anti-SPAM >business. [snip] >With this said and done, I very much prefer the distributed approach. I >have a good set of anti-SPAM filters that not only protects my BLML >traffic, but also all of the SPAM that I recieve from a wide variety of >tother sources. Personally, I think that this is a much better way to >deal with the whole issue. I think Richard, who works at the heart of the anti-sp*m industry and knows more about this stuff than any of us, is severely underestimating the difficulty mere mortals have with individual mail filtering at the client. I am not entirely unsophisticated in these matters, working in the software industry and using e-mail very heavily. I have very good client-level anti-sp*m filtering software. I have about 300 rules in my rule base, which I find myself enhancing almost daily. I get about 60-80 sp*ams a day, and the software catches at least 90% of them. 1 or 2 messages a week that I would like to see get filtered out, requiring me to read through page after page of headers to find them before I trash the bulk of what's been shunted to my "sp*m box". It works, but not as well as I would like, and it's a major pain in the *rse. *Anything* that anyone does to keep the sp*m from reaching my computer in the first place is hugely appreciated. If a couple of useful messages get filtered out upstream, that's not too heavy a price to pay -- my serious correspondents will get notices that their messages didn't get through, and they have telephones. I am deeply grateful to Henk for his efforts in minimizing the sp*m that reaches me through BLML. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Aug 15 17:19:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:19:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: Message-ID: <00a501c36349$0a54d500$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Henk wrote: > > South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this might > > tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by > > trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. Apart from the misanalysis involved, this is simply wrong thinking. There is no reason to do other than apply the laws relating to revokes. On this occasion, South's revoke gained his side no trick, nor would it have done if West had followed suit - there is no reason for any transfer from NS to EW. West's revoke gained his side a trick, and that trick, together with the one-trick penalty for revoking regardless of gain, should be transferred from EW to NS. Hence, NS get two tricks, EW get one. The provision in L64 for restoration of "equity" applies only when a two-trick penalty under the rest of the revoke laws is inadequate, because the revoke gains more than two tricks. Like all "equitable" rules, it is a stupid one, because it does not penalise a revoke that is "worse" than other revokes. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 15 17:46:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:46:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <017b01c362bf$f32268e0$5e9468d5@default> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c36255$bcfdd5c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <003b01c362b9$949d1460$e83087d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030815122540.021d5680@pop.starpower.net> At 07:58 PM 8/14/03, Nigel wrote: >I think "optional announcement" [or my equivalent >"explain card"] removes most of the auction UI >problems at a stroke, with drastic simplification >of the rules and a faster more pleasant game. > >You have to explain partner's calls whenever either >opponent has an explain card faced. You waste >no time with alerting or waiting to be asked. > >If neither opponent has an explain card faced, the >auction proceeds even more rapidly. But then, >unfortunately, at the end of the auction, you have >to explain your partner's calls. Interesting. How do you avoid the obvious: A faced "explain card" meaning "I might consider entering their auction", an unfaced one meaning "I have no interest"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From rwilley@mit.edu Fri Aug 15 18:14:09 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:14:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] The whole whole S*P*A*M issue Message-ID: <1060967649.3f3d14e11e282@webmail.mit.edu> Hi all I've gotten a number of private questions about anti-SPAM technologies. I apologize if this is off topic, however, I am going to SPAM the group with a quick mail message and then let the conversation return to more enjoyable topics. First, for anyone who doesn't want to wade through a lot of information: Check out the following web site: http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/index.html SPAMBayes has developed an open source heuristic spam classifier that is available as a plug-in for MS Outlook2000 and OutlookXP The code is free. The reviews are positive. You'll need to do a bit of work "training" the system, however, this is a fancy way of saying that the program needs to learn what types of email you like compared to those that you consider SPAM. [Please note: I'm not affiliated with this group in any way. Sadly, I can't provide any real techsupport] For anyone interested in learning what an "open source heuristic spam classifier " is, read on: There are a number of different techniques that can be used to control SPAM. Here is a quick list of some of the some signficant. A Blacklist solution allows users to block a set of specific source addresses. Any message that originates from a host on the blacklist is blocked. Blacklist solutions are easily circumvented by randomizing the source address. A Whitelist solution defines a list of trusted source addresses. Anyone not on the white list is automaticaaly blocked. Whitelist solutions run into problems because unknown third parties are unable to contact you, defeating one of the major reasons for email. "Signature" based solutions maintain an archive of SPAM messages. This archive is shared with subscribers. Any email that matches a known SPAM is discarded. Signature based solutions are easily circumvented by "polymorphic" SPAM. [The sender randomizes parts of the message to circumvent the signature] Rules based systems allow end users to define sets of rules to differentiate between SPAM and "HAM" [Ham is good email]. Rules based systems require extensive manual intervention to tool the system, however, they can be quite accurate. {BTW, Eric, if you are using a rules based system, the single most useful rule that you want to configure is to do a DNS lookup message on the source IP address for the MTA that originated the mail message. Something like 65% of all SPAM is now coming from PCs infected with the "sobig" virus. Network administrators finally manged to crack down on the open SPAM relays, which has forced the SPAMs to create viruses to originate their SPAM. Most PCs have dynamically defined IP addresses and can't be identified using a DNS lookup. Of course, this can cause problems in some unusual cases] So-called heuristic analysis systems are based on statistical inference. The end user sorts a "corpus" of email into SPAM and HAM. The program then identifies a set of tokens that can be used to differentiate between the two sets of email and automatically applies these to future messages. Heuristic analysis systems are also referred to as "Baysian" filters. However, these systems can be implemented using a wide variety of methods ranging from Chi- Squared tests to neural networks. Finally, we have Challenge - Response based systems. This type of solution is currently "hot". End users maintain a whitelist. Any time that an email is recieved from a site that is not on the whitelsit it automatically triggers a challenge. Your mail system fires off a response that [basically] say I suspect that you are are sending SPAM. If you aren't sending SPAM, then go to the following web site and do XYZ. [Alternatively, reply to this email and make the following edits ...] Once the sended has replied correctly to the challenge he automatically gets added to the whitelist. Challenge - Response has some nice features, but it causes severe problems for any computer program, such as the one that sends you confirmation information from Amazon.com, the Internal Revenue Service, .... As an interesting note, pairs of Challenge - Response systems often deadlock in a "loop" in which each program tries to force the other to prove that its human. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 15 18:25:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:25:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404663F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030815131758.021db4e0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:19 AM 8/15/03, twm wrote: >South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this might >tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by >trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. That sounds absurd to me. Do we really believe that a player who revokes "could have known" that doing so would induce his LHO to revoke? Might as well argue that a player who sneezed could have known that doing so would induce his LHO to revoke. If we accept this, we will find ourselves applying L73F2 to everything that happens at the table other than totally robotic formally proper calls and plays. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Aug 15 18:35:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:35:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <005801c3604b$8c6d68a0$06e67f50@Default> <001c01c36058$31d7f150$071ce150@endicott> <000701c3605b$93502760$37db8051@pbncomputer> <00a301c36078$9f6bf3e0$799c68d5@default> <001b01c360ed$6fae10a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005201c3611a$d093d8a0$c9e77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000b01c36353$a12667f0$1727e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Marvin French" ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > > In Europe we tend to use C3 rather than C2. > For me this has nothing to with equity. > > +=+ We do have a problem with 'equity', a word very little used in the laws. What we are seeking is removal through score adjustment of the effects of the irregularity, restoration of the balance between the sides as it was before the problem was created. In redressing the damage, as is the objective of the laws, we delete the infraction and all that happened in consequence of it, and assess the probable outcome between the two sides in a trouble free environment from the position immediately before the game was disrupted. In a sterile laboratory this is a 'pure' solution, but we all recognize that we have to do the best we can, flawed human creatures that we are, and we seek to err if at all on the side of the good guys; 12C3 gives us flexibility to do what we believe fairest. Score adjustment has nothing to do with punishment; this is a Law 90 matter and an issue to be addressed separately.. In EBL tournaments we have sought to maintain the distinction and the objective when adjusting is to settle on the fairest table score we can, continuing what has been our practice from the mists of time. Although not the prime intention this may well also give a fairer comparison across the field. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Aug 15 18:51:13 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:51:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c36255$bcfdd5c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <003b01c362b9$949d1460$e83087d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20030815122540.021d5680@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > At 07:58 PM 8/14/03, Nigel wrote: > > >I think "optional announcement" [or my equivalent > >"explain card"] removes most of the auction UI > >problems at a stroke, with drastic simplification > >of the rules and a faster more pleasant game. > > > >You have to explain partner's calls whenever either > >opponent has an explain card faced. You waste > >no time with alerting or waiting to be asked. > > > >If neither opponent has an explain card faced, the > >auction proceeds even more rapidly. But then, > >unfortunately, at the end of the auction, you have > >to explain your partner's calls. Eric Landau wrote: > Interesting. How do you avoid the obvious: A faced "explain card" > meaning "I might consider entering their auction", an unfaced one > meaning "I have no interest"? > IMO we definitely do NOT need another piece of paper at the table, to be handled, to be cluttering the space, to be remembered to display or hide, nor to deal with the UI implications what Eric just wrote about plus stuff related to it. Kaima D Raija Davis From adam@irvine.com Fri Aug 15 19:07:38 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:07:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:56:09 +0200." <000501c36313$740d4120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200308151807.LAA25584@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Ed Reppert > > On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > On the other hand if he asks specifically something like "what is the > > > strength shown by the 4H bid?" he has no claim for not being told that > > > the > > > bid promised for instance 4 hearts and a singleton or 5 hearts and a > > > void. > > > > He does in the ACBL. > > To quote from a popular song in Norway: > > "I asked for a slice, not the whole bread" Here's the relevant ACBL regulation, from http://66.147.103.154/html/general1.html : All players have an obligation to disclose their agreements according to the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, a full explanation of the agreement must be provided. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosures should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for information is "Please Explain". Sven thinks that a "general question on the auction", as opposed to a specific question, should be a trigger here, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the above. One sentence in the above text is, "The opponents need not ask exactly the 'right' question"; because of the presence of the word "exactly", this paragraph does not, to me, imply that *every* question should require the askee to explain everything. On the other hand, it does say "any request for information should be the trigger", perhaps leading to the interpretation that any question about the auction, no matter how specific, should cause the askee to give all relevant disclosures. I think common sense needs to be applied. The purpose of this regulation is to protect less-experienced players who may not know just how to ask; or who, say, may have never encountered a particular variation of an agreement and thus may be inclined to make some assumptions about what's going on. So when answering a question, a player needs to keep in mind that his opponent may be too inexperienced, or too unfamiliar with the nuances of your system, to ask the right question. On the other hand, it's common courtesy (except, apparently, within marriages (at least within mine ;-) )) to answer the question you've been asked, and not a totally different one. If player A asks a specific question, and player B does what most of humanity considers the courteous thing and answers the specific question, and then player A tries to get a score adjustment on the grounds that player B didn't provide the right information, we need to consider the possibility that player A was at fault for putting player B in this position---a form of "entrapment", perhaps. This is especially the case if player A is experienced. Bottom line: if you want the opponents to give you any information that they think might be relevant, don't ask for specific information. In Sven's hypothetical case, if one player asked "what is the strength shown by the 4H bid", and the other player answered without including relevant information about trump length, I think we'd have to be at the table and have some idea about the persons involved in order to rule. If it's reasonable to suppose that the asker is a novice who doesn't know how to ask properly, we might assume that his question should have been interpreted as a request for general information. In other cases, though, we might not, and instead rule that the askee did nothing wrong and hence there was no MI. Just my opinion---I'm not a director. -- Adam From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 15 08:43:07 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:43:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <000601c36282$53a3a550$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.1.6.0.20030814205821.01b6a348@mail.vzavenue.net> <01f901c362d2$590bb6e0$5e9468d5@default> Message-ID: <000901c36358$fe403b00$c07087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > (: Some old books advocate Ace from AK, > even against slams :) > +=+ I once failed to cash AK against Harold Franklin to let a slam home. Flat board of course, he had a (more renowned) idiot player in the other room also. This was in the days when people used to bid what they thought they could make. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 15 09:08:07 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:08:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> <000701c362b5$b2964120$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000a01c36358$ff220f80$c07087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > Of course, but if you play these methods, you > should always ask after 1S-4C whatever your > hand, in order to avoid ever transmitting UI. > +=+ "What never? No never! What NEVER? Hardly ever!" It is a popular fallacy that always to ask in a given situation removes the possibility of UI. It would be so technically if we could always ask with the same degree of disinterest and without tonal variations or mannerisms, absent the sixth sense that an intimate partner develops, and asking *always* without default. Since (most) players are human it is a fact of life that, despite all endeavour, a question asked may generate UI. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 15 20:55:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c36367$2d877820$6900a8c0@WINXP> Henk=20 ......... > > However, I should probably apply Law 64C on the revoke by South = because > the > > revoke by West would not have occurred had South not revoked first. = Thus > > West is in a rather curious way "damaged" by South's revoke, and I = end > up > > with: >=20 > Why? West doesn't know that south revokes, I don't revoke anytime my = RHO > ruffs a trick... West obviously didn't know that South revoked, had he known, and been = awake, he would certainly not have complicated the issue by revoking himself - = he would just secured all the remaining tricks due to the revoke. But how often do we not see a player "automatically" over-ruffing an unexpected ruff or "following suit" to the last previous discard rather = than to the suit led (absent-mindedly)? I maintain that West most probably, next to absolute certainty would not have revoked had South followed suit and therefore was influenced by the revoke to revoke himself. That is why I consider the revoke by West to = be consequential to the revoke by South, and as such damage to West caused = by South's revoke. And just to make that clear: I lean upon Law 64C, I do not consider Law = 72B1 ("South could have known") relevant in this case. But as I also said in my comment: This is a good example for the need of laws on how to handle multiple irregularities. >=20 >=20 > > 2 tricks to EW and 1 trick to NS. > > > > Further knowledge on the circumstances might influence my decision. >=20 > The problem was mailed to me as "pair game, none of the players = probably > had a full count of the hand when this incident occured". I do not see how this can have any relevance? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 15 21:08:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:08:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <00a501c36349$0a54d500$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000101c36369$10bdb590$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn .......... > Apart from the misanalysis involved, this is simply wrong thinking. > There is no reason to do other than apply the laws relating to = revokes. > On this occasion, South's revoke gained his side no trick, nor would = it > have done if West had followed suit - there is no reason for any > transfer from NS to EW. If West had followed suit South would have won the revoke trick which subsequently would have been transferred from NS to EW. EW would have = won the last two tricks so with only the revoke by South EW would have won = all three remaining tricks - end of story. > West's revoke gained his side a trick, and that > trick, together with the one-trick penalty for revoking regardless of > gain, should be transferred from EW to NS. Hence, NS get two tricks, = EW > get one. According to your wording you must have mistaken the two-trick revoke = rule, but I am not convinced that you really mean what you wrote. However, = strict application of Law64 excluding Law64C as not applicable would indeed = result in two tricks for NS and one for EW. >=20 > The provision in L64 for restoration of "equity" applies only when a > two-trick penalty under the rest of the revoke laws is inadequate, > because the revoke gains more than two tricks. This is nonsense. Law 64C applies whether the revoke penalty is zero, = one or two tricks if the director finds that NOS is insufficiently compensated. Please read Law 64C again carefully! > Like all "equitable" > rules, it is a stupid one, because it does not penalise a revoke that = is > "worse" than other revokes. How? Regards Sven=20 From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Fri Aug 15 21:39:11 2003 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 15 Aug 2003 21:39:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: "grandeval"'s message of "Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:08:07 +0100" References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> <000701c362b5$b2964120$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <000a01c36358$ff220f80$c07087d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: "grandeval" writes: > Grattan Endicott =============================== > "Though 'Bother it' I may > Occasionally say, > I never use a big, big D." > - HMS Pinafore, Act 1. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; > "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:45 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > > > > > Of course, but if you play these methods, you > > should always ask after 1S-4C whatever your > > hand, in order to avoid ever transmitting UI. > > > +=+ > "What never? > No never! > What NEVER? > Hardly ever!" > It is a popular fallacy that > always to ask in a given situation removes > the possibility of UI. It would be so technically > if we could always ask with the same degree > of disinterest and without tonal variations or > mannerisms, absent the sixth sense that > an intimate partner develops, and asking > *always* without default. > Since (most) players are human > it is a fact of life that, despite all endeavour, > a question asked may generate UI. > ~ G ~ +=+ It *may*, of course. But since the alternative is *always* to generate UI (albeit often harmless) ... Actually, I suspect you overestimate how difficult it is to ask in such situations without generating UI. A visitor from the US played frequently in my club (in Bristol, England) one summer a few years ago. Almost every time (or maybe *every* time, I don't remember) his RHO made a bid that was alerted, he asked "Yes, please?", and I got the impression that he asked before he even turned his mind to the question of what his call would be. I couldn't deduce anything from his questions, and I seriously doubt whether his intimate partner (his wife) could either. His questions seemed to be a reflex action in response to an alert, and I suspect that if somebody had told him that asking questions when you didn't immediately need to know the answer was frowned on in England (I don't know if anybody did) then he would have found it quite difficult to reform. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Aug 15 22:03:53 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:03:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] carryover calculations References: <000a01c360d8$2bde57a0$374e28c4@john> <002001c3625b$bd4b23b0$0480b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <002301c36370$bd8c95a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ton Kooijman" >It seems strange and even wrong to use a carry over at all when the format is changed as we do in our championships. The carry over is from a RR into a K.O event In oujr big NABC+ pair events, two fields vie for qualification. Although there is a small mixing of the two fields on the second of two qualifying days, and some pairs have to play N-S all the time, in the main each field has played the same hands, has met the same opponents (the other field, or a subset of it), and has compared only within the field (or a subset of it). They have thus played two different games, which is recognized by qualifying pairs separately from each field at the end of each qualifying day. You can qualify in your field with a score lower than some non-qualifiers in the other field. Carry over from the first day of quals to the second day of quals is appropriate, since your competition for qualifying have been in the same game as you. In the finals, the qualifying pairs are completely mixed, without regard to the field they came from. This means that pairs who have played different hands, have faced different opponents, and have compared only within their field, are carrying over scores from two different games. This is wrong. Instead, pairs should have their qualification accomplishments recognized by giving them matchpoints based on their rank in the quals, not their scores. (Thanks to John Probst for planting this idea in my head.) The principle of giving finalists a head start based on ranking in the preliminaries is well-established, not only in many sports and games, but in bridge ("seeding rights"). There is pole position in auto races, seeding in tennis, lane position in track, home field advantage in baseball/football/basketball, and so on. Hardly anyone carries over "points" from the qualification process. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Aug 15 22:31:47 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:31:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> <005901c36335$1c5a43c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002a01c36374$a2daa4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Burn" < > As I have said many times, it does not > make much, or any, difference what seeding methods you use for > tournaments or what scoring methods you use. Those who play with the > most effective combination of skill and luck on the day will win; those > who do not will lose; and neither of those factors is a function of what > the organisers do. > Those who have lost by a small margin in a Butler-scored game, when they would have won had the superior X-IMP method been used, might disagree. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 15 23:17:07 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:17:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34DCB08A-CF6E-11D7-8D24-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 16:39 US/Eastern, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > His questions seemed to be a reflex action in response to an alert, and > I suspect that if somebody had told him that asking questions when you > didn't immediately need to know the answer was frowned on in England > (I don't know if anybody did) then he would have found it quite > difficult to > reform. It's not just our common language that separates us. :-) I got back into bridge after a 25 year hiatus, and into duplicate, on an exchange tour with the RN 1990-93. I did play duplicate once or twice in college years ago, but I don't remember details. In particular I don't remember alerts at all. So I guess I picked up the EBU approach. Now, playing in the ACBL, there are several things that are done differently here; most of them give me pause, and a couple I wish were done the EBU way (the requirement to read opponents' convention card before the start of a round in particular). From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 16 00:10:12 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:10:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: Message-ID: <000601c36382$a6bedb50$9248e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > > Of course this leads to the question of what > questions opponents need ask in given > circumstances. At one extreme, if a bid is > properly alerted, and the opponents don't > ask at all, and the bid turns out to be something > weird, no one will protect the non-askers. But > what if the opponents ask and get a partial > answer? Are they obliged to ask followup > questions to get the further information to > which they are entitled? Some say yes. The > ACBL, FWIW, generally says no. > +=+ The ACBL position is the position in law, Being asked about a call a player is required to volunteer "all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". He does not need to be asked for this - he is required to disclose it of his own accord. [Law 75C]. It does not matter how the question is phrased, the question asks about the significance of the call and the law calls upon him to disclose effectively all that is not a matter of "general knowledge and experience". I would say that 'special information' is information of which the world at large has no assurance from experience of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From toddz@att.net Sat Aug 16 00:33:16 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:33:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) In-Reply-To: <005901c36335$1c5a43c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) > > Not that any of this matters. As I have said many > times, it does not > make much, or any, difference what seeding methods you use for > tournaments or what scoring methods you use. If only because what they do now is reasonable enough. It would be trivial for me to design a movement, seeding, and scoring method that allows me to beat you consistently. It would be transparently and grossly unfair. I see nothing wrong with wanting movements, seeding, and scoring that minimize the effects of incomplete schedules. But I'd also try not to be overly zealous and remember that popularity of a method can outweight a miniscule difference in 'fairness.' (It's hard for me to decide what really is fairest.) > Those who play with the > most effective combination of skill and luck on the day > will win; those > who do not will lose; and neither of those factors is a > function of what the organisers do. Your luck can be realized by the actions of the organizers, but do you really think that the movement, seeding, and scoring method is not a factor of luck itself? Think about the scoring of ecats bridge's World Wide Bridge Contest. Do you believe its rankings more than vaguely represent how well people played on a given day? It's a good example of an event whose popularity greatly exceeds its flaws. -Todd From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Aug 16 08:35:59 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:35:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> <000701c362b5$b2964120$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <000a01c36358$ff220f80$c07087d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001e01c363c9$596e8f20$983787d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Just bad luck? > > > > Actually, I suspect you overestimate how difficult > it is to ask in such situations without generating UI. > A visitor from the US played frequently in my club > (in Bristol, England) one summer a few years ago. > Almost every time (or maybe *every* time, I don't > remember) his RHO made a bid that was alerted, > he asked "Yes, please?", and I got the impression > that he asked before he even turned his mind to the > question of what his call would be. I couldn't deduce > anything from his questions, and I seriously doubt > whether his intimate partner (his wife) could either. . > > Jeremy. > +=+ Two paragons of virtue in partnership, maybe ..... or :-) are you just so dim that you didn't pick up the vibes? Yes, I did not exclude the possibility that UI might not occur, but you wouldn't want an old cynic like me on the AC when you had to justify your case, would you?! ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Aug 16 10:58:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030815131758.021db4e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > At 08:19 AM 8/15/03, twm wrote: > > >South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this > might > >tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to lose by > >trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. > > That sounds absurd to me. Do we really believe that a player who > revokes "could have known" that doing so would induce his LHO to > revoke? In know that revoking in the given scenario increases the chance of opp revoking by a facto of at least 50. They are expecting a club to be played and when they see a heart their brain disconnects and they follow to the Heart rather than the club. Since it is a no lose gamble (one can correct the revoke without penalty if it doesn't work) it is worth trying. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Aug 16 10:58:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <00a501c36349$0a54d500$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > Henk wrote: > > > > South could have known, at the time of his first revoke, that this > > > might tempt West into a similar revoke (he certainly has nothing to > > > lose by trying it on). I think we can adjust to EW 2, NS 1. > > Apart from the misanalysis involved, this is simply wrong thinking. > There is no reason to do other than apply the laws relating to revokes. > On this occasion, South's revoke gained his side no trick, nor would it > have done if West had followed suit - there is no reason for any > transfer from NS to EW. It's quite simple David. If a deliberate revoke induces an "over-revoke" Burn gives the cheat two tricks. If it doesn't the cheat corrects and gets the one trick he was due anyway. Must be worth a try with a naive TD. I thought "could have known" was used for "you are innocent but we must adjust to prevent any thought of malfeasance." Tim From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Sat Aug 16 18:27:58 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:27:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <004101c3641b$bd093e20$e54a65d5@swipnet.se> I do not understand some of the posts. First, South did not revoke on purpose. If he did he should be = disqualified, not judged according to the law. Second, South=B4s revoke costs one trick (not zero, law 64 A 2). = West=B4s revoke costs two tricks (law 64 A 1). So NS get one trick, EW = two tricks. Where is the problem? Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 16 19:35:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:35:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <004101c3641b$bd093e20$e54a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000701c36425$3923c940$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > I do not understand some of the posts. > First, South did not revoke on purpose. If he did he should be > disqualified, not judged according to the law. > Second, South=B4s revoke costs one trick (not zero, law 64 A 2). = West=B4s > revoke costs two tricks (law 64 A 1). So NS get one trick, EW two = tricks. > Where is the problem? The problem is with the calculation of the possible penalty tricks: The revoke by South would have resulted in a one-trick penalty has NS = won at least one of the last three tricks. But because of West's revoke NS did = not win any of these last three tricks. Thus there were no tricks available = for transfer as penalty from NS to EW but there were indeed two tricks = available for transfer as penalty from EW to NS. As I understand Law 64 a penalty trick can not constitute a trick "won" within the meaning of this law for the purpose of being used as a = penalty trick for a subsequent revoke by the opposite side of the offenders in = the first revoke. According to this the final result must be one trick for EW and two = tricks for NS unless we can use Law 64C on the first revoke (by South): "The revoke by South caused also West (inadvertently) to revoke; = resulting in consequential damage to EW for which they are not fully compensated". The "equitable" result (once West failed to use dummy's trump on the = club played from North) is obviously one trick for NS and two tricks for EW. Regards Sven From free-domains-now@yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 17 09:29:18 2003 From: free-domains-now@yahoo.co.uk (relevant domain names) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:29:18 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) thousands of domain extensions Message-ID: LKJHNARCUTFGANHR
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 schuster@eduhi.at Sun Aug 17 13:23:01 2003 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:23:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] What if he doesn't? Message-ID: Maybe this has been noted before... Under L47E1, a LOOT may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead. Quoting from the Preface, "When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something, the failure to do so is in no way wrong." So what if he does not retract his lead? And if he retracts his lead, who is to be considered offending/non- offending for the purposes of L16C? -- Regards, Petrus From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 17 13:44:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:44:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] What if he doesn't? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c364bd$3db95ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Petrus Schuster OSB > Maybe this has been noted before... > Under L47E1, a LOOT may be retracted without penalty if the leader was = > mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead.=20 > Quoting from the Preface, "When these Laws say that a player 'may' do=20 > something, the failure to do so is in no way wrong." So what if he=20 > does not retract his lead? Then his LOOT is penalized under Law 55 or Law 56 as applicable. > And if he retracts his lead, who is to be considered offending/non-=20 > offending for the purposes of L16C? The opponent who gave the incorrect information that it was his turn to = lead is the offender.=20 Regards Sven From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Sun Aug 17 17:38:01 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:38:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <001a01c364dd$ee874ba0$0c4a65d5@swipnet.se> To Sven: West won all three tricks. NS should give one trick to EW. EW should = give two tricks to NS. The law does not say in which order this should = happen. I think it should be done at the same time (after end of play). = So, NS gets one trick in all, EW two tricks. I still don=B4t see the = problem. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Aug 17 22:10:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:10:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? In-Reply-To: <000a01c36358$ff220f80$c07087d9@4nrw70j> References: <3029548.1060790154045.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <014901c362b4$8cb95f60$5e9468d5@default> <000701c362b5$b2964120$7ad28051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030817163536.02010dd0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:08 AM 8/15/03, grandeval wrote: >=============================== >"Though 'Bother it' I may > Occasionally say, > I never use a big, big D." > - HMS Pinafore, Act 1. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" > > > Of course, but if you play these methods, you > > should always ask after 1S-4C whatever your > > hand, in order to avoid ever transmitting UI. > >+=+ >"What never? >No never! >What NEVER? >Hardly ever!" > It is a popular fallacy that >always to ask in a given situation removes >the possibility of UI. It would be so technically > if we could always ask with the same degree >of disinterest and without tonal variations or >mannerisms, absent the sixth sense that >an intimate partner develops, and asking >*always* without default. > Since (most) players are human >it is a fact of life that, despite all endeavour, >a question asked may generate UI. I found Grattan's remarks most enlightening; they made me realize why I have always been vaguely uncomfortable with the "always ask" school that surfaces in various discussions of sensitive bidding situations. It is not dissimilar to the "always pause" notion that has given rise to 10-second pauses after skip bids (or whatever the regional variation). It works pretty well at the top levels, but in ordinary everyday duplicate play, at low-level tournaments and clubs, I still find that, even after 30 years of players' experience with this policy, I (or, ISTM, anyone) can distinguish with very high accuracy between those at the table with problems and those doing their best to go through the motions of a mandated 10-second pause. I would expect -- now that Grattan has verbalized it for me -- a formal "always ask" policy to turn out similarly, and to be seen by lower-level players as one more of those empty and meaningless rituals that distinguish casual low-level duplicate from casual low-level at-home social bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 17 22:03:29 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:03:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <001a01c364dd$ee874ba0$0c4a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <001701c36503$06976c00$77f37f50@Default> HOH: I still don=B4t see the problem. The problem is that NS cannot really give a trick, under current laws, because they made none (after the revoke). You might argue they have to g= ive back one of the tricks they got from EW but according to which law please= ? So the correct decision is NS 2 EW 1. It is a crazy ruling in a way but according to the current laws some revokes cost tricks (EW revoke here) a= nd some don't (NS revoke here). And the argument in this thread that south's revoke provoked west's revok= e is also silly. West did revoke, the fact that somebody else revokes doesn= 't cancel your obligation to follow suit, end of discussion. Now if their is= a real indication south has doen it 'on purpose' (I cannot really believe t= hat by the way) then there are other laws to deal with that. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Hans-Olof Hall=E9n" To: Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 6:38 PM Subject: [blml] 2 revokes To Sven: West won all three tricks. NS should give one trick to EW. EW should give two tricks to NS. The law does not say in which order this should happen.= I think it should be done at the same time (after end of play). So, NS gets one trick in all, EW two tricks. I still don=B4t see the problem. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 17 23:24:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:24:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <001701c36503$06976c00$77f37f50@Default> Message-ID: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ............ > And the argument in this thread that south's revoke provoked west's=20 > revoke is also silly. West did revoke, the fact that somebody else=20 > revokes doesn't cancel your obligation to follow suit, end of=20 > discussion.=20 As the person (one of them?) raising the question on using Law 64C I = must say that I cannot remember claiming that south's revoke _provoked_ = west's revoke. But I feel pretty certain that south's revoke _induced_ west's revoke = (in my understanding of the English language there is a difference); I see no reason to suspect that west would have revoked if south had not revoked first. Is this sufficient to consider south's revoke causing EW damage which is = not sufficiently compensated under Laws 64A and 64B, in other words a case = for Law 64C? IMO the laws are not clear, not against nor for using Law 64C. This is certainly not the particular kind of "damage" that the lawmakers can = have had in their minds when they originally drew up this law but that = doesn't answer the question: What does it take to rule that the revoke by south = has caused damage to EW?=20 There is obviously a fairly tight connection between the two revokes. = Too tight to ignore and say that "west did revoke, end of discussion". Anyway I believe we can agree that absent any irregularity the three = last tricks would have split two to EW and one to NS (once West failed to use = the trump from dummy on the club led by North)? Had west not revoked he would have ended up with all three tricks. = Giving NS the one trick they would have received had there been no revoke from = either side seems just right to me, and the law making this result possible is = 64C. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 00:00:35 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001e01c36513$5e1c41c0$64198051@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >Had west not revoked he would have ended up with all three tricks. Giving NS the one trick they would have received had there been no revoke from either side seems just right to me, and the law making this result possible is 64C. This is the dreaded "Kaplan fallacy" - first we decide what the result ought to be, and then we find some interpretation of law that justifies it. But this is no way to run a serious game. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 18 00:16:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:16:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <001701c36503$06976c00$77f37f50@Default> Message-ID: On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 17:03 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > The problem is that NS cannot really give a trick, under current laws, > because they made none (after the revoke). You might argue they have > to give > back one of the tricks they got from EW but according to which law > please ? > > So the correct decision is NS 2 EW 1. It is a crazy ruling in a way but > according to the current laws some revokes cost tricks (EW revoke > here) and > some don't (NS revoke here). Wait a minute. I agree with your conclusion, Jaap, but, well, let me set out my chain of logic. West revoked on trick 11, the revoke became established, and it turns out West won all three remaining tricks. By Law 64A1, clearly EW transfer two tricks to NS. Now, South also revoked on trick 11, but did not win that trick. Law 64A2 says "and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side". The offending player (South) did not win the revoke trick, so the next clause applies. It says "if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick...", which did not happen, so there is no penalty. The fact that EW transfers tricks to NS is irrelevant, it seems to me. Those are not tricks *won* by NS, they are tricks awarded to NS as penalty to EW. IMO the argument that EW should "give back" a trick they got through a penalty has no basis in the law. There has been some talk of applying 64C, considering each side as "non-offending" for the purpose. Okay. It's been said here before that the purpose of 64C is to "do equity", and to "do equity" means to restore the situation to what it would have been had there been no infraction. At the instant South led the CQ from dummy, had there been no irregularity, EW were destined to get two tricks (CK, HK) and NS one (HJ). Now, if we consider EW the non-offending side, the end result of a Law 64A ruling will be that they get one of the last three tricks, instead of two. And if we consider NS the NOS, it will be that they get the trick they would have got, not after South's revoke, but at the time the whole message started. So I see no damage to NS that would allow the use of 64C, but there is certainly damage to EW, and that allows the use of 64C. My ruling: One trick transferred from EW to NS, per Law 64C. We're on the same page as to result. Do you agree with my logic? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 17 05:02:05 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:02:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> <005901c36335$1c5a43c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <002a01c36374$a2daa4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c3651c$8475ace0$b6c7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) > > "David Burn" wrote: < > > As I have said many times, it does not > > make much, or any, difference what seeding > > methods you use for tournaments or what scoring > > methods you use. Those who play with the most > > effective combination of skill and luck on the day < > will win; those who do not will lose; and neither > > of those factors is a function of what the organisers > > do. > > > From: Marvin: > Those who have lost by a small margin in a > Butler-scored game, when they would have won > had the superior X-IMP method been used, might > disagree. > +=+ Is it not part of the skill of the game to judge what will have the better probable outcome for one's side given the scoring methods that obtain? Is not the method of scoring, as announced beforehand, an element in the Conditions of Contest, to which we consent by entering? We play upon the stage as it has been set, and discussions of the kind indulged in here are a pleasant academic diversion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 07:54:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:54:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <001e01c36513$5e1c41c0$64198051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c36555$99fd84a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > Sven wrote: >=20 > >Had west not revoked he would have ended up with all three tricks. > Giving NS > the one trick they would have received had there been no revoke from > either > side seems just right to me, and the law making this result possible = is > 64C. >=20 > This is the dreaded "Kaplan fallacy" - first we decide what the result > ought to be, and then we find some interpretation of law that = justifies > it. But this is no way to run a serious game. Do you accept that Law 64C has some merits? Doesn't the very existence of this law encourage the Director to "decide what the result ought to be" and rule accordingly if the Director finds = that the previous parts of Law 64 do not compensate NOS for their damage from = the revoke? Isn't the crucial question in this case whether west's revoke was = induced by south's revoke in such a way that it constitutes "damage" from south's revoke? And in order to answer this question we shall have to define precisely what we mean by "damage". I believe WBFLC has defined "damage" as the difference between the = actual result and the result had no irregularity occurred. Here there can be no doubt that this "reference" result is one trick to NS and two tricks to = EW. Does Law 64C apply on any of the two revokes? Certainly not on the = revoke by West but how about the revoke by South for which EW was NOS? IMO the connection between the two revokes is so tight we should not = automatically discard a claim that west revoked as a consequence of the revoke by = south. And as the play progressed so that there was no trick available to pay = the revoke penalty from NS to EW while the penalty in the other direction = was fully paid EW did not receive compensation for the revoke by South (on = which EW was NOS). This I consider cause for the application of Law 64C. You may have a different opinion, that is your privilege, but please do = not accuse me of putting the cart before the horse; that can not be an = argument to be taken seriously here. Sven From toddz@att.net Mon Aug 18 07:59:11 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:59:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000001c36555$99fd84a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran > Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > > Do you accept that Law 64C has some merits? I do. > Doesn't the very existence of this law encourage the > Director to "decide > what the result ought to be" and rule accordingly if > the Director finds that > the previous parts of Law 64 do not compensate NOS for > their damage from the revoke? My problem in this thread is that there's no concensus yet what compensation is provided by the previous parts of Law 64. We should decide that before ruling it insufficient compensation and resorting to L64C. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 08:28:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:28:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3655a$4c174000$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd Zimnoch ........ > My problem in this thread is that there's no concensus yet what > compensation is provided by the previous parts of Law 64. We > should decide that before ruling it insufficient compensation and > resorting to L64C. Sure, and I for one do not see any problem with the ruling under Laws = 64A & 64B: The revoke by South was a no-trick revoke because NS did not win any of = the remaining tricks starting with the revoke trick. The revoke by West was a two-trick revoke because EW won all three = remaining tricks and indeed both the revoke trick was won by the offender (West) = and he also won a subsequent trick with a club (a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick). Without Law 64C there can be no doubt that the final result shall be one trick to EW and two tricks to NS. Penalty tricks are not "won" during the play; they are transferred after = the play has ceased and can as such not be used for paying penalty in the = other direction. Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 08:38:12 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:38:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000001c36555$99fd84a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c36555$99fd84a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F408264.9050909@hdw.be> I must say that I agree with both David and Sven on this one: Sven Pran wrote: >>David Burn >>Sven wrote: >> >> >>>Had west not revoked he would have ended up with all three tricks. >> >>Giving NS >>the one trick they would have received had there been no revoke from >>either >>side seems just right to me, and the law making this result possible is >>64C. >> >>This is the dreaded "Kaplan fallacy" - first we decide what the result >>ought to be, and then we find some interpretation of law that justifies >>it. But this is no way to run a serious game. > Indeed David, a common fallacy, but not really one Sven was getting into, as he correctly points out: > > Do you accept that Law 64C has some merits? > > Doesn't the very existence of this law encourage the Director to "decide > what the result ought to be" and rule accordingly if the Director finds that > the previous parts of Law 64 do not compensate NOS for their damage from the > revoke? > > Isn't the crucial question in this case whether west's revoke was induced by > south's revoke in such a way that it constitutes "damage" from south's > revoke? And in order to answer this question we shall have to define > precisely what we mean by "damage". > > I believe WBFLC has defined "damage" as the difference between the actual > result and the result had no irregularity occurred. Here there can be no > doubt that this "reference" result is one trick to NS and two tricks to EW. > > Does Law 64C apply on any of the two revokes? Certainly not on the revoke by > West but how about the revoke by South for which EW was NOS? IMO the > connection between the two revokes is so tight we should not automatically > discard a claim that west revoked as a consequence of the revoke by south. > I don't believe this is needed, Sven. L64C applies to both revokes equally. South has made a revoke, for which there was no penalty, since he made no "real" tricks afterwards. Strange as it may seem for someone who made no tricks, he did end up with a higher score than he would have if he had not revoked. L64C applies, as the NOS (EW) are not compensated by the failure of the laws to correct this. > And as the play progressed so that there was no trick available to pay the > revoke penalty from NS to EW while the penalty in the other direction was > fully paid EW did not receive compensation for the revoke by South (on which > EW was NOS). This I consider cause for the application of Law 64C. > > You may have a different opinion, that is your privilege, but please do not > accuse me of putting the cart before the horse; that can not be an argument > to be taken seriously here. > Indeed Sven. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 08:41:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:41:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <001a01c364dd$ee874ba0$0c4a65d5@swipnet.se> References: <001a01c364dd$ee874ba0$0c4a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <3F408344.60000@hdw.be> Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > To Sven: > West won all three tricks. NS should give one trick to EW. EW should gi= ve two tricks to NS. The law does not say in which order this should happ= en. I think it should be done at the same time (after end of play). So, N= S gets one trick in all, EW two tricks. I still don=B4t see the problem. The problem, Hans, is that there is no such think (in the laws) as a=20 "two-trick revoke". It is only a two-trick revoke by the fact that the=20 revoker made two tricks. If we change the example so that South makes=20 the last trick (with the two cards that ought to have been played in=20 the revoke trick) then EW made 2 tricks, one of which is a two-trick=20 revoke, and NS made one trick, which includes a (nominal) two-trick=20 revoke because S now made a trick with a card "which could have been=20 played to the revoke trick". And now your argument works no longer. TTP. > Yours etc > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 10:30:43 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:30:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) References: <00ab01c3622d$385bda60$e14665d5@swipnet.se> <3F3C8680.2040700@AtBusiness.Com> <000f01c36303$ed00a500$1e9c68d5@default> <3F3CA04C.3090106@hdw.be> <3F3CC02C.8090203@AtBusiness.Com> <005901c36335$1c5a43c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <002a01c36374$a2daa4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001001c3651c$8475ace0$b6c7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <004601c3656b$67a9e780$e3ee7f50@Default> Grattan: > +=+ Is it not part of the skill of the game to judge > what will have the better probable outcome for one's > side given the scoring methods that obtain? Is not > the method of scoring, as announced beforehand, > an element in the Conditions of Contest, to which > we consent by entering? > We play upon the stage as it has been set, and > discussions of the kind indulged in here are a pleasant > academic diversion. No Grattan, dead wrong. Of course you like to know whether you play pairs, or teams, or board a match, or whatever. But when told to play imp pairs there is no different strategy to play depending on whether the computer computes a datum (there are different ways of doing that by the way) or Ximps. The main difference is that certain types of big boards, including slams and vulnerable games on a finesse and the like, are more expensive in Butler compared to Ximps. So by prefering Butler to Ximps the SO increases the luck element. But let's not dramatise it. Also Ximps is a lottery. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > "Ne'er blushed unless, in spreading Vice's snares, > She blundered on some virtue unawares." > ['The Rosciad'] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) > > > > > > "David Burn" wrote: > < > > > As I have said many times, it does not > > > make much, or any, difference what seeding > > > methods you use for tournaments or what scoring > > > methods you use. Those who play with the most > > > effective combination of skill and luck on the day > < > will win; those who do not will lose; and neither > > > of those factors is a function of what the organisers > > > do. > > > > > From: Marvin: > > Those who have lost by a small margin in a > > Butler-scored game, when they would have won > > had the superior X-IMP method been used, might > > disagree. > > > +=+ Is it not part of the skill of the game to judge > what will have the better probable outcome for one's > side given the scoring methods that obtain? Is not > the method of scoring, as announced beforehand, > an element in the Conditions of Contest, to which > we consent by entering? > We play upon the stage as it has been set, and > discussions of the kind indulged in here are a pleasant > academic diversion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 10:33:31 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:33:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> Sven: But I feel pretty certain that south's revoke _induced_ west's revoke (in my understanding of the English language there is a difference); I see no reason to suspect that west would have revoked if south had not revoked first. I understand what you say. And maybe my own language was a little to 'strict'. But for me all this hopla is still irrelevant. Even if you are right that South's revoke might improve the changes of West revoking, it doesn't mean anything. 'Indcucing' a revoke (if what south did is inducing a revoke) is not an infraction. West is responsible for himself, he has to follow suit. There is no indication that south tried to pull a fast one on west or whatever. If only because he was sure to make a trick playing normally (assuming he still knew the position). 64C ? Well for me this is just meant for cases were the revoke won more tricks then the mechanical redress. I prefer to keep it that way (although I would not mind it changed so that a revoke always cost 1 trick). Jaap From bridge@vwalther.de Mon Aug 18 10:51:46 2003 From: bridge@vwalther.de (volker walther) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:51:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 15 C and wild actions Message-ID: <3F40A1B2.4060807@vwalther.de> Hello all, Lately I had a diskussion concernig the following case: Dealer East. On NS sits a pair of well known experts. East, holding something like Bx-xxxx-xxx-xxxx, opens the bidding with "pass". Now it comes to light that the wrong EW are sitting at the table. The correct pair comes to the table and the TD explains the consequences of law 15 C. EW have a look at their opponents and ask wether they could have an AV+ on this board without playing it. The TD denies that. East takes his place and opens the bidding with "one spade". According to 15 C the TD shall cancel the board, which leads to AV+ both sides. On the other hand, especially after EW asked that the hand should not be played, I think there are problems with law 12C2 and law 74. Even if they do not ask at all, I dont think that wild bidding should automatically be rewarded as a consequence of law 15 C. Greetings, Volker From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 10:51:34 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:51:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) In-Reply-To: <004601c3656b$67a9e780$e3ee7f50@Default> Message-ID: <000601c3656e$4f26b2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Grattan: > > +=3D+ Is it not part of the skill of the game to judge > > what will have the better probable outcome for one's > > side given the scoring methods that obtain? Is not > > the method of scoring, as announced beforehand, > > an element in the Conditions of Contest, to which > > we consent by entering? > > We play upon the stage as it has been set, and > > discussions of the kind indulged in here are a pleasant > > academic diversion. >=20 >=20 > No Grattan, dead wrong. Of course you like to know whether you play = pairs, > or teams, or board a match, or whatever. But when told to play imp = pairs > there is no different strategy to play depending on whether the = computer > computes a datum (there are different ways of doing that by the way) = or > Ximps. The main difference is that certain types of big boards, = including > slams and vulnerable games on a finesse and the like, are more = expensive > in > Butler compared to Ximps. So by prefering Butler to Ximps the SO = increases > the luck element. But let's not dramatise it. Also Ximps is a lottery. Come on! Do you seriously want anybody to believe that your strategy is not influenced by your knowledge of whether the scoring method is IMPS (in = any form) or Match points? And does it not affect your strategy whether your opponents against whom you are compared for your scores are your local = club members or the participants in some world championships? I don't believe you. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 11:02:49 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:02:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > 64C ? Well for me this is just meant for cases were the revoke won more > tricks then the mechanical redress. I prefer to keep it that way (although I > would not mind it changed so that a revoke always cost 1 trick). > Well, Jaap, Did South not end up with 2 tricks? When if he does not revoke he ends up with one? > Jaap > > > _______________________________________________ > 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@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 11:05:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:05:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 15 C and wild actions In-Reply-To: <3F40A1B2.4060807@vwalther.de> References: <3F40A1B2.4060807@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <3F40A4FA.20709@hdw.be> volker walther wrote: > Hello all, > > Lately I had a diskussion concernig the following case: > > Dealer East. > On NS sits a pair of well known experts. East, holding something like > Bx-xxxx-xxx-xxxx, opens the bidding with "pass". Now it comes to light > that the wrong EW are sitting at the table. The correct pair comes to > the table and the TD explains the consequences of law 15 C. EW have a > look at their opponents and ask wether they could have an AV+ on this > board without playing it. The TD denies that. East takes his place and > opens the bidding with "one spade". > > According to 15 C the TD shall cancel the board, which leads to AV+ both > sides. On the other hand, especially after EW asked that the hand should > not be played, I think there are problems with law 12C2 and law 74. Even > if they do not ask at all, I dont think that wild bidding should > automatically be rewarded as a consequence of law 15 C. > I've had this discussion before, and on blml as well. The conclusion should be that we must allow EW to refuse to play, as we cannot force them to make the same call as some other pair. In this case it is clear that they have "tried something", but in many cases it is not as clear. Suppose the player has 11 points, and he opens. Do you know if he did it on purpose or not? The only catch is that we should not reveal to the new East how far the bidding went. That way, he does not know if opening the hand might lead to Av+ or to a psych. > Greetings, Volker > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Aug 18 11:27:51 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:27:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC8E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >Pekka Viitasalo >Finnish Bridge Federation has changed the format of one of its primary >events, The Pairs Final. The federation has about 1900 members (to = give >some perspective). >The former format: >matchpoint scoring >52 pairs >2 boards per round >51 rounds >endless Howell movement >The new format: >matchpoint scoring >64 pairs >4 boards per round >25 rounds >Swiss * 1st round #1 seed vs 33, 2 vs 34 ... 32 vs 64. * 2nd round #1 seed vs 34 ...31 vs 64 and 32 vs 33 * rounds 3-25 delayed Swiss >Opinions, please. I strongly prefer an all-play-all format where possible. To my mind, a = Swiss is always a=20 substitute for when you have too many people to allow a complete round = robin. Also, Pairs is worse than Teams in that the assignments are one round in = arrears so your information is out of date. It is so depressing to beat everyone you play and come = second, not having played the eventual winners. A Swiss is possibly more effective if there is a wide range of = standards, but for the final of a National competition that shouldn't be the case. =20 In England there are (in my opinion) too many Swiss Pairs events, so = having our National=20 Pairs final (50 pairs) all-play-all is a welcome relief. =20 If you do run it as a Swiss, can you not make the final few rounds = current match assignments as they do here? Having the final match assigned with the scores one = round out of date seems very harsh. From henk@ripe.net Mon Aug 18 11:34:59 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:34:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Law 15 C and wild actions In-Reply-To: <3F40A4FA.20709@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > volker walther wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > Lately I had a diskussion concernig the following case: > > > > Dealer East. > > On NS sits a pair of well known experts. East, holding something like > > Bx-xxxx-xxx-xxxx, opens the bidding with "pass". Now it comes to light > > that the wrong EW are sitting at the table. The correct pair comes to > > the table and the TD explains the consequences of law 15 C. EW have a > > look at their opponents and ask wether they could have an AV+ on this > > board without playing it. The TD denies that. East takes his place and > > opens the bidding with "one spade". > > > > According to 15 C the TD shall cancel the board, which leads to AV+ both > > sides. On the other hand, especially after EW asked that the hand should > > not be played, I think there are problems with law 12C2 and law 74. Even > > if they do not ask at all, I dont think that wild bidding should > > automatically be rewarded as a consequence of law 15 C. > > > > I've had this discussion before, and on blml as well. > > The conclusion should be that we must allow EW to refuse to play, as > we cannot force them to make the same call as some other pair. > In this case it is clear that they have "tried something", but in many > cases it is not as clear. Suppose the player has 11 points, and he > opens. Do you know if he did it on purpose or not? > > The only catch is that we should not reveal to the new East how far > the bidding went. That way, he does not know if opening the hand might > lead to Av+ or to a psych. I agree, but then we might as well restore the old text of 15C. (IIRC, earlier versions allowed a player to take A+/A- without going through the hassle of sorting his cards and deciding which psyche to make). 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Aug 18 11:47:49 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:47:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Systems regulations question (free funny story inside) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC8F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Luis Argerich >Hi all, >In a tournament I'm playing here in Argentina our local NBO decided = that our >Moscito system was not legal due >to the use of relays. We were using 10-14 openings and Invitational+ = relays >with 11+ HCP. >They stated that relays can only be used with hands that are surely = forcing >to game opposite a 10-14 opening, so >over 10-14 openings a minimum of 15 was needed to use a relay. We = changed >the system to fullfill the regulations >but a really big doubt arised in my head: after a 1h,1s opening what's = the >difference between a relay and a forcing NT? >So my question is already asked, I'd appreciate your comments. Now if = you >want to have some fun you can read >the following story, you can skip it if not :-) As you have already said, the big problem is that there are no = regulations on what you can/can't play so you are at the mercy of the TD's whims. = You have our sympathy. Surely they could do something simple like just say they are adhering to WBF green/red systems or something? Of course, if your system is confusing the opponents and you get good=20 results purely as a result of that confusion you don't deserve them. I am sure you always give full disclosure and so that isn't the problem. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 11:38:54 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:38:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> > Well, Jaap, > > Did South not end up with 2 tricks? > When if he does not revoke he ends up with one? Please Herman, try to understand the difference between consequent and subsequent. South making 2 tricks has nothing to do with his revoke, it is not a consequence of his revoke. South just got two tricks out of a subsequent revoke by West. By the way, if South did not revoke to this trick and west ruffed anyway south would have ended with 3 tricks. One real one and two transfered ones. Nobody plans the play based on a future revoke by opponents. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > 64C ? Well for me this is just meant for cases were the revoke won more > > tricks then the mechanical redress. I prefer to keep it that way (although I > > would not mind it changed so that a revoke always cost 1 trick). > > > > Well, Jaap, > > Did South not end up with 2 tricks? > When if he does not revoke he ends up with one? > > > > Jaap > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 11:43:44 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:43:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) References: <000601c3656e$4f26b2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c36575$a09e1700$a4e97f50@Default> Sven, Read more carefully. Of course any imps form is completely different from match points. But the thread was about Butler vs. X-imps. I said my strategy is not (in any real way) influenced by knowing that I play Butler (with a datum score) rather than X-imps. Still I agree with Marvin that X-imps is better than Butler. And I disagree with Grattan that you can adapt to it (the difference between Butler and Ximps). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:51 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) Jaap van der Neut > Grattan: > > +=+ Is it not part of the skill of the game to judge > > what will have the better probable outcome for one's > > side given the scoring methods that obtain? Is not > > the method of scoring, as announced beforehand, > > an element in the Conditions of Contest, to which > > we consent by entering? > > We play upon the stage as it has been set, and > > discussions of the kind indulged in here are a pleasant > > academic diversion. > > > No Grattan, dead wrong. Of course you like to know whether you play pairs, > or teams, or board a match, or whatever. But when told to play imp pairs > there is no different strategy to play depending on whether the computer > computes a datum (there are different ways of doing that by the way) or > Ximps. The main difference is that certain types of big boards, including > slams and vulnerable games on a finesse and the like, are more expensive > in > Butler compared to Ximps. So by prefering Butler to Ximps the SO increases > the luck element. But let's not dramatise it. Also Ximps is a lottery. Come on! Do you seriously want anybody to believe that your strategy is not influenced by your knowledge of whether the scoring method is IMPS (in any form) or Match points? And does it not affect your strategy whether your opponents against whom you are compared for your scores are your local club members or the participants in some world championships? I don't believe you. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Aug 18 11:59:55 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:59:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournament Format Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC90@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Robin Barker: Sent: 13 August 2003 18:27 >Nevertheless, it can be done. Even coping with rulings=20 >that affect the results of matches you can run delayed=20 >swiss or even current round swiss. >Last weekend at Brighton we had 582 pairs playing swiss >pairs with assignments a round in arrears. On Sunday >(the hottest day ever in Britain), after 10 matches, the >top 128 pairs played the last four matches with assignments=20 >based on the current round score. The TDs had lots of=20 >rulings and we consulted with each other, with DWS (who >was there for consulting with), with good players, etc. >We made rulings by the end of the match and we could put=20 >our 12C3 rulings in before the assignments were=20 >calculated. It was too hot for everything to go=20 >completely smoothly but the players seemed happy. >(I don't think Frances is complaining.) I certainly noticed a lot more consultation than I have seen before going on over rulings before they were given=20 not just between TDs but with any decent players who were hanging around. This seems an excellent idea and I hope cut down the number of appeals - I don't recall their being any after the final session. When you have enough people around at a big tournament like Brighton it's certainly worth putting as much effort as possible into getting the TD's ruling exactly right, rather than just leaving up to the AC to sort things out if necessary. =20 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Aug 18 12:12:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > Even if you are > right that South's revoke might improve the changes of West revoking, it > doesn't mean anything. 'Indcucing' a revoke (if what south did is > inducing a revoke) is not an infraction. Let me change the scenario slightly. South, after the CK is led says "Hee-hee, the good old fake revoke always works - I've got a club after all". You believe that South has not committed an infraction and will allow South's revoke to be corrected and transfer 2 tricks from West to South? That's not bridge. If you would adjust the score in my scenario then the actual scenario is a "could have known" situation. Of course if the TD wants to rule that, at the exalted level at which DALB and Jaap compete, there is no likelihood of "inducing a revoke" that is fine. If you want to rule that South is not the sort of player to whom this concept would even occur that is fine too. But if you believe that South is the sort of player to whom this "technique" might occur and the field is one in which it is likely to gain then of course you can use "could have known" to adjust. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 12:13:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:13:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> Message-ID: <000701c36579$cb1931a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > Please Herman, try to understand the difference between consequent and > subsequent. South making 2 tricks has nothing to do with his revoke, = it is > not a consequence of his revoke. South just got two tricks out of a > subsequent revoke by West.=20 Are you certain (in your judgment) that the revoke by West was just subsequent and not also consequent to the revoke by South? To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent to South's; = as I have already said I see absolutely no reason to suspect that West would = have revoked had South not revoked first. And I believe the main point in this discussion should be whether the consequence that West revoked is sufficient for invoking a Law 64C = ruling on the revoke by South. Herman has shown a very interesting logical approach which may make the application of Law 64C even more obvious than it is as the result of my = own approach but the final outcome is the same with them both. Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Aug 18 12:22:12 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tournamet Format Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC91@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Jaap: Now if you move the Swiss concept to Pairs the problems get worse. = Fields are often huge and uneven. You typically play many #rounds which means = that by the end all the top pairs have already played each other. Unlike = teams you cannot really do a final because you need the field anyway to = compare your scores. So you probably have to play Danish in the end if your objective is to have serious last rounds. Danish is good for getting a winner but it tends to be terrible for the other top spots. Often some = late high scoring pairs overtake those who get slaugthered repeatetly by the winner. Frances: Danish is not obviously better in the last round. Take the last round at Brighton this year (14 round Swiss, 582 pairs). The pair in the lead had played all the other close pairs, so Danish would have been ideal for them. The pair in 2nd place (1 VP out of 200 behind) had played=20 all the other leading pairs EXCEPT for the pair in 3rd place. =20 Under Danish rules they would have had to play the leading pair again=20 which seems crazy. I'm with David here: large pairs events are always going to be random. =20 Don't try and complicate matters for minimal improvements in results. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 18 12:44:48 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:44:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] What if he doesn't? In-Reply-To: <000501c364bd$3db95ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030818134413.01d43ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:44 17/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Petrus Schuster OSB > > Maybe this has been noted before... > > Under L47E1, a LOOT may be retracted without penalty if the leader was > > mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead. > > Quoting from the Preface, "When these Laws say that a player 'may' do > > something, the failure to do so is in no way wrong." So what if he > > does not retract his lead? > >Then his LOOT is penalized under Law 55 or Law 56 as applicable. > > > And if he retracts his lead, who is to be considered offending/non- > > offending for the purposes of L16C? > >The opponent who gave the incorrect information that it was his turn to lead >is the offender. AG : isn't that a bit contradictory ? The NOS gets penalized ? From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 12:31:14 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:31:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: >>Well, Jaap, >> >>Did South not end up with 2 tricks? >>When if he does not revoke he ends up with one? > > > > Please Herman, try to understand the difference between consequent and > subsequent. South making 2 tricks has nothing to do with his revoke, it is > not a consequence of his revoke. South just got two tricks out of a > subsequent revoke by West. By the way, if South did not revoke to this trick > and west ruffed anyway south would have ended with 3 tricks. One real one > and two transfered ones. Nobody plans the play based on a future revoke by > opponents. > No Jaap, L64C says nothing about consequent and subsequent. L64B1 specifically indicates this reason why South is not penalized for his revoke. So 64C is of application. And South ends up with 2 tricks. But of course we need to look at subsequent actions: Suppose there is a revoke early on. Let's say a simple (one-trick) one. This leads opponents to mis-count the hand, and they don't find the correct defence that leads to the normal score (let's say that's just made). However, there are two other lines, one of which would lead to a very good result for defence (down 3), one which leads to a good one for declarer (plus two, corrected to plus one by the revoke). Of course it's this last one that is chosen. What do you rule? At the moment of the revoke, the normal outcome is just made. After the revoke, the outcome is either -4 or +1. We might say that this is worth -1.5, so defenders are not damaged by the revoke. The same applies to this case. Without the revoke, South scores 1 trick. With the revoke, South scores either 0 (2 minus 2 for the revoke) or 2 (with West revoking as well). Is West damaged by the revoke when he has to conceeds 2, or not? I don't believe the main point of view in this case is not yours. As a similarity - the WBF CoP defines damage as the difference between the expected outcome without the infraction and the real table outcome - the second part is not "the expected outcome with the infraction". > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > > > >>Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>64C ? Well for me this is just meant for cases were the revoke won more >>>tricks then the mechanical redress. I prefer to keep it that way > > (although I > >>>would not mind it changed so that a revoke always cost 1 trick). >>> >> >>Well, Jaap, >> >>Did South not end up with 2 tricks? >>When if he does not revoke he ends up with one? >> >> >> >>>Jaap >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 twm@cix.co.uk Mon Aug 18 12:42:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tournament Format In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CC90@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Frances wrote: > > This seems an excellent idea and I hope cut down the number > of appeals - I don't recall their being any after the final > session. When you have enough people around at a big > tournament like Brighton it's certainly worth putting as > much effort as possible into getting the TD's ruling > exactly right, rather than just leaving up to the AC to sort things > out if necessary. I was told, by a number of TDs at Brighton, that the single biggest factor in reducing appeals has been the use by TDs of L12c3 adjustments. However I suspect that at least one TD will not soon forget the requirement to consult on judgement rulings and I think improved consultation is undoubtedly good. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 13:23:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:23:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] What if he doesn't? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030818134413.01d43ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c36583$91977810$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > At 14:44 17/08/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Petrus Schuster OSB > > > Maybe this has been noted before... > > > Under L47E1, a LOOT may be retracted without penalty if the leader = was > > > mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead. > > > Quoting from the Preface, "When these Laws say that a player 'may' = do > > > something, the failure to do so is in no way wrong." So what if he > > > does not retract his lead? > > > >Then his LOOT is penalized under Law 55 or Law 56 as applicable. > > > > > And if he retracts his lead, who is to be considered = offending/non- > > > offending for the purposes of L16C? > > > >The opponent who gave the incorrect information that it was his turn = to > lead > >is the offender. >=20 > AG : isn't that a bit contradictory ? The NOS gets penalized ? No, why? See Law 47E1 again. The "offender" in this case is the opponent giving misinformation not = the player acting in good faith on that misinformation. (Or if by "NOS" you mean the player leading his card out of turn and refusing to withdraw it; he becomes the offender in LOOT when he refuses = the grace offered in L47E1) Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Aug 18 13:28:43 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:28:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000701c36579$cb1931a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030818081719.02315280@pop.starpower.net> At 07:13 AM 8/18/03, Sven wrote: >Jaap van der Neut > > > Please Herman, try to understand the difference between consequent and > > subsequent. South making 2 tricks has nothing to do with his > revoke, it is > > not a consequence of his revoke. South just got two tricks out of a > > subsequent revoke by West. > >Are you certain (in your judgment) that the revoke by West was just >subsequent and not also consequent to the revoke by South? > >To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent to South's; >as I >have already said I see absolutely no reason to suspect that West >would have >revoked had South not revoked first. There are only two possibilities: (1) West knew that South revoked. In that case, South's revoke could not have "induced" him to do anything. If he knew what was going on, and revoked deliberately behind South's revoke, he has flagrantly violated L72B2, and is not entitled to the risk-free double-shot he is looking for. Far more likely, though, is... (2) West didn't know that South revoked. In that case, West's revoke was "induced" by South's ruffing a club, not by the fact that South revoked per se; had South been out of clubs and his trumping North's club not a revoke, South would be in the same position with the same knowledge, and would presumably have played the same card. He cannot have been "induced" by knowledge he did not have. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 14:12:42 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:12:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <4305217.1061212362406.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: >Are you certain (in your judgment) that the revoke by West was just subsequent and not also consequent to the revoke by South? >To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent to South's; as I have already said I see absolutely no reason to suspect that West would have revoked had South not revoked first. Suppose South didn't have a club. Would West's revoke then have been uninduced by anything? When an opponent ruffs something to which you can follow, is it in some way the normal action then not to follow suit? Do you assert that it was reasonable of West to think: "Well, South hasn't got any clubs, therefore I can't have any either?" South and West both revoked. As it happens, South's revoke was not subject to penalty, but West's was. So East-West pay a penalty, while North-South do not. It happens that way sometimes; your responsibility is to follow suit if you can do so, whatever anyone else at the table might have done. I am truly surprised at Sven's arguments here, which are the first I have ever seen from him that make absolutely no sense to me at all. Perhaps there is some confusion with the situation in which someone plays out of turn; this may indeed "induce" the next player to play out of turn also. But then we say that the "induced" play out of turn is not an infraction, which seems reasonable enough to me. Here, though, it is frankly ridiculous to say that a player can be induced not to follow suit because the previous player has not done so. Would I be permitted to use that as an excuse every time I revoked when my RHO doesn't have a card of the suit led to the trick? David Burn London, England From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Mon Aug 18 14:45:45 2003 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:45:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E641C@rama.micronas.com> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > >Are you certain (in your judgment) that the revoke by West=20 > was just subsequent and not also consequent to the revoke by South? >=20 > >To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent=20 > to South's; as I have already said I see absolutely no reason=20 > to suspect that West would have revoked had South not revoked first. >=20 > Suppose South didn't have a club. Would West's revoke then=20 > have been uninduced by anything? When an opponent ruffs=20 > something to which you can follow, is it in some way the=20 > normal action then not to follow suit? Do you assert that it=20 > was reasonable of West to think: "Well, South hasn't got any=20 > clubs, therefore I can't have any either?" >=20 > South and West both revoked. As it happens, South's revoke=20 > was not subject to penalty, but West's was. So East-West pay=20 > a penalty, while North-South do not. It happens that way=20 > sometimes; your responsibility is to follow suit if you can=20 > do so, whatever anyone else at the table might have done. >=20 > I am truly surprised at Sven's arguments here, which are the=20 > first I have ever seen from him that make absolutely no sense=20 > to me at all. Perhaps there is some confusion with the=20 > situation in which someone plays out of turn; this may indeed=20 > "induce" the next player to play out of turn also. But then=20 > we say that the "induced" play out of turn is not an=20 > infraction, which seems reasonable enough to me. Here,=20 > though, it is frankly ridiculous to say that a player can be=20 > induced not to follow suit because the previous player has=20 > not done so. Would I be permitted to use that as an excuse=20 > every time I revoked when my RHO doesn't have a card of the=20 > suit led to the trick? Ridiculous at your level, and even at mine (which is substantially lower :) ). But it is not ridiculous at the level where this deal was played (somewere near absolute beginners). When someone ruffs at that level, it happens quite often that the following player overruffs and thus revokes. Usually that player is "following suit", at least in his mind (where suit in this case is trumps). It always happens when an opponent is ruffing, (almost) never when the opponent merely does not follow. Only in this case the ruffer happens to revoke himself. Not deliberately, I am sure of that, but nevertheless at that level South ruffing may very well have induced West to revoke. >=20 > David Burn > London, England >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 --=20 Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Aug 18 14:44:29 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:44:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1751CA31-D182-11D7-9EF4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 12:16 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 17:03 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >> The problem is that NS cannot really give a trick, under current laws, >> because they made none (after the revoke). You might argue they have >> to give >> back one of the tricks they got from EW but according to which law >> please ? >> >> So the correct decision is NS 2 EW 1. It is a crazy ruling in a way >> but >> according to the current laws some revokes cost tricks (EW revoke >> here) and >> some don't (NS revoke here). > > Wait a minute. I agree with your conclusion, Jaap, but, well, let me > set out my chain of logic. West revoked on trick 11, the revoke > became established, and it turns out West won all three remaining > tricks. By Law 64A1, clearly EW transfer two tricks to NS. > > Now, South also revoked on trick 11, but did not win that trick. Law > 64A2 says "and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by > the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any > subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is > transferred to the non-offending side". The offending player (South) > did not win the revoke trick, so the next clause applies. It says "if > the offending side won that or any subsequent trick...", which did not > happen, so there is no penalty. The fact that EW transfers tricks to > NS is irrelevant, it seems to me. Those are not tricks *won* by NS, > they are tricks awarded to NS as penalty to EW. > > IMO the argument that EW should "give back" a trick they got through a > penalty has no basis in the law. Since South revoked before West, we should deal with that first and then this problem doesn't arise. South neither won the revoke trick nor any subsequent trick, so has lost the last three tricks. West has revoked on trick 11 and won that trick as well as (at least) one of the subsequent tricks, so two tricks are transferred to NS. NS 2 tricks EW 1 trick. Same answer, but no problem with retransferring tricks this time. The idea of using L64C which others (not you) have suggested seems all wrong, since its use is only for when the NOS have been inadequately compensated for the infraction. When we dealt with the first revoke, EW (as the NOS at that moment) got all the remaining tricks so were not inadequately compensated. When we dealt with the second revoke, NS (as the NOS at that moment) received more tricks than they would have done without the infraction, so nor were they inadequately compensated. I think I'm agreeing with your results all round Ed, though getting there by a slightly different route :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Aug 18 14:53:26 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:53:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <56EE07DC-D183-11D7-9EF4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 12:12 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Jaap wrote: >> Even if you are >> right that South's revoke might improve the changes of West revoking, >> it >> doesn't mean anything. 'Indcucing' a revoke (if what south did is >> inducing a revoke) is not an infraction. > > Let me change the scenario slightly. South, after the CK is led says > "Hee-hee, the good old fake revoke always works - I've got a club after > all". You believe that South has not committed an infraction and will > allow South's revoke to be corrected and transfer 2 tricks from West to > South? That's not bridge. > > If you would adjust the score in my scenario then the actual scenario > is a > "could have known" situation. Of course if the TD wants to rule that, > at > the exalted level at which DALB and Jaap compete, there is no > likelihood > of "inducing a revoke" that is fine. If you want to rule that South is > not the sort of player to whom this concept would even occur that is > fine > too. > But if you believe that South is the sort of player to whom this > "technique" might occur and the field is one in which it is likely to > gain > then of course you can use "could have known" to adjust. > > Tim I see no "could have known" clause in Law 64. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 15:00:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:00:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <835196.1061215246823.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Martin wrote: >But it is not ridiculous at the level where this deal was played (somewere near absolute beginners). When someone ruffs at that level, it happens quite often that the following player overruffs and thus revokes. If the suggestion is that different laws should operate in beginners' events, I am all in favour of it. However, when determining what the law says, one usually considers this in a context where players are capable of understanding the obligation to follow suit and of maintaining a minimum level of concentration on the mechanical aspects of the game. Beginners cannot do this, because they are overwhelmed by the theoretical aspects, so it is entirely appropriate to waive all manner of rules, regulations and penalties in such cases. American experts cannot do it either, but that is simply because they do not think they should have to be bothered to do it, and although it is entirely inappropriate to change the laws to "restore equity" to such people, you can bet your last dollar that this is exactly what is going to happen. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 15:05:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:05:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <4115656.1061215546921.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Gordon wrote: > I see no "could have known" clause in Law 64. There isn't one. But Law 72B1, "General Principles", says: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. While we're here, Sven asked me if I thought Law 64C had any merit. I do not. I consider it the second most stupid law in the book. A side that revokes should transfer two tricks to the opponents, plus any tricks in excess of two gained by the revoke. David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 15:07:07 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:07:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <1751CA31-D182-11D7-9EF4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <1751CA31-D182-11D7-9EF4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F40DD8B.8090801@hdw.be> OK Gordon, consider the following Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > NS 2 tricks > EW 1 trick. > > Same answer, but no problem with retransferring tricks this time. > > The idea of using L64C which others (not you) have suggested seems all > wrong, since its use is only for when the NOS have been inadequately > compensated for the infraction. > > When we dealt with the first revoke, EW (as the NOS at that moment) got > all the remaining tricks so were not inadequately compensated. > Suppose that without a revoke by S, EW normally win 2 of the last 6 tricks. With a revoke, they win either 0 or 5. Add to that the penalty and you arrive at 1 or 6 tricks, on average 3.5. Do you really believe by L64C a TD would not award them 2 tricks if they defend wrongly and score only 0+1=1? Yet by your reasoning, EW "got a chance at all tricks and were not inadequately compensated". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Mon Aug 18 15:11:35 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:11:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <001301c36592$a376ac40$434865d5@swipnet.se> I now see the problem. The problem is law 64 B 1, where is says that = there is no penalty if the offending side did not win a trick after the = revoke. For me NS have won two tricks after the revoke, namely the two tricks = transferred by West=B4s revoke. I am sorry if I am mistaken. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Aug 18 15:46:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:46:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F40DD8B.8090801@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > OK Gordon, consider the following > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> NS 2 tricks >> EW 1 trick. >> Same answer, but no problem with retransferring tricks this time. >> The idea of using L64C which others (not you) have suggested seems >> all wrong, since its use is only for when the NOS have been >> inadequately compensated for the infraction. >> When we dealt with the first revoke, EW (as the NOS at that moment) >> got all the remaining tricks so were not inadequately compensated. > > Suppose that without a revoke by S, EW normally win 2 of the last 6 > tricks. With a revoke, they win either 0 or 5. Add to that the penalty > and you arrive at 1 or 6 tricks, on average 3.5. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Maybe you could clarify it? > Do you really believe by L64C a TD would not award them 2 tricks if > they defend wrongly and score only 0+1=1? > Yet by your reasoning, EW "got a chance at all tricks and were not > inadequately compensated". The phrase you have put within quotation marks is not a phrase I used in the post to which you are replying. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Mon Aug 18 15:50:26 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:50:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030818145026.2A41927ADF@www.fastmail.fm> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:12 +0100 (BST), "Tim West-Meads" said: > Jaap wrote: > > Even if you are > > right that South's revoke might improve the changes of West revoking, it > > doesn't mean anything. 'Indcucing' a revoke (if what south did is > > inducing a revoke) is not an infraction. > > Let me change the scenario slightly. South, after the CK is led says > "Hee-hee, the good old fake revoke always works - I've got a club after > all". You believe that South has not committed an infraction and will > allow South's revoke to be corrected and transfer 2 tricks from West to > South? That's not bridge. > > If you would adjust the score in my scenario then the actual scenario is > a > "could have known" situation. Of course if the TD wants to rule that, at > the exalted level at which DALB and Jaap compete, there is no likelihood > of "inducing a revoke" that is fine. If you want to rule that South is > not the sort of player to whom this concept would even occur that is fine > too. > But if you believe that South is the sort of player to whom this > "technique" might occur and the field is one in which it is likely to > gain > then of course you can use "could have known" to adjust. > One of us is missing something. South, by simply following suit, can guarantee one more trick once East has failed to ruff the club. By revoking, South will win 0 tricks if West does not revoke or 2 tricks if West does revoke. I fail to see where the "good old fake revoke" has anything to gain, unless your opponents revoke more than 50% of the time when you revoke. Im my experience I would think that 2 revokes on the same trick is about 100 times less likely than only 1 revoke. -- Dave Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 14:41:47 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:41:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: Message-ID: <003b01c36598$61ed93a0$95e37f50@Default> Tim, I have said in the very beginning that if the TD thinks South is lets say 'creative' we are dealing with something else altogether. Cheating I guess. Mechanical rules like the revoke rule are not meant to deal with that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap wrote: > > Even if you are > > right that South's revoke might improve the changes of West revoking, it > > doesn't mean anything. 'Indcucing' a revoke (if what south did is > > inducing a revoke) is not an infraction. > > Let me change the scenario slightly. South, after the CK is led says > "Hee-hee, the good old fake revoke always works - I've got a club after > all". You believe that South has not committed an infraction and will > allow South's revoke to be corrected and transfer 2 tricks from West to > South? That's not bridge. > > If you would adjust the score in my scenario then the actual scenario is a > "could have known" situation. Of course if the TD wants to rule that, at > the exalted level at which DALB and Jaap compete, there is no likelihood > of "inducing a revoke" that is fine. If you want to rule that South is > not the sort of player to whom this concept would even occur that is fine > too. > But if you believe that South is the sort of player to whom this > "technique" might occur and the field is one in which it is likely to gain > then of course you can use "could have known" to adjust. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 15:03:05 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:03:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000701c36579$cb1931a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003c01c36598$627d0260$95e37f50@Default> Sven: Are you certain (in your judgment) that the revoke by West was just subsequent and not also consequent to the revoke by South? What the heck has this to do with judgement? How can one revoke be the consequence of another revoke for gods sake. It is a club trick, and the fact that south ruffed (are you sure he still has one by the way) doesn't change the fact that you have to follow suit. Sven: To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent to South's; as I have already said I see absolutely no reason to suspect that West would have revoked had South not revoked first. All of this is completely irrelevant. West remains responsible for himself. If not you can claim that your revoke doesn't count because the waiter arrived with the drinks (which also makes a revoke more likely) or god knows what. Sven: And I believe the main point in this discussion should be whether the consequence that West revoked is sufficient for invoking a Law 64C ruling on the revoke by South. Herman has shown a very interesting logical approach which may make the application of Law 64C even more obvious than it is as the result of my own approach but the final outcome is the same with them both. This so called Herman logic is a travesty of the laws for me. I have reread 64C. Sure it is the usual clumsy language. But the basic concept is clear, the TD can adjust if the NOS is insufficiently compensated (like when the revoke gains 3 tricks). Well here there are 2 infractions. For the NS infraction EW were not compensated but there was no damage (NS didn't take any tricks). For the EW infraction NS were compensated with 2 tricks and I am sure that was more than sufficient. So on what grounds do you want to apply 4C. But of course if Herman wants this law to mean 'the TD can do as he pleases' go ahead an assign any result you like. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 1:13 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes Jaap van der Neut ......... > Please Herman, try to understand the difference between consequent and > subsequent. South making 2 tricks has nothing to do with his revoke, it is > not a consequence of his revoke. South just got two tricks out of a > subsequent revoke by West. Are you certain (in your judgment) that the revoke by West was just subsequent and not also consequent to the revoke by South? To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent to South's; as I have already said I see absolutely no reason to suspect that West would have revoked had South not revoked first. And I believe the main point in this discussion should be whether the consequence that West revoked is sufficient for invoking a Law 64C ruling on the revoke by South. Herman has shown a very interesting logical approach which may make the application of Law 64C even more obvious than it is as the result of my own approach but the final outcome is the same with them both. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 15:52:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:52:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> Herman, >L64C applies to both revokes equally. >South has made a revoke, for which there was no penalty, since he made >no "real" tricks afterwards. Strange as it may seem for someone who >made no tricks, he did end up with a higher score than he would have >if he had not revoked. L64C applies, as the NOS (EW) are not >compensated by the failure of the laws to correct this. Complete nonsense. It is not HdW who will judge that there is a failure of the law. South did not end up with those tricks because of his revoke (which cost him a trick if west had not revoked) but because a later revoke by west. By the way, 64C always applies to any revoke, but here it has no effect. Both revokes were 'sufficiently compensated'. This is a typical case of Herman rules according to what Herman wants the laws to be and not what they currently are. Herman: > No Jaap, L64C says nothing about consequent and subsequent. L64B1 > specifically indicates this reason why South is not penalized for his > revoke. So 64C is of application. And South ends up with 2 tricks. No Herman. The above paragraph is 'logical nonsense'. Your 'so 64C is of application' doesn't make any sense. 64B1 says explicitly that there is no penalty in this case. The way you write you say that this alone is a reason that 64C should apply. Nonsense. 64C is a catchall which is very clear about its own application. It is used if the NOS is insufficiently compensated by this Law. The NS revoke didn't cause any damage by itself so EW need no compensation. So no 64C. Herman: > Suppose there is a revoke early on. Let's say a simple (one-trick) > one. This leads opponents to mis-count the hand, and they don't find > the correct defence that leads to the normal score (let's say that's > just made). However, there are two other lines, one of which would > lead to a very good result for defence (down 3), one which leads to a > good one for declarer (plus two, corrected to plus one by the revoke). > Of course it's this last one that is chosen. What do you rule? Here we apply 64C because now you are discussing damage caused by the revoke. But then your story is not clear. You say the normal result is just made. So if the defence gets that result or a better one (after the penalty) the compensation is sufficient so we don't need 64C. If the defence had a chance AFTER the revoke of an even better result it doesn't matter. If the defence had a chance BEFORE the revoke of an even better result it becomes difficult. But that means the normal result without the revoke is unclear. I guess we get then into the infamous 12C2 12C3 type of discussion. Do we weigh or do we pick the most favorable for the NOS. Herman: > At the moment of the revoke, the normal outcome is just made. After > the revoke, the outcome is either -4 or +1. We might say that this is > worth -1.5, so defenders are not damaged by the revoke. Logical Nonsense. You can not do the math that way. Because although their expectation might have improved by the revoke it is still quite possible their final result is worse than what the would have gotten without a revoke.In other words, if they achieve the -4 end of story. But if it ends in +1 64C applies to restore just made (making some assumptions). Herman > The same applies to this case. Without the revoke, South scores 1 > trick. With the revoke, South scores either 0 (2 minus 2 for the > revoke) or 2 (with West revoking as well). Is West damaged by the > revoke when he has to conceeds 2, or not? Logical Nonsense. In the 'other' case we were discussing damage clearly caused by the revoke (like opps miscounting or misjudging). In this case the South revoke didn't cause any damage at all. It just happend that at a later stage in the play West made a revoke of his own. Nobody is going to sell me that south not following suit (he might not have clubs even if west thought he had, do you never miscount) is an excuse for west not to follow suit holding a club. So there is no real relation between the two revokes. Herman: > I don't believe the main point of view in this case is not yours. I don't give a damn about your judgement about that. It is well know that you have very strange ideas about the laws and that 'subsequently' you tend to believe that those strange ideas are main stream. Anyway I am quite sure that my point of view is just what the laws say at the moment (and the way they were intended). That doesn't mean that some AC's might rule something else. But AC's are well known not to care at all what the law says. They are responsible to no one and they cannot be overruled. Jaap van der Neut From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 16:03:09 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:03:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <20030818145026.2A41927ADF@www.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <007901c36599$d7b3eac0$95e37f50@Default> David, We were discussing this as a law problem. So we assume some level of play. Now if we deal with beginners who tend to play to same suit as RHO rather than whatever is lead to the trick I guess we better forget about the laws until they have improved a little (lot). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" To: Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:12 +0100 (BST), "Tim West-Meads" > said: > > Jaap wrote: > > > Even if you are > > > right that South's revoke might improve the changes of West revoking, it > > > doesn't mean anything. 'Indcucing' a revoke (if what south did is > > > inducing a revoke) is not an infraction. > > > > Let me change the scenario slightly. South, after the CK is led says > > "Hee-hee, the good old fake revoke always works - I've got a club after > > all". You believe that South has not committed an infraction and will > > allow South's revoke to be corrected and transfer 2 tricks from West to > > South? That's not bridge. > > > > If you would adjust the score in my scenario then the actual scenario is > > a > > "could have known" situation. Of course if the TD wants to rule that, at > > the exalted level at which DALB and Jaap compete, there is no likelihood > > of "inducing a revoke" that is fine. If you want to rule that South is > > not the sort of player to whom this concept would even occur that is fine > > too. > > But if you believe that South is the sort of player to whom this > > "technique" might occur and the field is one in which it is likely to > > gain > > then of course you can use "could have known" to adjust. > > > > One of us is missing something. South, by simply following suit, can > guarantee one more trick once East has failed to ruff the club. By > revoking, South will win 0 tricks if West does not revoke or 2 tricks if > West does revoke. I fail to see where the "good old fake revoke" has > anything to gain, unless your opponents revoke more than 50% of the time > when you revoke. Im my experience I would think that 2 revokes on the > same trick is about 100 times less likely than only 1 revoke. > > -- > Dave Kent > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and > love email again > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 16:06:04 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:06:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament Format References: Message-ID: <009401c3659a$3fe75500$95e37f50@Default> Tim: > I was told, by a number of TDs at Brighton, that the single biggest factor > in reducing appeals has been the use by TDs of L12c3 adjustments. However > I suspect that at least one TD will not soon forget the requirement to > consult on judgement rulings and I think improved consultation is > undoubtedly good. It should be OBLIGATORY. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 1:42 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tournament Format > Frances wrote: > > > > This seems an excellent idea and I hope cut down the number > > of appeals - I don't recall their being any after the final > > session. When you have enough people around at a big > > tournament like Brighton it's certainly worth putting as > > much effort as possible into getting the TD's ruling > > exactly right, rather than just leaving up to the AC to sort things > > out if necessary. > > I was told, by a number of TDs at Brighton, that the single biggest factor > in reducing appeals has been the use by TDs of L12c3 adjustments. However > I suspect that at least one TD will not soon forget the requirement to > consult on judgement rulings and I think improved consultation is > undoubtedly good. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 16:26:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:26:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <4115656.1061215546921.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001201c3659d$20be0220$95e37f50@Default> David: > While we're here, Sven asked me if I thought Law 64C had any merit. I do not. I consider it the second most stupid law in the book. A side that revokes should transfer two tricks to the opponents, plus any tricks in excess of two gained by the revoke. I agree (on the principle) and I don't (on the details). Because this way some revokes (actually the big mean ones) go unpunished (if they gain two or more tricks). So what about: A side that revokes should transfer two tricks to the opponents, plus any tricks in excess of ONE gained by the revoke. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > Gordon wrote: > > > I see no "could have known" clause in Law 64. > > There isn't one. But Law 72B1, "General Principles", says: > > Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > > While we're here, Sven asked me if I thought Law 64C had any merit. I do not. I consider it the second most stupid law in the book. A side that revokes should transfer two tricks to the opponents, plus any tricks in excess of two gained by the revoke. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 16:34:25 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:34:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <744543.1061220865863.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: > I have said in the very beginning that if the TD thinks South is lets say 'creative' we are dealing with something else altogether. Cheating I guess. Mechanical rules like the revoke rule are not meant to deal with that. On the contrary. The reason why the revoke law was as it was (two tricks transferred) was precisely so that it would operate as a mechanical law. It was designed on the premise that people would on occasion ruff when they could follow, unless it was made sufficiently disadvantageous for them to do so. Hence, they had to give back (a) the trick they had ruffed (restitution) and another trick (penalty, or deterrent). The revoke law, like the rules of all sensible games, exists because when playing games, many people will cheat unless they cannot profit but only lose thereby, and is one of the better laws (although the existence of the absurd 64C is a blot). The nonsensical drive towards "equity" and the obtaining of "bridge results" has rendered the rules less and less operative. It has meant that now, even in simple cases such as a revoke, some buffoon has a chance to impose on a deal his view of what would have happened, which has nothing to do with the players' view of what would have happened, and has nothing at all to do with what really would have happened. The suggestion is frequently made, for example, that someone who does something stupid following (but wholly unconnected with) an infraction would have played not only non-stupidly but perfectly in the absence of the infraction, because the term "non-offender" appears to convey an invulnerability to making errors. This is entirely typical of the complete chaos into which the search for equity will soon lead the game. Mechanical rules worked, but certain leading players decided that it wasn't fair that the mechanical rules should apply to them, for it meant that they got worse results than they would have done from time to time. That attitude persists, and while it persists, I see precious little chance that anything sensible will come of however many revisions of the laws there are. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 16:41:57 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:41:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <6842589.1061221317992.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: >I agree (on the principle) and I don't (on the details). Because this way some revokes (actually the big mean ones) go unpunished (if they gain two or more tricks). So what about: >A side that revokes should transfer two tricks to the opponents, plus any tricks in excess of ONE gained by the revoke. Sorry. "in excess of two" was written with brain disengaged. It wasn't supposed to be there at all. A side that revokes should restore all tricks gained by the revoke (restitution), and it should transfer all tricks won apart from those gained by the revoke up to a maximum of two (penalty). The penalty tricks should come from tricks won before the revoke as well as after - there is no reason for the distinction in logic, equity or sense, nor has there ever been. But I would settle for one penalty trick if pushed. The absurd Law 64C, which imposes no penalty trick on some revokes, should simply not be there. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 16:50:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:50:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <4305217.1061212362406.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000001c365a0$84d39f60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > dalburn@btopenworld.com ....... > Suppose South didn't have a club. Would West's revoke then have been > uninduced by anything?=20 Of course it would have been induced by South ruffing the club trick. = But in this case the inducing action would not have been any irregularity and = West would have had to take his medicine. Now South has made an irregularity, and that irregularity caused West do revoke as well, that is the difference. > When an opponent ruffs something to which you can > follow, is it in some way the normal action then not to follow suit? I don't know about you, but I have on occasions been absent-minded and over-ruffed opponent's ruff in a trick to which I could follow suit. ....... > South and West both revoked. As it happens, South's revoke was not = subject > to penalty, but West's was. So East-West pay a penalty, while = North-South > do not. It happens that way sometimes; your responsibility is to = follow > suit if you can do so, whatever anyone else at the table might have = done. >=20 > I am truly surprised at Sven's arguments here, which are the first I = have > ever seen from him that make absolutely no sense to me at all. Perhaps > there is some confusion with the situation in which someone plays out = of > turn; this may indeed "induce" the next player to play out of turn = also. > But then we say that the "induced" play out of turn is not an = infraction, > which seems reasonable enough to me. Here, though, it is frankly > ridiculous to say that a player can be induced not to follow suit = because > the previous player has not done so. Would I be permitted to use that = as > an excuse every time I revoked when my RHO doesn't have a card of the = suit > led to the trick? Yes, you may use that as an excuse if you care, but it shall not help = you except when it comes to judge whether you have been damaged in a way = that makes Law 64C applicable. Sven=20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 18 17:53:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:53:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000701c36579$cb1931a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8383E5B0-D19C-11D7-A53E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent to South's; > as I > have already said I see absolutely no reason to suspect that West > would have > revoked had South not revoked first. There's no reason to suspect that he wouldn't have, either, save that it isn't "normal" to revoke. Or rather, players don't usually commit irregularities on purpose - but they do revoke, and fairly often, or we wouldn't have laws to deal with it. IAC, the fact that there is "no reason to suspect..." as you say doesn't mean that one should conclude that West would not have revoked had South not done so. From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Aug 18 17:58:06 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:58:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) Message-ID: "David Burn" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 15/08/2003 15:57 =20 Pour : "Pekka Viitasalo" , "blml" = cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Tournament format (transitivity, off-topic) Pekka wrote: > Ranking in itself is transitive. > IMO, it is not. The mathematicians can put this better than I, but for anything to be "transitive", it must be a relationship, like "greater than" or "equal to". The relationship "always beats" is not transitive; it is possible that, for example, A always beats B at tennis, B always beats C, but A does not always beat (and may indeed always lose to) C. *** indeed, this statement is true and for those who might be incredulous,=20 there is a simple exemple. one might assume a discipline where the transitivity is true for=20 individual players: 9 players ranked from 1 to 9, and such that any of=20 them always beats any lower-ranking other one. the next step is to arrange = team-matches with teams of 3 players, in which each player of one team=20 plays against the three players of another team, as it has been the case=20 in the past in table-tennis or fencing team competitions. if team A=20 consists of players ranked 1, 5 and 9, team B of 2, 6, 7 and team C (3, 4, = 8), one can verify that A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A (always by the = same score of 5 to 4). jp rocafort ***=20 But if a ranking list has been compiled, the relationship "outranks" is transitive; if A outranks B and B outranks C, then A always outranks C. The compilation of such a ranking list will be based on all matches between A, B, C and the rest of the alphabet. But the ranking list cannot predict what will happen in a match between any two players. If it could, the betting industry would disappear overnight. Not that any of this matters. As I have said many times, it does not make much, or any, difference what seeding methods you use for tournaments or what scoring methods you use. Those who play with the most effective combination of skill and luck on the day will win; those who do not will lose; and neither of those factors is a function of what the organisers do. David Burn London, England =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 18 18:09:11 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:09:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <6842589.1061221317992.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003b01c365ab$782c7ba0$869868d5@default> {David Burn] A side that revokes should restore all tricks gained by the revoke (restitution), and it should transfer all tricks won apart from those gained by the revoke up to a maximum of two (penalty). The penalty tricks should come from tricks won before the revoke as well as after - there is no reason for the distinction in logic, equity or sense, nor has there ever been. But I would settle for one penalty trick if pushed. The absurd Law 64C, which imposes no penalty trick on some revokes, should simply not be there. [Nigel] Good. Equitable. Just. Fair. Simple. Clear. Easier for players to understand and appreciate. Many TDs would also be able to enforce it correctly. ...Hence... ): little chance of becoming law in my life-time :( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 18 18:12:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:12:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000001c365a0$84d39f60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1A40B7F7-D19F-11D7-A53E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 11:50 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I don't know about you, but I have on occasions been absent-minded and > over-ruffed opponent's ruff in a trick to which I could follow suit. So have I. We were paying insufficient attention to the game. Should we not be penalized for that, when we gain by it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 18 18:26:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:26:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <1751CA31-D182-11D7-9EF4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <1EA95F8A-D1A1-11D7-A53E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 09:44 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I think I'm agreeing with your results all round Ed, though getting > there by a slightly different route :) Thank you, Gordon. :-) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 18 18:36:11 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:36:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <000601c36382$a6bedb50$9248e150@endicott> Message-ID: <004501c365af$404ee3e0$869868d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] the law calls upon him to disclose effectively all that is not a matter of "general knowledge and experience". [Nigel Guthrie] Most bridge-players comply with the letter and spirit of disclosure laws. But a few regard questions as unwarranted invasions of privacy. If the partnership is long-standing, they cannot always plausibly answer "No agreement" so they fall back on the other convenient legal get-out of "General Knowledge and Experience". If these legal ruses do not work then the TFLB allows the TD/AC to blame the NOS for failure to ask enough questions. IMO, if you don't know what a call means, you should say so. If asked again you should guess, assigning a likelihood to each guess. e.g. "it isn't an asking bid or reply. it does not guarantee four cards. it is probably a trial bid. or it may be a stop for no-trump. it may even be a cue-bid. All references to "General Knowledge and Experience" and "Self protection" should be expunged. From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Mon Aug 18 18:28:24 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:28:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c365ae$240491e0$0201a8c0@rui> IMHO, NS won NO trick, 0 transfer, EW won enough to transfer two tricks to NS. 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). 72B1 also not for the same reason. If 72B2 is not applicable, case closed. Am I missing something? The fact that there is no non-offending side is being disregarded by a lot of people... From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 18 19:38:52 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:38:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just bad luck? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030814132033.01d4de90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c36255$bcfdd5c0$7ad28051@pbncomputer> <003b01c362b9$949d1460$e83087d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20030815122540.021d5680@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004d01c365b8$1d7376c0$869868d5@default> [Eric Landau] Interesting. How do you avoid the obvious: A faced "explain card" meaning "I might consider entering their auction", an unfaced one meaning "I have no interest"? [Kaima] IMO we definitely do NOT need another piece of paper at the table, to be handled, to be cluttering the space, to be remembered to display or hide, nor to deal with the UI implications what Eric just wrote about plus stuff related to it. [Nigel] Some still seem not to understand why *explain* instead of *alert* is simpler, faster and affords less opportunity for UI. {: Maybe I did not explain clearly enough :) (1) The "explain" card *replaces* the "alert" card. There is no more paper and also no time-wasting alerts and questions. (2) I would prefer the law to say that *before each set of boards*, you must decide whether to keep your explain card face up or face-down for the set. Then you could not transmit UI in the way that Eric fears. But is the bridge public ready for such a radical improvement? Perhaps the law should be relaxed to allow a player to change his mind and face his explain card during a board, providing it is made clear that there is potential UI in such an action. Notice that, even if such an action were permitted, it involves less UI than is available from a question, under current *alert* rules. (3) The worst UI aspect of the current alert rules is when opponent's alert wakes up his partner to the fact that his call was "conventional". When alerts were first introduced, it was then legal to display a "PLEASE DO NOT ALERT CARD" to prevent opponents from alerting and exchanging information in this way. (The card had the same effect as "delayed alerts" -- or turning your *explain* card face down). By using our card we got several tops per session, when opponents auction went off the rails and neither opponent seemed sure if "system is on". "Expert" opponents with complex systems were most prone to such mix-ups. If anybody else has difficulty understanding this explanation, please say and I will try to write it more simply to clear up remaining confusions. From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 19:45:23 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:45:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <000001c365ae$240491e0$0201a8c0@rui> References: <000001c365ae$240491e0$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <3F411EC3.5030907@hdw.be> Sorry Rui, but that argument is not valid. Rui Marques wrote: > IMHO, NS won NO trick, 0 transfer, EW won enough to transfer two tricks > to NS. 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). 72B1 also > not for the same reason. If 72B2 is not applicable, case closed. Am I > missing something? The fact that there is no non-offending side is being > disregarded by a lot of people... > > If we regard the first revoke only, then NS are OS and EW are NOS. Not that this proves anything, but it does negate your argument. IMHO. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 19:58:22 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:58:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F4121CE.1050705@hdw.be> Sorry Jaap, your arguments too are failing. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > >>L64C applies to both revokes equally. >>South has made a revoke, for which there was no penalty, since he made >>no "real" tricks afterwards. Strange as it may seem for someone who >>made no tricks, he did end up with a higher score than he would have >>if he had not revoked. L64C applies, as the NOS (EW) are not >>compensated by the failure of the laws to correct this. > > > Complete nonsense. It is not HdW who will judge that there is a failure of > the law. Having re-read my sentence above, I realize it was not clear enough. What I meant is that EW, as NOS from the first revoke, are not compensated. > South did not end up with those tricks because of his revoke (which > cost him a trick if west had not revoked) but because a later revoke by > west. By the way, 64C always applies to any revoke, but here it has no > effect. Both revokes were 'sufficiently compensated'. This is a typical case > of Herman rules according to what Herman wants the laws to be and not what > they currently are. > No, it is a typical case of Jaap trying to argue his way out without using an argument. Answer the argument, not the man, please. You say both revokes were sufficiently compensated. I say they are not. Argue your case, please. > > Herman: > >>No Jaap, L64C says nothing about consequent and subsequent. L64B1 >>specifically indicates this reason why South is not penalized for his >>revoke. So 64C is of application. And South ends up with 2 tricks. > > > No Herman. The above paragraph is 'logical nonsense'. Your 'so 64C is of > application' doesn't make any sense. L64C is of application after any revoke which L64B fails to penalize. The first revoke was not penalized, because L64B1 states that only tricks that are won can be transferred. L64C is certainly of application. There can be no doubt about that one and if you won't agree to that simple fact our argument is at an end. Mind you, I don't say that totally proves my argument - there are other holes, but this is not one of them. 64B1 says explicitly that there is no > penalty in this case. The way you write you say that this alone is a reason > that 64C should apply. Nonsense. Nonsense. L64C applies. No doubt about that. 64C is a catchall which is very clear about > its own application. It is used if the NOS is insufficiently compensated by > this Law. The NS revoke didn't cause any damage by itself so EW need no > compensation. So no 64C. > That is something else. Are the NOS sufficiently compensated or not? > > Herman: > >>Suppose there is a revoke early on. Let's say a simple (one-trick) >>one. This leads opponents to mis-count the hand, and they don't find >>the correct defence that leads to the normal score (let's say that's >>just made). However, there are two other lines, one of which would >>lead to a very good result for defence (down 3), one which leads to a >>good one for declarer (plus two, corrected to plus one by the revoke). >>Of course it's this last one that is chosen. What do you rule? > > > Here we apply 64C because now you are discussing damage caused by the > revoke. But then your story is not clear. You say the normal result is just > made. So if the defence gets that result or a better one (after the penalty) > the compensation is sufficient so we don't need 64C. If the defence had a > chance AFTER the revoke of an even better result it doesn't matter. If the > defence had a chance BEFORE the revoke of an even better result it becomes > difficult. But that means the normal result without the revoke is unclear. I > guess we get then into the infamous 12C2 12C3 type of discussion. Do we > weigh or do we pick the most favorable for the NOS. > In my hypothetical the defence had no chance before the revoke, but they did have one after it, and did not take it. Do you believe that the hypothetical chance of a very good score is sufficient compensation for a non-punished revoke? I doubt it if you do. The same is true of the actual case. The NOS had a chanve for a good score, but they chose not to take that chance. So now they are not sufficiently compensated for the revoke. I believe the difference between the actual case and my hypothetical, which is that in the actual case the chance of getting the good score is far better (all they had to do was not revoke themselves) is of no importance. I believe it is the final result which determines whether or not the NOS are compensated, not their hypothetical expected value. But this is only MHO. > > Herman: > >>At the moment of the revoke, the normal outcome is just made. After >>the revoke, the outcome is either -4 or +1. We might say that this is >>worth -1.5, so defenders are not damaged by the revoke. > > > Logical Nonsense. You can not do the math that way. Because although their > expectation might have improved by the revoke it is still quite possible > their final result is worse than what the would have gotten without a > revoke.In other words, if they achieve the -4 end of story. But if it ends > in +1 64C applies to restore just made (making some assumptions). > Exactly my point. Transfer to the actual case: if they don't revoke, they have their three tricks, and no L64C is needed. But if they do, then 64C applies. >>The same applies to this case. Without the revoke, South scores 1 >>trick. With the revoke, South scores either 0 (2 minus 2 for the >>revoke) or 2 (with West revoking as well). Is West damaged by the >>revoke when he has to conceeds 2, or not? > > > > Logical Nonsense. In the 'other' case we were discussing damage clearly > caused by the revoke (like opps miscounting or misjudging). In this case the > South revoke didn't cause any damage at all. It just happend that at a later > stage in the play West made a revoke of his own. Nobody is going to sell me > that south not following suit (he might not have clubs even if west thought > he had, do you never miscount) is an excuse for west not to follow suit > holding a club. So there is no real relation between the two revokes. > > No, which is why I want to apply L64C on the first one. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 18 20:04:28 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:04:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F41233C.5070805@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> OK Gordon, consider the following >> >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> NS 2 tricks >>> EW 1 trick. >>> Same answer, but no problem with retransferring tricks this time. >>> The idea of using L64C which others (not you) have suggested seems >>> all wrong, since its use is only for when the NOS have been >>> inadequately compensated for the infraction. >>> When we dealt with the first revoke, EW (as the NOS at that moment) >>> got all the remaining tricks so were not inadequately compensated. >> >> >> Suppose that without a revoke by S, EW normally win 2 of the last 6 >> tricks. With a revoke, they win either 0 or 5. Add to that the penalty >> and you arrive at 1 or 6 tricks, on average 3.5. > > > I don't really understand what you are saying here. Maybe you could > clarify it? > Hypothetical case: Without the revoke, EW have 2 tricks. With the revoke, EW have two lines. One line gives them 0 trick, plus one penalty; the other line gives them 5 tricks+1=6. At the moment after the revoke, EW are in a position to win (expected value) of 3.5 tricks. So they are not damaged. >> Do you really believe by L64C a TD would not award them 2 tricks if >> they defend wrongly and score only 0+1=1? >> Yet by your reasoning, EW "got a chance at all tricks and were not >> inadequately compensated". > > > The phrase you have put within quotation marks is not a phrase I used in > the post to which you are replying. > Let me re-use your double negative: When we dealt with the first revoke, EW (as the NOS at that moment) got all the remaining tricks so were not inadequately compensated. becomes: When we dealt with my hypothetical revoke, EW (NOS) got a chance at all the remaining tricks so were not inadequately compensated. Don't you see that in both cases the "all tricks" is just an expectation, not a reality. In both cases at the end, EW did not get all those tricks. Granted, my case is less certain than the actual one, but that is surely just a question of quantity, not quality? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schuster@eduhi.at Mon Aug 18 21:00:03 2003 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:00:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] What if he doesn't? In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c36583$91977810$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ------- Forwarded message ------- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: Sven Pran Subject: Re: [blml] What if he doesn't? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:46:34 +0200 > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:23:44 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> >> No, why? See Law 47E1 again. >> >> The "offender" in this case is the opponent giving misinformation > Agreed > >> not the >> player acting in good faith on that misinformation. >> > Why not? He has, after all, lead out of turn. It would at least show > insufficient attention to the game, so IMO both sides are OS. > >> (Or if by "NOS" you mean the player leading his card out of turn and >> refusing to withdraw it; he becomes the offender in LOOT when he refuses >> the >> grace offered in L47E1) > I wonder. The Laws say he does nothing wrong by not withdrawing the LOOT: > Why should it *make* him - as you argue - an offender? Either he has been > one fdrom the LOOT, or he has not offended at all by not withdrawing the > LOOT. -- Petrus Schuster OSB From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Mon Aug 18 21:00:30 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:00:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <3F411EC3.5030907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c365c3$6349e0c0$0201a8c0@rui> I can accept the argument, but in my view that does not negate anything. When the hand is finished and director is called, both sides are offending sides. I dont think that considering multiple consecutive offenses by both sides we should consider one side offender for each irregularity. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: segunda-feira, 18 de Agosto de 2003 19:45 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. Sorry Rui, but that argument is not valid. Rui Marques wrote: > IMHO, NS won NO trick, 0 transfer, EW won enough to transfer two > tricks to NS. 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). > 72B1 also not for the same reason. If 72B2 is not applicable, case > closed. Am I missing something? The fact that there is no > non-offending side is being disregarded by a lot of people... > > If we regard the first revoke only, then NS are OS and EW are NOS. Not that this proves anything, but it does negate your argument. IMHO. > -- 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 twm@cix.co.uk Mon Aug 18 21:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <20030818145026.2A41927ADF@www.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: David wrote: > One of us is missing something. South, by simply following suit, can > guarantee one more trick once East has failed to ruff the club. By > revoking, South will win 0 tricks if West does not revoke or 2 tricks if > West does revoke. I fail to see where the "good old fake revoke" has > anything to gain, unless your opponents revoke more than 50% of the time > when you revoke. Im my experience I would think that 2 revokes on the > same trick is about 100 times less likely than only 1 revoke. I would reckon that in a typical "rabbit" field one can induce an over-revoke about 1 time in 5 (maybe 1 in ten) with this ploy. The times it fails one simply corrects the revoke before it is established - being declarer this never costs a trick. I don't like giving declarer a "no lose gamble" option when he chooses to commit an infraction. I have been told to use L72b1 when "no lose gambles" occur "inadvertently". As an aside I was recently on a TD training course and I was struck by the apparent naivety of other attendees. It seemed clear to me that they had barely sniffed the inside of a coffee-house. I would rule differently on the actual case depending on whether declarer was H**** or H**** and I would know (in both cases) that I was ruling correctly. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Aug 18 21:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <003b01c36598$61ed93a0$95e37f50@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > > I have said in the very beginning that if the TD thinks South is lets > say 'creative' we are dealing with something else altogether. Cheating I > guess. Mechanical rules like the revoke rule are not meant to deal with > that. The TD has insufficient evidence to rule "cheating" merely because he *thinks* South is being "creative". That is why the TD has been given L72b1 - to protect the innocent without having to *prove* anything against the guilty. That is why I originally said that one *may* adjust under L72b1 - not that one *must* do so. I agree with Sven when he says that 1 trick NS is "equity", I disagree with his attempted use of L64c to do this. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 22:03:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:03:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <000001c365ae$240491e0$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <000401c365cc$359cd430$6900a8c0@WINXP> Rui Marques > IMHO, NS won NO trick, 0 transfer, EW won enough to transfer two tricks > to NS. 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). 72B1 also > not for the same reason. If 72B2 is not applicable, case closed. Am I > missing something? The fact that there is no non-offending side is being > disregarded by a lot of people... There were two different revokes, the first with South as offender and EW NOS, the second with West as offender and NS as NOS. You should not mix the two together and say that there were no NOS here. Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 21:57:09 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:57:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> <3F4121CE.1050705@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005201c365cb$4ea66500$a4ef7f50@Default> Herman, your mind is getting out of bounds. Herman: > Having re-read my sentence above, I realize it was not clear enough. > What I meant is that EW, as NOS from the first revoke, are not > compensated. Not clear enough? You were very clear. You said that according to HdW EW were suffering from failing laws. HdW has decided EW need compensation, he has decided the laws are no good, so he will twist rape and turn the laws upside down to get an argument to give EW some compensation. EW are not compensated because the law says that there is no compensation if the revoking side wins no tricks after the revoke. Herman: > No, it is a typical case of Jaap trying to argue his way out without > using an argument. Answer the argument, not the man, please. > You say both revokes were sufficiently compensated. I say they are > not. Argue your case, please. Argue my case? This is the bloody limit. I have given sufficient argumentation (and so have others). Herman if you want to discuss read and answer my arguments and stop whining like a spoiled child. Herman: > L64C is of application after any revoke which L64B fails to penalize. > The first revoke was not penalized, because L64B1 states that only > tricks that are won can be transferred. L64C is certainly of > application. There can be no doubt about that one and if you won't > agree to that simple fact our argument is at an end. > Mind you, I don't say that totally proves my argument - there are > other holes, but this is not one of them. Herman, you give the impression you don't know what you are talking about. 64C applies when 64B fails to penalize? Read 64C, it is about insufficient compensation. It is not very likely that there is insufficient compensation if 64B explicitly states there is no penalty. Otherwise we might as well discard all of 64B. The only logic in the above is: Herman doesn't like that 64B gives no penalty in this case so we must apply some other article which lets Herman decide as Herman wants. Herman: > Nonsense. L64C applies. No doubt about that. No doubt ? The only argument that L64C applies is that Herman wants to apply it. There is no support in the law text, there is no support in known cases, there is not much of support on blml. So I reserve the right to have some doubt about L64C applying. Herman: > In my hypothetical the defence had no chance before the revoke, but > they did have one after it, and did not take it. Do you believe that > the hypothetical chance of a very good score is sufficient > compensation for a non-punished revoke? I doubt it if you do. > The same is true of the actual case. The NOS had a chanve for a good > score, but they chose not to take that chance. So now they are not > sufficiently compensated for the revoke. Do you understand yourself what you say ? Burn and I are both in favor of a revoke law that always punishes a revoke. But the current law DOES NOT. All what you say is contrary to the current law. If the NOS has the same result after the revoke including the revoke penaly, as they would have had without the revoke this is just another case of a revoke that didn't cost. If they had a chance to get a better result after the revoke and they missed it so be it (that is not damage caused by the revoke). Don't come to me, I don't like the current law. Go complain somewhere else, try Grattan. I am sure he can explain why certain revokes get penalized and others escape. And once more. 64C is meant as a guard for the NOS getting a worse result after revoke and penalty than without revoke (the typical case is a revoke that wins 3 tricks). And the scope is the consequence of the revoke, not whatever happens subsequent. Jaap van der Neut. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > Sorry Jaap, your arguments too are failing. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman, > > > >>L64C applies to both revokes equally. > >>South has made a revoke, for which there was no penalty, since he made > >>no "real" tricks afterwards. Strange as it may seem for someone who > >>made no tricks, he did end up with a higher score than he would have > >>if he had not revoked. L64C applies, as the NOS (EW) are not > >>compensated by the failure of the laws to correct this. > > > > > > Complete nonsense. It is not HdW who will judge that there is a failure of > > the law. > > Having re-read my sentence above, I realize it was not clear enough. > What I meant is that EW, as NOS from the first revoke, are not > compensated. > > > South did not end up with those tricks because of his revoke (which > > cost him a trick if west had not revoked) but because a later revoke by > > west. By the way, 64C always applies to any revoke, but here it has no > > effect. Both revokes were 'sufficiently compensated'. This is a typical case > > of Herman rules according to what Herman wants the laws to be and not what > > they currently are. > > > > No, it is a typical case of Jaap trying to argue his way out without > using an argument. Answer the argument, not the man, please. > > You say both revokes were sufficiently compensated. I say they are > not. Argue your case, please. > > > > > Herman: > > > >>No Jaap, L64C says nothing about consequent and subsequent. L64B1 > >>specifically indicates this reason why South is not penalized for his > >>revoke. So 64C is of application. And South ends up with 2 tricks. > > > > > > No Herman. The above paragraph is 'logical nonsense'. Your 'so 64C is of > > application' doesn't make any sense. > > L64C is of application after any revoke which L64B fails to penalize. > The first revoke was not penalized, because L64B1 states that only > tricks that are won can be transferred. L64C is certainly of > application. There can be no doubt about that one and if you won't > agree to that simple fact our argument is at an end. > Mind you, I don't say that totally proves my argument - there are > other holes, but this is not one of them. > > 64B1 says explicitly that there is no > > penalty in this case. The way you write you say that this alone is a reason > > that 64C should apply. Nonsense. > > Nonsense. L64C applies. No doubt about that. > > 64C is a catchall which is very clear about > > its own application. It is used if the NOS is insufficiently compensated by > > this Law. The NS revoke didn't cause any damage by itself so EW need no > > compensation. So no 64C. > > > > That is something else. Are the NOS sufficiently compensated or not? > > > > > Herman: > > > >>Suppose there is a revoke early on. Let's say a simple (one-trick) > >>one. This leads opponents to mis-count the hand, and they don't find > >>the correct defence that leads to the normal score (let's say that's > >>just made). However, there are two other lines, one of which would > >>lead to a very good result for defence (down 3), one which leads to a > >>good one for declarer (plus two, corrected to plus one by the revoke). > >>Of course it's this last one that is chosen. What do you rule? > > > > > > Here we apply 64C because now you are discussing damage caused by the > > revoke. But then your story is not clear. You say the normal result is just > > made. So if the defence gets that result or a better one (after the penalty) > > the compensation is sufficient so we don't need 64C. If the defence had a > > chance AFTER the revoke of an even better result it doesn't matter. If the > > defence had a chance BEFORE the revoke of an even better result it becomes > > difficult. But that means the normal result without the revoke is unclear. I > > guess we get then into the infamous 12C2 12C3 type of discussion. Do we > > weigh or do we pick the most favorable for the NOS. > > > > In my hypothetical the defence had no chance before the revoke, but > they did have one after it, and did not take it. Do you believe that > the hypothetical chance of a very good score is sufficient > compensation for a non-punished revoke? I doubt it if you do. > The same is true of the actual case. The NOS had a chanve for a good > score, but they chose not to take that chance. So now they are not > sufficiently compensated for the revoke. I believe the difference > between the actual case and my hypothetical, which is that in the > actual case the chance of getting the good score is far better (all > they had to do was not revoke themselves) is of no importance. I > believe it is the final result which determines whether or not the NOS > are compensated, not their hypothetical expected value. > > But this is only MHO. > > > > > Herman: > > > >>At the moment of the revoke, the normal outcome is just made. After > >>the revoke, the outcome is either -4 or +1. We might say that this is > >>worth -1.5, so defenders are not damaged by the revoke. > > > > > > Logical Nonsense. You can not do the math that way. Because although their > > expectation might have improved by the revoke it is still quite possible > > their final result is worse than what the would have gotten without a > > revoke.In other words, if they achieve the -4 end of story. But if it ends > > in +1 64C applies to restore just made (making some assumptions). > > > > Exactly my point. Transfer to the actual case: if they don't revoke, > they have their three tricks, and no L64C is needed. But if they do, > then 64C applies. > > >>The same applies to this case. Without the revoke, South scores 1 > >>trick. With the revoke, South scores either 0 (2 minus 2 for the > >>revoke) or 2 (with West revoking as well). Is West damaged by the > >>revoke when he has to conceeds 2, or not? > > > > > > > > Logical Nonsense. In the 'other' case we were discussing damage clearly > > caused by the revoke (like opps miscounting or misjudging). In this case the > > South revoke didn't cause any damage at all. It just happend that at a later > > stage in the play West made a revoke of his own. Nobody is going to sell me > > that south not following suit (he might not have clubs even if west thought > > he had, do you never miscount) is an excuse for west not to follow suit > > holding a club. So there is no real relation between the two revokes. > > > > > > No, which is why I want to apply L64C on the first one. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 22:07:19 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:07:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: Message-ID: <007f01c365cc$b7439820$a4ef7f50@Default> Tim, I guess we agree. I am not really into coffeehousing, if someone tried to do that in a serious enviroment I prefer to call it cheating or whatever. Anyway, I know the laws allow you to call someone a cheat without calling him a cheat. Has a lot of advantages (sometimes you really need it) but also a lot of disadvantages (who guards the guards). I prefer not to use these kind of reversed proof techniques unles I really need them. So if I ever use one you know what I really think. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap wrote: > > > > I have said in the very beginning that if the TD thinks South is lets > > say 'creative' we are dealing with something else altogether. Cheating I > > guess. Mechanical rules like the revoke rule are not meant to deal with > > that. > > The TD has insufficient evidence to rule "cheating" merely because he > *thinks* South is being "creative". That is why the TD has been given > L72b1 - to protect the innocent without having to *prove* anything against > the guilty. That is why I originally said that one *may* adjust under > L72b1 - not that one *must* do so. I agree with Sven when he says that 1 > trick NS is "equity", I disagree with his attempted use of L64c to do > this. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 22:15:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:15:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <8383E5B0-D19C-11D7-A53E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c365cd$de4327f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > To me it appears obvious that West's revoke was consequent > > to South's; as I have already said I see absolutely no > > reason to suspect that West would have revoked had South > > not revoked first. > > There's no reason to suspect that he wouldn't have, either, > save that it isn't "normal" to revoke. Or rather, players > don't usually commit irregularities on purpose - but they do > revoke, and fairly often, or we wouldn't have laws to deal > with it. IAC, the fact that there is "no reason to suspect..." > as you say doesn't mean that one should conclude that West > would not have revoked had South not done so. Are you suggesting that the various laws on specific irregularities are there because such irregularities are committed "fairly often"? Law 38 deals with bid of more than seven, I cannot remember ever experiencing that. Have you experienced it "fairly often"? Law 39 deals with call after final pass. Same thing except for an extra pass. Just to mention two examples of irregularities that rarely occur although they have been provided for explicitly in their own laws. Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 18 22:12:46 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:12:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <000401c365cc$359cd430$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008901c365cd$7a2ee2e0$a4ef7f50@Default> Sven: > You should not mix the two together and say that there were no NOS here. In this case I tend to agree with you. It is quite possible to deal with them seperatly. But if you do so, you basically agree that they are both independant. It is kind of contradiction to treat them seperate but to claim that west's revoke was 'caused' by south's revoke. But the approach of Rui is also very practical. Often multiple infractions are too releated to each other and too complicated anyway. Then it makes a lot of sense to rule on the bunch as a whole. As far as I know the laws don't adress the multiple infraction problem so we just have to take a shot at it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes. > Rui Marques > > IMHO, NS won NO trick, 0 transfer, EW won enough to transfer two tricks > > to NS. 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). 72B1 also > > not for the same reason. If 72B2 is not applicable, case closed. Am I > > missing something? The fact that there is no non-offending side is being > > disregarded by a lot of people... > > There were two different revokes, the first with South as offender and EW > NOS, the second with West as offender and NS as NOS. > > You should not mix the two together and say that there were no NOS here. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 18 23:18:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:18:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <008901c365cd$7a2ee2e0$a4ef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <000601c365d6$a0b85eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Sven: > > You should not mix the two together and say that there were no NOS = here. >=20 > In this case I tend to agree with you. It is quite possible to deal = with > them seperatly. But if you do so, you basically agree that they are = both > independant. It is kind of contradiction to treat them seperate but to > claim that west's revoke was 'caused' by south's revoke. No, there is no contradiction here. We have two irregularities and = basically they must be ruled on as two independent irregularities.=20 However, in every revoke case the Director is required by Law 64C to investigate "what would have happened had the revoke not taken place"? = The answer here on the first revoke is: If South had not revoked it is extremely unlikely that West would have revoked; and the final result would have been two of the last three = tricks to EW, one to NS. Similarly the Director must investigate the same possibility with the = second revoke, the answer here is that had West not revoked after South then EW would have received all three remaining tricks. The result after application of Laws 64A and 64B on both revokes is that = NS received two tricks and EW received one. This result is better than = equity for NS (NOS on the last revoke). Thus no L64C adjustment on this second revoke. Now I believe there is an established rule that when establishing = "equity" the Director shall ignore all irregularities subsequent to the one being ruled upon except for subsequent irregularities that would probably have occurred also without the first irregularity. Under this rule EW who was NOS on the first revoke has clearly been = damaged on this revoke because their table result is only one of the last three tricks while their "equity" result is two of the last three tricks. That difference is "damage" for them as this term is defined by WBFLC, = and that damage is what the Director is bound by Law 64C to regulate. > But the approach of Rui is also very practical. Often multiple = infractions > are too releated to each other and too complicated anyway. Then it = makes a > lot of sense to rule on the bunch as a whole. As far as I know the = laws > don't adress the multiple infraction problem so we just have to take a > shot > at it. The fundamental problem as I pointed out in my very first post on this thread is just that the laws are silent on multiple irregularities which = are somehow related. I believe we are breaking new ground here; and without little help from the laws we have to try finding the "best" solution = that complies with the spirit of the laws. The laws are written as compromises between mechanical, easy to use code = for the most frequent irregularities and judgment rules for the Director to = try "saving" each board with results that most people will accept as "fair". If we shall try to rule on multiple irregularities as a bunch I don't = think we can have any alternative other than trying to establish "equity" = absent every irregularity in the "bunch".=20 That at least would have been a very easy ruling here: One trick to NS, = two tricks to EW. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 19 00:53:14 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:53:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <000601c365d6$a0b85eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008601c365e3$f0eab100$869868d5@default> [Sven Pran] If South had not revoked it is extremely unlikely that West would have revoked; and the final result would have been two of the last three tricks to EW, one to NS. [Nigel Guthrie] Muultitudes of topics in BLML comprise arguments like this about... (1) Legal ambiguities and inconsistencies that the law-makers refuse to clarify. (2) Laws and rules encouraging spurious subjective judgments that split TDs into contradictory camps. Many of these problems would be simply resolved by deleting or clarifying a law. In the latter cases *any* decision would be better than none. Nobody considers the plight of the poor player. As an inevitable consequence, in many different scenarios, players suffer random rulings that depend on which TD is called; and sometimes on the TD's relationship with the players. Often ACs are worse, delighting in the way that the law sanctions their blatant bias. Why do law-makers and TDs foster this farce? Justice for players is obviously of no concern, so for the sake of logic and language, do not pretend that the motive is "equity". From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 19 01:40:27 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:40:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F41233C.5070805@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hypothetical case: > Without the revoke, EW have 2 tricks. > With the revoke, EW have two lines. One line gives them 0 trick, plus > one penalty; the other line gives them 5 tricks+1=6. > At the moment after the revoke, EW are in a position to win (expected > value) of 3.5 tricks. So they are not damaged. I now understand what your example is, though it achieves no more pertinence for that. The revoke law is not based on average expectations at the moment after the revoke. If EW take the line that gives them no tricks, the one trick penalty is insufficient to compensate them, so L64C comes into play. If they take the line that gives them 5 tricks, the one trick penalty is sufficient to compensate them, so L64C is not applicable. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 19 02:24:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:24:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert Message-ID: <009401c365f0$d0c2f560$869868d5@default> How do you rule on this case from the first division of our county's inter- club league for teams of eight? N.B: No TD is present. If captains can't agree, then disputes go to arbitration and, if necessary, appeal. Board 12. NS vulnerable. Dealer East. West KJ753 AQ762 7 96 North T4 K9 AT964 Q832 East 9862 8543 A3 K54 South AQ JT QJ852 AJT7 West North East South - - P 1D 3C* 4D 4H 5D End * After North's 4D bid, East said he thought West's 3C was alertable and alerted. (On the E-W CC, on the front, "Jump overcalls" are explained as "11-14 6-card suit" but on the back, as "note 2" the 3C bid is correctly explained. South refused the club finesse in 5D, going down two. Excerpt from East's description of events: "We are not an experienced partnership. I do not play Ghestem with any other partner and this feature of Ghestem causes me to think for a while. However, after some thought I convinced myself that 3C was Ghestem so I alerted and said "I think I should have alerted 3C". (I was almost certain by this stage, so perhaps "Think" implied more doubt than I felt but I was trying to reassure myself that I had correctly remembered Ghestem). North's response was "Not according to your convention card". This rather took me aback and caused me to doubt whether or not I was right but I clearly could not pursue the discussion. Neither North nor South asked the meaning of 3C. At the end of the auction, I was aware that there still might be some confusion, so in order to avoid damaging South in the play, I very clearly stated that 3C was conventional. Again, South did not ask the meaning." Excerpt from South's claim of damage: "It was not a pause in alerting. It was a failure to alert at the correct time and then a very doubtful alert. Nobody can tell what they would have bid in different circumstances... North mentioned the possibility of 4HX-1 immediately... We might have played in 3N making on a spade lead... I would never have played W to hold CK if I had not believed from the bidding that West held clubs. People often shade bids and Kxxxx wasn't impossible. When the opponents have obviously forgotten their system and I have their CC in front of me, I see no point in asking questions and enabling them to exchange information." This a fairly complete account but I may be able to find out the answers to further questions. From Steve Willner" > From: "Sven Pran" > I see no > reason to suspect that west would have revoked if south had not revoked > first. The above is really the key point. It is a matter of bridge judgment: what would have happened if South had not revoked? If you believe that West would also not have revoked, then as Sven says, you apply L64C to South's revoke. The CoP makes that clear in any jurisdiction where the CoP applies, but I think it is true elsewhere as well. If, instead, you believe West would have revoked anyway, then South has not gained from his own revoke, and there is no reason to do anything but apply the mechanical penalties. > IMO the laws are not clear, not against nor for using Law 64C. This is > certainly not the particular kind of "damage" that the lawmakers can have > had in their minds when they originally drew up this law but that doesn't > answer the question: What does it take to rule that the revoke by south has > caused damage to EW? In CoP jurisdictions, it suffices that the table score is worse for EW than what they would have got if South had followed suit. (This is the point Herman has been trying to make, or at least I think so.) In other jurisdictions, I don't see why the same should not apply. That is the usual way to calculate damage for other infractions. Why should it not apply here? > From: "Rui Marques" > 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). As others have said, the Laws don't give an explicit procedure for more than one infraction, but it is common practice to consider each one in turn. If we don't do that, we end up with worse problems. (See below.) > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > I would reckon that in a typical "rabbit" field one can induce an > over-revoke about 1 time in 5 (maybe 1 in ten) with this ploy. The times > it fails one simply corrects the revoke before it is established - being > declarer this never costs a trick. And here I thought I was the cynic in this group. (Well, second to David B., no doubt, but still pretty far up the cynicism scale.) > I don't like giving declarer a "no > lose gamble" option when he chooses to commit an infraction. Right, but no need for 72B1 here. Just use 64C in the standard way, and ask what would have happened if the irregularity had not occurred. > I would rule differently on > the actual case depending on whether declarer was H**** or H**** and I > would know (in both cases) that I was ruling correctly. I think you would be wrong in one of those cases. No need to get into personalities for score adjustment. Just apply the laws as written. (Well, I guess you do need to get into personalities, but for _West_. What would he have done without South's revoke?) > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > You said that according to HdW EW > were suffering from failing laws. Herman wrote nothing of the sort, and I don't think the personal attack (deleted to spare the group another reading of it) is warranted even if he did. > EW are not > compensated because the law says that there is no compensation if the > revoking side wins no tricks after the revoke. Unless, of course, L64C applies. Reread that part about "...including those not subject to penalty." > It is not very likely that there is insufficient compensation > if 64B explicitly states there is no penalty. On the contrary, that is exactly the time there is most likely to be insufficient compensation. A revoke from dummy is the obvious example, but a second revoke in the same suit is another. This case is a third, _if_ you buy that West would not have revoked if South had not done so first. The rest of Jaap's argument appears to boil down to what he thinks the intent of the law is, not what it actually says. Perhaps I have missed his key point in his heated rhetoric. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 19 06:06:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:06:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know Message-ID: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> I am concerned that I still harbour the misconceptions about the law of disclosure that I hinted at in an email on equity. This topic has come up many times but I know that most ordinary players share my confusion. If you are *never* 100% sure whether partner's bid is alertable or what it means, should you.. 1. Alert and if they ask... 2. Explain only what you know for certain. 3. Tell opponents the likely explanation. 4. Tell them all possible meanings with estimates of likelihood. 5. Tell them you are unsure but inform them of negative inferences. 6. Tell them you are unsure but offer to guess. 7. Just tell them "I don't know" 8. Tell them to rely on "general bridge knowledge and experience". 9. In any case, to protect themselves from possible damage from your non-disclosure must opponents insist that you guess. Background.... You are 100% sure about none of your system. You are at least 95% sure of the basics. You are about 90% sure of most of it. Although you have "default agreements", about most situations, in some rare auctions, you go wrong more than 40% of the time. In the past, in an average session, when asked by an opponent what a call meant, you misexplained a few. Usually it was a trivial detail or omission; but sometimes something important like showing the wrong number of aces. Usually, at the end of the auction when your side declared, your partner corrected you. Sometimes an opponent pointed out the discrepancy with your CC. Rarely, you only realised later that you had made a mistake. You reckon that you are a fairly typical bridge player; few of whom have perfect memories for Bridge Systems. Of course, after a brief discussion and a few play-sessions, you must be able to make a better guess as to what partner's call is likely to mean (perhaps 75% certainty) than an opponent can. Even in a long-standing partnership, however, you are never 100% sure. Should you have told them your guesses when you estimated that their probability of being right was 40%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 99%, or 99.999% Or by guessing at all, were you breaking the law? Rather than guessing, should you always have answered "No definite agreement" or "I don't know". Anyway, to protect themselves against your non-disclosure, must opponents insist that you guess. Surely, a better law would be that you must make your best guess without revealing your uncertainty and accept any penalty from MI consequences? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 19 06:53:55 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:53:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert References: <009401c365f0$d0c2f560$869868d5@default> <003401c36615$f7e915a0$089c68d5@default> Message-ID: <003a01c36616$49c27420$089c68d5@default> [correcting a typo] How do you rule on this case from the first division of our county's inter- club league for teams of eight? N.B: No TD is present. If captains can't agree, then disputes go to arbitration and, if necessary, appeal. Board 12. NS vulnerable. Dealer East. West KJ753 AQ762 7 96 North T4 K9 KT964 Q832 East 9862 8543 A3 K54 South AQ JT QJ852 AJT7 West North East South - - P 1D 3C* 4D 4H 5D End * After North's 4D bid, East said he thought West's 3C was alertable and alerted. On the E-W CC, on the front, "Jump overcalls" are explained as "11-14 6-card suit" but on the back, as "note 2" the 3C bid is correctly explained. South refused the club finesse in 5D, going down two. Excerpts from East's description of events: "We are not an experienced partnership. I do not play Ghestem with any other partner and this feature of Ghestem causes me to think for a while. However, after some thought I convinced myself that 3C was Ghestem so I alerted and said "I think I should have alerted 3C". (I was almost certain by this stage, so perhaps "Think" implied more doubt than I felt but I was trying to reassure myself that I had correctly remembered Ghestem). North's response was "Not according to your convention card". This rather took me aback and caused me to doubt whether or not I was right but I clearly could not pursue the discussion. Neither North nor South asked the meaning of 3C. At the end of the auction, I was aware that there still might be some confusion, so in order to avoid damaging South in the play, I very clearly stated that 3C was conventional. Again, South did not ask the meaning." Excerpts from South's claim of damage: "It was not a pause in alerting. It was a failure to alert at the correct time and then a very doubtful alert. Nobody can tell what they would have bid in different circumstances... North mentioned the possibility of 4HX-1 immediately... We might have played in 3N making on a spade lead... I would never have played W to hold CK if I had not believed from the bidding that West held clubs. People often shade bids and Kxxxx wasn't impossible. When the opponents have obviously forgotten their system and I have their CC in front of me, I see no point in asking questions and enabling them to exchange information." This a fairly complete account but I may be able to find out the answers to further questions. From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Mon Aug 18 15:11:35 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:11:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <000001c3661a$0cf87c20$c24a65d5@swipnet.se> I now see the problem. The problem is law 64 B 1, where is says that = there is no penalty if the offending side did not win a trick after the = revoke. For me NS have won two tricks after the revoke, namely the two tricks = transferred by West=B4s revoke. I am sorry if I am mistaken. From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 19 07:18:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 07:18:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> Message-ID: <009701c3661e$29682910$281fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:06 AM Subject: [blml] Don't know > I am concerned that I still harbour the > misconceptions about the law of disclosure > that I hinted at in an email on equity. > > This topic has come up many times but I know > that most ordinary players share my confusion. > > If you are *never* 100% sure whether partner's > bid is alertable or what it means, should you.. > > 1. Alert and if they ask... > 2. Explain only what you know for certain. < +=+ I think OB 3.3.5 helps. In my view if there is a reasonable possibility that a call is alertable a player in an EBU event should go down this route. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 19 07:49:39 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 07:49:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert References: <009401c365f0$d0c2f560$869868d5@default> Message-ID: <009801c3661e$2a32cc10$281fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:24 AM Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert > > > At the end of the auction, I was aware that > there still might be some confusion, so in > order to avoid damaging South in the play, > I very clearly stated that 3C was conventional. > > Again, South did not ask the meaning." > +=+ With a TD available Law 75D1 would have applied. Since you could not call the Director the question is what provision is made in the regulations. When you informed opponent bat the end of the auction that the 3C was conventional, it would appear to him that there was a conflict between your explanation and the CC. He would have little sympathy from me, at the level of a representative match, if he did not obtain clarification before proceeding. If the regulations allowed it you could have left the table while he discussed the meaning with your partner, or otherwise the captains might have agreed how to proceed (without necessarily knowing anything of the board or the auction) - so what were the rules? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 19 08:12:33 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:12:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000501c365cd$de4327f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <80BA74E0-D214-11D7-A53E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 17:15 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Are you suggesting that the various laws on specific irregularities are > there because such irregularities are committed "fairly often"? Do you really want to start a side thread on this? It's not important to the central question at all. I am suggesting that the laws on revokes are there, in part, because such irregularities are committed fairly often. I didn't say a damn thing about any other irregularity, and your fixing on that instead of answering my main point makes me wonder why you do that. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 19 08:13:06 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:13:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000c01c36621$58179400$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > Or by guessing at all, were you breaking the > law? Rather than guessing, should you always > have answered "No definite agreement" or > "I don't know". > > Anyway, to protect themselves against your > non-disclosure, must opponents insist that > you guess. > > Surely, a better law would be that you must > make your best guess without revealing your > uncertainty and accept any penalty from MI > consequences? > I believe that *is* in accordance with the Laws. Say firmly what your best guess is without showing that it is a guess, and take your medicine if it turns out to be wrong. If your assumption turns out to be right, then that is a *de facto* partnership agreement. If not right, then you have given misinformation and must pay the price for any damage caused. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Aug 19 08:29:01 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:29:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <00af01c36623$905cdf80$c24a65d5@swipnet.se> First I think law 64 C is necessary. A non-offending side has to be = compensated in some cases. In the actual case there is no non-offending side. When the director is = applying law 64 play is ended and both sides have broken the law (South = by ruffing och West by over-ruffing). So, please, Herman, law 64 C = cannot be applied.=20 Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 08:43:11 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:43:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <000201c365c3$4f6038c0$0201a8c0@rui> References: <000201c365c3$4f6038c0$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <3F41D50F.7070808@hdw.be> Rui Marques wrote: > I can accept the argument, but in my view that does not negate anything. > When the hand is finished and director is called, both sides are > offending sides. I dont think that considering multiple consecutive > offenses by both sides we should consider one side offender for each > irregularity. > Is that not however how you would treat a case with a revoke by S in trick 2 and by W in trick 10? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 08:47:20 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:47:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <005201c365cb$4ea66500$a4ef7f50@Default> References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> <3F4121CE.1050705@hdw.be> <005201c365cb$4ea66500$a4ef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F41D608.2020205@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, your mind is getting out of bounds. > No Jaap, you refuse to understand me. > > Herman: > >>Having re-read my sentence above, I realize it was not clear enough. >>What I meant is that EW, as NOS from the first revoke, are not >>compensated. > > > Not clear enough? You were very clear. You said that according to HdW EW > were suffering from failing laws. HdW has decided EW need compensation, he Not from failing laws, just from failing L64B. Which L64C specifically addresses. L64C is there to make certain that when L64A and L64B combine to give NOS less than they deserve, they still get it. > has decided the laws are no good, so he will twist rape and turn the laws > upside down to get an argument to give EW some compensation. EW are not > compensated because the law says that there is no compensation if the > revoking side wins no tricks after the revoke. > And L64C says that in that case equity shall be restored. Not Herman, just The Laws. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 08:49:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:49:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <005201c365cb$4ea66500$a4ef7f50@Default> References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> <3F4121CE.1050705@hdw.be> <005201c365cb$4ea66500$a4ef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F41D67D.6030509@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman, you give the impression you don't know what you are talking about. > 64C applies when 64B fails to penalize? Read 64C, it is about insufficient > compensation. It is not very likely that there is insufficient compensation > if 64B explicitly states there is no penalty. Otherwise we might as well > discard all of 64B. The only logic in the above is: Herman doesn't like that > 64B gives no penalty in this case so we must apply some other article which > lets Herman decide as Herman wants. > Godverdomme Jaap, do you really mean it when you dribble like this? L64C is there precisely for this case. Literally. Jaap, you do give the impression that you do not know what you are talking about. Please read L64C again. > > Herman: > >>Nonsense. L64C applies. No doubt about that. > > > No doubt ? The only argument that L64C applies is that Herman wants to apply > it. There is no support in the law text, there is no support in known cases, > there is not much of support on blml. So I reserve the right to have some > doubt about L64C applying. > > > Herman: > >>In my hypothetical the defence had no chance before the revoke, but >>they did have one after it, and did not take it. Do you believe that >>the hypothetical chance of a very good score is sufficient >>compensation for a non-punished revoke? I doubt it if you do. >>The same is true of the actual case. The NOS had a chanve for a good >>score, but they chose not to take that chance. So now they are not >>sufficiently compensated for the revoke. > > > Do you understand yourself what you say ? Burn and I are both in favor of a > revoke law that always punishes a revoke. But the current law DOES NOT. All > what you say is contrary to the current law. If the NOS has the same result > after the revoke including the revoke penaly, as they would have had without > the revoke this is just another case of a revoke that didn't cost. If they > had a chance to get a better result after the revoke and they missed it so > be it (that is not damage caused by the revoke). Don't come to me, I don't > like the current law. Go complain somewhere else, try Grattan. I am sure he > can explain why certain revokes get penalized and others escape. > > And once more. 64C is meant as a guard for the NOS getting a worse result > after revoke and penalty than without revoke (the typical case is a revoke > that wins 3 tricks). And the scope is the consequence of the revoke, not > whatever happens subsequent. > > Jaap van der Neut. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > > > >>Sorry Jaap, your arguments too are failing. >> >>Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>Herman, >>> >>> >>>>L64C applies to both revokes equally. >>>>South has made a revoke, for which there was no penalty, since he made >>>>no "real" tricks afterwards. Strange as it may seem for someone who >>>>made no tricks, he did end up with a higher score than he would have >>>>if he had not revoked. L64C applies, as the NOS (EW) are not >>>>compensated by the failure of the laws to correct this. >>> >>> >>>Complete nonsense. It is not HdW who will judge that there is a failure > > of > >>>the law. >> >>Having re-read my sentence above, I realize it was not clear enough. >>What I meant is that EW, as NOS from the first revoke, are not >>compensated. >> >> >>>South did not end up with those tricks because of his revoke (which >>>cost him a trick if west had not revoked) but because a later revoke by >>>west. By the way, 64C always applies to any revoke, but here it has no >>>effect. Both revokes were 'sufficiently compensated'. This is a typical > > case > >>>of Herman rules according to what Herman wants the laws to be and not > > what > >>>they currently are. >>> >> >>No, it is a typical case of Jaap trying to argue his way out without >>using an argument. Answer the argument, not the man, please. >> >>You say both revokes were sufficiently compensated. I say they are >>not. Argue your case, please. >> >> >>>Herman: >>> >>> >>>>No Jaap, L64C says nothing about consequent and subsequent. L64B1 >>>>specifically indicates this reason why South is not penalized for his >>>>revoke. So 64C is of application. And South ends up with 2 tricks. >>> >>> >>>No Herman. The above paragraph is 'logical nonsense'. Your 'so 64C is > > of > >>>application' doesn't make any sense. >> >>L64C is of application after any revoke which L64B fails to penalize. >>The first revoke was not penalized, because L64B1 states that only >>tricks that are won can be transferred. L64C is certainly of >>application. There can be no doubt about that one and if you won't >>agree to that simple fact our argument is at an end. >>Mind you, I don't say that totally proves my argument - there are >>other holes, but this is not one of them. >> >>64B1 says explicitly that there is no >> >>>penalty in this case. The way you write you say that this alone is a > > reason > >>>that 64C should apply. Nonsense. >> >>Nonsense. L64C applies. No doubt about that. >> >>64C is a catchall which is very clear about >> >>>its own application. It is used if the NOS is insufficiently compensated > > by > >>>this Law. The NS revoke didn't cause any damage by itself so EW need no >>>compensation. So no 64C. >>> >> >>That is something else. Are the NOS sufficiently compensated or not? >> >> >>>Herman: >>> >>> >>>>Suppose there is a revoke early on. Let's say a simple (one-trick) >>>>one. This leads opponents to mis-count the hand, and they don't find >>>>the correct defence that leads to the normal score (let's say that's >>>>just made). However, there are two other lines, one of which would >>>>lead to a very good result for defence (down 3), one which leads to a >>>>good one for declarer (plus two, corrected to plus one by the revoke). >>>>Of course it's this last one that is chosen. What do you rule? >>> >>> >>>Here we apply 64C because now you are discussing damage caused by the >>>revoke. But then your story is not clear. You say the normal result is > > just > >>>made. So if the defence gets that result or a better one (after the > > penalty) > >>>the compensation is sufficient so we don't need 64C. If the defence had > > a > >>>chance AFTER the revoke of an even better result it doesn't matter. If > > the > >>>defence had a chance BEFORE the revoke of an even better result it > > becomes > >>>difficult. But that means the normal result without the revoke is > > unclear. I > >>>guess we get then into the infamous 12C2 12C3 type of discussion. Do we >>>weigh or do we pick the most favorable for the NOS. >>> >> >>In my hypothetical the defence had no chance before the revoke, but >>they did have one after it, and did not take it. Do you believe that >>the hypothetical chance of a very good score is sufficient >>compensation for a non-punished revoke? I doubt it if you do. >>The same is true of the actual case. The NOS had a chanve for a good >>score, but they chose not to take that chance. So now they are not >>sufficiently compensated for the revoke. I believe the difference >>between the actual case and my hypothetical, which is that in the >>actual case the chance of getting the good score is far better (all >>they had to do was not revoke themselves) is of no importance. I >>believe it is the final result which determines whether or not the NOS >>are compensated, not their hypothetical expected value. >> >>But this is only MHO. >> >> >>>Herman: >>> >>> >>>>At the moment of the revoke, the normal outcome is just made. After >>>>the revoke, the outcome is either -4 or +1. We might say that this is >>>>worth -1.5, so defenders are not damaged by the revoke. >>> >>> >>>Logical Nonsense. You can not do the math that way. Because although > > their > >>>expectation might have improved by the revoke it is still quite possible >>>their final result is worse than what the would have gotten without a >>>revoke.In other words, if they achieve the -4 end of story. But if it > > ends > >>>in +1 64C applies to restore just made (making some assumptions). >>> >> >>Exactly my point. Transfer to the actual case: if they don't revoke, >>they have their three tricks, and no L64C is needed. But if they do, >>then 64C applies. >> >> >>>>The same applies to this case. Without the revoke, South scores 1 >>>>trick. With the revoke, South scores either 0 (2 minus 2 for the >>>>revoke) or 2 (with West revoking as well). Is West damaged by the >>>>revoke when he has to conceeds 2, or not? >>> >>> >>> >>>Logical Nonsense. In the 'other' case we were discussing damage clearly >>>caused by the revoke (like opps miscounting or misjudging). In this case > > the > >>>South revoke didn't cause any damage at all. It just happend that at a > > later > >>>stage in the play West made a revoke of his own. Nobody is going to sell > > me > >>>that south not following suit (he might not have clubs even if west > > thought > >>>he had, do you never miscount) is an excuse for west not to follow suit >>>holding a club. So there is no real relation between the two revokes. >>> >>> >> >>No, which is why I want to apply L64C on the first one. >> >> >>> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 08:49:15 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:49:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3661a$0cf87c20$c24a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <002301c36626$63d1f380$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Hans-Olof wrote: >I now see the problem. Pity. You were doing pretty well when you didn't see it. And I'm not sure you do now. >For me NS have won two tricks after the revoke, namely the two tricks transferred by West´s revoke. I don't think so. To win a trick, you have to have played the highest trump, or failing that the highest card of the suit led, to the trick. NS haven't done that on any of the tricks after the revoke, so they haven't won any of those tricks. A trick transferred to pay the penalty for a revoke has not been "won" by the side to whom it is transferred. It has been "gained" by that side, but the words are distinct in English (though in other languages the same word might be used), and the distinction is crucial. David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 08:53:51 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:53:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F41D78F.4010504@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Hypothetical case: >> Without the revoke, EW have 2 tricks. >> With the revoke, EW have two lines. One line gives them 0 trick, plus >> one penalty; the other line gives them 5 tricks+1=6. >> At the moment after the revoke, EW are in a position to win (expected >> value) of 3.5 tricks. So they are not damaged. > > > I now understand what your example is, though it achieves no more > pertinence for that. > I'm glad I've made myself clear and apologise for not being clear from the first try. Let me now explain the pertinence: > The revoke law is not based on average expectations at the moment after > the revoke. > I don't think so either. > If EW take the line that gives them no tricks, the one trick penalty is > insufficient to compensate them, so L64C comes into play. > If they take the line that gives them 5 tricks, the one trick penalty is > sufficient to compensate them, so L64C is not applicable. > Translate to the original case: Without South's revoke, EW score 2 tricks. With South's revoke: If W does not revoke, EW score 3 tricks and are sufficiently compensated. But if W revokes, the one trick penalty is insufficient to compensate them, so L64C comes into play. (I've deliberately phrased this last sentence exactly as you did above) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 08:53:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:53:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00af01c36623$905cdf80$c24a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000001c36626$f6ae8a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > First I think law 64 C is necessary. A non-offending side has to be > compensated in some cases. > In the actual case there is no non-offending side. When the director = is > applying law 64 play is ended and both sides have broken the law = (South by > ruffing och West by over-ruffing). So, please, Herman, law 64 C cannot = be > applied. Do you really mean what you say Hans? If you do you apparently consider this case one single irregularity = where both sides are offenders, but in that case you cannot apply law 64 at = all because penalty tricks for revoke can only be transferred to a = non-offending side and you say there is none. Instead you have only one possibility = and that is to adjust under law 12A1 simply because there is no other = applicable law in the book. (We have no law covering multiple irregularities) The alternative is what we have been aiming for all the time: We have = two distinct irregularities even though they occurred within the same trick. = For each irregularity we have an offender and a non-offending side. And if we agree that the second revoke would most probably not have = occurred absent the first then we end up with a case for Law 64C applied on the = first revoke. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 08:58:27 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:58:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00af01c36623$905cdf80$c24a65d5@swipnet.se> References: <00af01c36623$905cdf80$c24a65d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <3F41D8A3.70108@hdw.be> Hello Hasse, Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > First I think law 64 C is necessary. A non-offending side has to be com= pensated in some cases. > In the actual case there is no non-offending side. When the director is= applying law 64 play is ended and both sides have broken the law (South = by ruffing och West by over-ruffing). So, please, Herman, law 64 C cannot= be applied.=20 >=20 That is one opinion, I have another one. I believe in both revokes there is an OS and a NOS. I dare say that mine is the logical consequence of there being two=20 separate infractions. Your opinion should be based on some explicit=20 mention in the Lawbook or elsewhere. I don't see such a thing. What if E leads out of turn to trick 4 and S revokes in trick 6. Do=20 you consider EW as NOS for the revoke or not? They did make an=20 irregularity, did they not? Why should there be a difference if the=20 two infractions occur very close together? > Yours etc >=20 > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 09:01:32 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:01:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> Message-ID: <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> No need to express the HdW school of thought, Nigel arrived there in the end: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Surely, a better law would be that you must > make your best guess without revealing your > uncertainty and accept any penalty from MI > consequences? > And I believe such is the law. Or rather, that there is no reason for a player not to act in this manner. It avoids UI to partner and gives opponents all the information they are entitled to, nothing more, nothing less (you hope). > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Aug 19 08:29:15 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:29:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal Message-ID: <006c01c3662a$f71c6a40$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> Situation A: At the beginning of the session the director has organized an additional table for pairs that arrived lately. Walking back to his table he observes a redeal at one of the tables. SituationB: The director is summoned and the player informs him that there was a redeal at an adjacent table. Has he to apply Law81C6, Law22 and Law90? Ben From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Aug 19 09:28:37 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:28:37 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB71@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: >Gordon Rainsford wrote: >=20 > On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 >> Hypothetical case: >> Without the revoke, EW have 2 tricks. >> With the revoke, EW have two lines. One line gives them 0 trick, plus=20 >> one penalty; the other line gives them 5 tricks+1=3D6. >> At the moment after the revoke, EW are in a position to win (expected=20 >> value) of 3.5 tricks. So they are not damaged. >=20 >=20 > I now understand what your example is, though it achieves no more=20 > pertinence for that. >=20 I'm glad I've made myself clear and apologise for not being clear from=20 the first try. Let me now explain the pertinence: > The revoke law is not based on average expectations at the moment after= > the revoke. >=20 I don't think so either. > If EW take the line that gives them no tricks, the one trick penalty is= > insufficient to compensate them, so L64C comes into play. > If they take the line that gives them 5 tricks, the one trick penalty is= > sufficient to compensate them, so L64C is not applicable. >=20 Translate to the original case: Without South's revoke, EW score 2 tricks. With South's revoke: If W does not revoke, EW score 3 tricks and are sufficiently compensated. But if W revokes, the one trick penalty is insufficient to compensate=20 them, so L64C comes into play. (I've deliberately phrased this last sentence exactly as you did above) ----- Herman; don't confuse matters here. West's revoke has nothing to do with penalizing south's revoke. As you said elsewhere, the two revokes are two separate matters, and are penalized separately. (I disagree with those claiming the second revoke is consequent to the first.) The fact that west subsequent to south's revoke also revokes, does not affect the penaltizing of south's revoke. NS won no tricks after south's revoke,=20 thus the revoke is not subject to penalty under L64AB. EW wasn't damaged by south's revoke, and are thus not compensated under L64C (which IMO does apply). NS gets 2 tricks, EW 1. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 19 10:48:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:48:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert In-Reply-To: <003a01c36616$49c27420$089c68d5@default> References: <009401c365f0$d0c2f560$869868d5@default> <003401c36615$f7e915a0$089c68d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030819092557.01d44b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:53 19/08/2003 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[correcting a typo] >How do you rule on this case from the >first division of our county's inter- >club league for teams of eight? >N.B: No TD is present. If captains >can't agree, then disputes go to >arbitration and, if necessary, appeal. > >Board 12. NS vulnerable. Dealer East. > >West KJ753 AQ762 7 96 >North T4 K9 KT964 Q832 >East 9862 8543 A3 K54 >South AQ JT QJ852 AJT7 > >West North East South > - - P 1D > 3C* 4D 4H 5D End > >* After North's 4D bid, East said he >thought West's 3C was alertable and >alerted. AG : although this is a bit late, it is early enough to avoid any damage. Bidding reverts to North, his former bid is UI to you etc. L21B1. >On the E-W CC, on the front, "Jump >overcalls" are explained as "11-14 6-card >suit" but on the back, as "note 2" the 3C >bid is correctly explained. > >South refused the club finesse in 5D, >going down two. AG : absurd. Did he think the natural jump to 3C was on Kxxx ?? >Excerpts from East's description of events: > >"We are not an experienced partnership. I do >not play Ghestem with any other partner and >this feature of Ghestem causes me to think >for a while. However, after some thought I >convinced myself that 3C was Ghestem so I >alerted and said "I think I should have >alerted 3C". > >(I was almost certain by this stage, so >perhaps "Think" implied more doubt than >I felt but I was trying to reassure myself >that I had correctly remembered Ghestem). > >North's response was "Not according to your >convention card". This rather took me aback >and caused me to doubt whether or not I was >right but I clearly could not pursue the >discussion. AG : explanations should have more weight than the CC. Of course, when the player doesn't know ... Here, East could well have answered : "I still believe it is artificial and may explain it" ... if he still did. >Neither North nor South asked the meaning >of 3C. > >At the end of the auction, I was aware that >there still might be some confusion, so in >order to avoid damaging South in the play, >I very clearly stated that 3C was conventional. > >Again, South did not ask the meaning." > >Excerpts from South's claim of damage: > >"It was not a pause in alerting. >It was a failure to alert at the correct >time and then a very doubtful alert. AG : yes, but no damage, as L21B1 solves the problem. And a "doubtful alert" is not defined in the rules. South should have asked East to state a meaning ; the rest would then have been straightforward (with possible intervention of UI / MI rules, but that's East's problem). And if North's remark made East doubt, he might (but only might) be deemed to have influenced East (L74B2 and 72C4 could apply). >Nobody can tell what they would have bid >in different circumstances... North >mentioned the possibility of 4HX-1 >immediately... We might have played in 3N >making on a spade lead... AG : irrelevant, once North declines to change his bid. >I would never have played W to hold CK >if I had not believed from the bidding >that West held clubs. People often shade >bids and Kxxxx wasn't impossible. AG : not far from impossible, however. Even by YT. And when East follows to the 1st round of clubs, it would mean there are 14 clubs in the deck, very close to impossible. I would then treat this statement as self-serving of the worst kind. >When the opponents have obviously forgotten >their system and I have their CC in front >of me, I see no point in asking questions >and enabling them to exchange information." AG : except perhaps when one opponents tells you that the CC could be wrong, which is not uncommon. Then not asking is in a way "failure to protect oneself". Best regards, Alain. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 19 10:34:09 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:34:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CCA6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Nigel Guthrie: Subject: Re: [blml] Doubtful alert Board 12. NS vulnerable. Dealer East. West KJ753 AQ762 7 96 North T4 K9 KT964 Q832 East 9862 8543 A3 K54 South AQ JT QJ852 AJT7 West North East South - - P 1D 3C* 4D 4H 5D End * After North's 4D bid, East said he=20 thought West's 3C was alertable and=20 alerted.=20 On the E-W CC, on the front, "Jump=20 overcalls" are explained as "11-14 6-card=20 suit" but on the back, as "note 2" the 3C=20 bid is correctly explained. South refused the club finesse in 5D,=20 going down two.=20 Excerpts from East's description of events: "We are not an experienced partnership. I do=20 not play Ghestem with any other partner and this feature of Ghestem causes me to think=20 for a while. However, after some thought I convinced myself that 3C was Ghestem so I alerted and said "I think I should have alerted 3C". =20 (I was almost certain by this stage, so=20 perhaps "Think" implied more doubt than=20 I felt but I was trying to reassure myself=20 that I had correctly remembered Ghestem). North's response was "Not according to your=20 convention card". This rather took me aback=20 and caused me to doubt whether or not I was=20 right but I clearly could not pursue the=20 discussion. =20 Neither North nor South asked the meaning=20 of 3C. At the end of the auction, I was aware that=20 there still might be some confusion, so in=20 order to avoid damaging South in the play,=20 I very clearly stated that 3C was conventional. =20 Again, South did not ask the meaning." Excerpts from South's claim of damage: "It was not a pause in alerting.=20 It was a failure to alert at the correct=20 time and then a very doubtful alert. Nobody can tell what they would have bid=20 in different circumstances... North=20 mentioned the possibility of 4HX-1=20 immediately... We might have played in 3N=20 making on a spade lead... I would never have played W to hold CK=20 if I had not believed from the bidding=20 that West held clubs. People often shade=20 bids and Kxxxx wasn't impossible. When the opponents have obviously forgotten=20 their system and I have their CC in front=20 of me, I see no point in asking questions=20 and enabling them to exchange information." This a fairly complete account but I may be able to find out the answers to further questions. Frances: This is not in the polite language of a director's ruling, but, in reverse order: South certainly deserves his second undertrick. He was told twice that 3C was conventional and chose to ignore that,=20 preferring to believe in a jump overcall on Kxxxx. There is no reason for him not to investigate the 3C call in more detail before the play. Of course it's harder when you can't call the director=20 immediately after the delayed alert - North may not have been aware he was allowed to change his call. However, I=20 can't see anything in his statement to explain why he has been damaged. If 3C had been alerted quickly and confidently, and the convention card had been filled in=20 correctly, how would N/S have bid differently? Unless they can give a convincing explanation of why they would defend 4Hx rather than play 5D, I cannot see any damage. As East bid 4H it's difficult to see how 3NT on a spade lead is a possible result. It's very hard to rule in favour of a pair using Ghestem, it=20 goes against all my better instincts... depending on the event (and a county league is not high standard enough) I might make myself feel better by giving a PP for not filling in their convention card properly. It's not enough to put=20 it on the back, while leaving the bit about jump overcalls showing it as natural. From henk@ripe.net Tue Aug 19 10:42:18 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:42:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <006c01c3662a$f71c6a40$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Ben Schelen wrote: > Situation A: > At the beginning of the session the director has organized an additional > table for pairs that arrived lately. > Walking back to his table he observes a redeal at one of the tables. > > SituationB: > The director is summoned and the player informs him that there was a redeal > at an adjacent table. > > Has he to apply Law81C6, Law22 and Law90? 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the TD seeing the redeal himself or being told that there was one. I doubt that it will be possible to reconstruct the original hand, so all that the TD can do, is explain 22 and give a PP. 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 19 10:53:05 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:53:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 10:42 AM, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Ben Schelen wrote: > >> Situation A: >> At the beginning of the session the director has organized an >> additional >> table for pairs that arrived lately. >> Walking back to his table he observes a redeal at one of the tables. >> >> SituationB: >> The director is summoned and the player informs him that there was a >> redeal >> at an adjacent table. >> >> Has he to apply Law81C6, Law22 and Law90? > > 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the TD seeing the > redeal himself or being told that there was one. > > I doubt that it will be possible to reconstruct the original hand, so > all > that the TD can do, is explain 22 and give a PP. > > Henk A further advantage of predealt boards in clubs is that players are not tempted to redeal. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Aug 19 11:02:01 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:02:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <00b101c365fe$58049620$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <00ec01c36639$15bbbce0$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> > > Unless, of course, L64C applies. Reread that part about "...including > those not subject to penalty." > > > NS were subject to penalty and ruled accordingly. If Law64C has to be applied than we can get rid of Law 64A and apply Law64C in any revoke case. Ben From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 11:09:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:09:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted Message-ID: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded Mitchell has a share. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 11:12:45 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:12:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00ec01c36639$15bbbce0$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> References: <00b101c365fe$58049620$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> <00ec01c36639$15bbbce0$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <3F41F81D.5070509@hdw.be> No Ben, certainly not. Ben Schelen wrote: >>Unless, of course, L64C applies. Reread that part about "...including >>those not subject to penalty." >> >> > NS were subject to penalty and ruled accordingly. > 64C says "including those". It also includes those subject to penalty, as this one. Classical example: breaking communications by revoking, you win 7 tricks. You are happy to give two back. That's one where the penalty was ruled. 64C still applies, no? > If Law64C has to be applied than we can get rid of Law 64A and apply Law64C > in any revoke case. > No, since that would not give the penalty that 64A usually provides for. 64A usually gives "more than equity". If it does not, then 64C kicks in. You seem to want to do away with 64C. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 19 11:12:32 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:12:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F41D78F.4010504@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 08:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Translate to the original case: > > Without South's revoke, EW score 2 tricks. Yes > With South's revoke: > If W does not revoke, EW score 3 tricks and are sufficiently > compensated. Yes > But if W revokes, the one trick penalty is insufficient to compensate > them, Compensate them for what? At this moment they are the offending side. > so L64C comes into play. > (I've deliberately phrased this last sentence exactly as you did above) > > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 11:17:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:17:56 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB71@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB71@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F41F954.8010206@hdw.be> Sorry Harald, but in the middle of your beautiful argument you bury=20 one small statement as if that's the most normal thing in the world.=20 It's not. Skjaran, Harald wrote: > ----- > Herman; don't confuse matters here. West's revoke has nothing to do wit= h > penalizing south's revoke. As you said elsewhere, the two revokes are t= wo > separate matters, and are penalized separately. (I disagree with those > claiming the second revoke is consequent to the first.) The fact that > west subsequent to south's revoke also revokes, does not affect the > penaltizing of south's revoke.=20 Absolutely correct. > NS won no tricks after south's revoke, Exactly - we must not confuse "won" with "gained", as David said. > thus the revoke is not subject to penalty under L64AB.=20 Indeed. But then you simply state: > EW wasn't damaged > by south's revoke,=20 EW ended up with one trick in stead of two! Now I do agree that this is something we can discuss about, but you=20 should not write a whole paragraph that is completely correct but=20 which includes 6 words that we fundamentally disagree about. > and are thus not compensated under L64C (which IMO does > apply). NS gets 2 tricks, EW 1. >=20 That conclusion would be correct if the premise were so. > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo > ----- >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 11:17:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:17:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00ec01c36639$15bbbce0$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000201c3663b$294dbd10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen > > Unless, of course, L64C applies. Reread that part about = "...including > > those not subject to penalty." > > > > > > NS were subject to penalty and ruled accordingly. >=20 > If Law64C has to be applied than we can get rid of Law 64A and apply > Law64C in any revoke case. After an established revoke the non-offending side is entitled to compensation according to Law 64A, 64B or 64C, whichever gives them the = best result. If Law 64A gives them a better result than Law 64C then they = shall have their result according to Law 64A. Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 19 11:26:54 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:26:54 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F41F954.8010206@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> EW wasn't damaged >> by south's revoke, > > EW ended up with one trick in stead of two! > Now I do agree that this is something we can discuss about, but you > should not write a whole paragraph that is completely correct but > which includes 6 words that we fundamentally disagree about. > >> and are thus not compensated under L64C (which IMO does >> apply). NS gets 2 tricks, EW 1. > > That conclusion would be correct if the premise were so. > Do you wonder why you are not allowed to deduct your tax bill as an expense to arrive at your profit? :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 19 11:57:03 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:57:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030819125422.01d39c60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:53 19/08/2003 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 10:42 AM, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Ben Schelen wrote: >> >>>Situation A: >>>At the beginning of the session the director has organized an additional >>>table for pairs that arrived lately. >>>Walking back to his table he observes a redeal at one of the tables. >>> >>>SituationB: >>>The director is summoned and the player informs him that there was a redeal >>>at an adjacent table. >>> >>>Has he to apply Law81C6, Law22 and Law90? >> >>81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the TD seeing the >>redeal himself or being told that there was one. >> >>I doubt that it will be possible to reconstruct the original hand, so all >>that the TD can do, is explain 22 and give a PP. >> >>Henk > >A further advantage of predealt boards in clubs is that players are not >tempted to redeal. AG : I don't want to be rude to Gordon, but let's be honest : they still are. Especially when playing a Howell movement. I have lost the count of such cases I encountered *with* predealt boards. Very embarrassing when you intend to hand out a comment on the deals after the tournament, and the players don't recognize the board(s). From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 11:36:35 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:36:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F41FDB3.40500@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> But if W revokes, the one trick penalty is insufficient to compensate >> them, > > > Compensate them for what? At this moment they are the offending side. > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first revoke. Nothing they do changes that. They are offending side in the second revoke, and if you believe this should change their status for the first one, then point to something that says so. Sorry, Gordon, that argument won't hold. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 11:42:31 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:42:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <3F41FDB3.40500@hdw.be> Message-ID: <015501c3663e$97e86060$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer two tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". David Burn London, England From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 10:58:42 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:58:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3650e$61739c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005701c3656b$cb58b400$e3ee7f50@Default> <3F40A449.5090802@hdw.be> <002401c36575$a0102ee0$a4e97f50@Default> <3F40B902.80602@hdw.be> <003d01c36598$632c7c40$95e37f50@Default> <3F4121CE.1050705@hdw.be> <005201c365cb$4ea66500$a4ef7f50@Default> <3F41D608.2020205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a201c3663e$8785bc40$eef17f50@Default> Herman: > No Jaap, you refuse to understand me. Well I am afraid I understand you perfectly well. This is what worries and upsets me. That people in your position say and think things you do. Herman: > And L64C says that in that case equity shall be restored. > Not Herman, just The Laws. You keep on repeating that L64C should apply. Now you even say that L64C says so itself. It doesn't (if so please tell me were it says so) and apart from the header the word equity is not used. The laws don't say such a thing. Herman does (and he will continue). Herman > Godverdomme Jaap, do you really mean it when you dribble like this? > L64C is there precisely for this case. Literally. > Jaap, you do give the impression that you do not know what you are > talking about. Please read L64C again. Godverdomme is not a nice word dear Herman. But yes I mean what I say. I have reread L64C a couple of times (it is not very clear English by the way), But your statement 'L64C is there precisely for this case. Literally' is utterly ridiculous. But please stop shouting, you will have to come up with some arguments if you want to convince some people. So far you have little support. Once more I will show the futility of your reasoning. You want to help west. What damage did west suffer from south's revoke. None, if west had followed suit he would have 'gained' all three remaining tricks rather than two. But west revoked. The only damage is that south's revoke might have caused west's revoke. But how can west use this as a serious argumment. In the end he is responsible for following suit. Just suppose south didn't have any clubs anymore (given the level of play miscounts must be as normal as revokes). Can west now claim that his revoke was caused by south ruffing. Of course not. So the only argument I will buy is that south is a mean player who did this on purpose (see Tim WM). But that is not for 64C, that is the cheating department (or whatever you call it). Jaap Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman, your mind is getting out of bounds. > > > > No Jaap, you refuse to understand me. > > > > Herman: > > > >>Having re-read my sentence above, I realize it was not clear enough. > >>What I meant is that EW, as NOS from the first revoke, are not > >>compensated. > > > > > > Not clear enough? You were very clear. You said that according to HdW EW > > were suffering from failing laws. HdW has decided EW need compensation, he > > Not from failing laws, just from failing L64B. Which L64C specifically > addresses. L64C is there to make certain that when L64A and L64B > combine to give NOS less than they deserve, they still get it. > > > has decided the laws are no good, so he will twist rape and turn the laws > > upside down to get an argument to give EW some compensation. EW are not > > compensated because the law says that there is no compensation if the > > revoking side wins no tricks after the revoke. > > > > And L64C says that in that case equity shall be restored. > Not Herman, just The Laws. > > > > > -- > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 11:04:01 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:04:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <00b101c365fe$58049620$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <00a301c3663e$88584e80$eef17f50@Default> Steve: > Herman wrote nothing of the sort, and I don't think the personal attack > (deleted to spare the group another reading of it) is warranted even if > he did. Herman did write exactly that and him begin EBL scribe means he deserves the attack. Come on if people in his position start using 'fuck the law I decide what I want to decide' arguments, we might as well abolish the law altogether. Just for fun read some of Herman's comments about others who, in his opinion, don't follow the law to the letter (well what he thinks the law says). Steve: > Unless, of course, L64C applies. Reread that part about "...including > those not subject to penalty." Yea, I reread that part a couple of times, however I cannot parse the meaning of that part in the sentence. So I guess it is one of those phrases in the laws, a result of a comprise by the law makers who couldn't decide, which results in unclear language so every TD/AC can have a go at an interpretation and claim the law to be on his side. Steve: > On the contrary, that is exactly the time there is most likely to be > insufficient compensation. A revoke from dummy is the obvious example, > but a second revoke in the same suit is another. This case is a third, > _if_ you buy that West would not have revoked if South had not done so > first. We seem to agree. 64C is used to handle insufficient compensation for damage caused by the revoke. A revoke from dummy, a second revoke, I am sure we can come up with more examples. But I don't buy that at any remotely serious level of competition West can use south not playing a club as an excuse for his revoke. Although I agree that south ruffing (but west might well not know for sure if south revokes) increases the chance of west ruffing as well. But there are many things that might increase the change of a revoke. Like the waiter arriving, some announcement being made, a mobile phone going off, whatever. If west is not responsible anymore for following suit in one or any of those cases it is the end of the game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes > > From: "Sven Pran" > > I see no > > reason to suspect that west would have revoked if south had not > revoked > > first. > > The above is really the key point. It is a matter of bridge judgment: > what would have happened if South had not revoked? If you believe that > West would also not have revoked, then as Sven says, you apply L64C to > South's revoke. The CoP makes that clear in any jurisdiction where the > CoP applies, but I think it is true elsewhere as well. If, instead, you > believe West would have revoked anyway, then South has not gained from > his own revoke, and there is no reason to do anything but apply the > mechanical penalties. > > > IMO the laws are not clear, not against nor for using Law 64C. This is > > certainly not the particular kind of "damage" that the lawmakers can > have > > had in their minds when they originally drew up this law but that > doesn't > > answer the question: What does it take to rule that the revoke by > south has > > caused damage to EW? > > In CoP jurisdictions, it suffices that the table score is worse for EW > than what they would have got if South had followed suit. (This is the > point Herman has been trying to make, or at least I think so.) In other > jurisdictions, I don't see why the same should not apply. That is the > usual way to calculate damage for other infractions. Why should it not > apply here? > > > From: "Rui Marques" > > 64C does not apply (there is no non-offending side). > > As others have said, the Laws don't give an explicit procedure for more > than one infraction, but it is common practice to consider each one in > turn. If we don't do that, we end up with worse problems. (See below.) > > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > I would reckon that in a typical "rabbit" field one can induce an > > over-revoke about 1 time in 5 (maybe 1 in ten) with this ploy. The > times > > it fails one simply corrects the revoke before it is established - > being > > declarer this never costs a trick. > > And here I thought I was the cynic in this group. (Well, second to > David B., no doubt, but still pretty far up the cynicism scale.) > > > I don't like giving declarer a "no > > lose gamble" option when he chooses to commit an infraction. > > Right, but no need for 72B1 here. Just use 64C in the standard way, > and ask what would have happened if the irregularity had not occurred. > > > I would rule differently on > > the actual case depending on whether declarer was H**** or H**** and I > > would know (in both cases) that I was ruling correctly. > > I think you would be wrong in one of those cases. No need to get into > personalities for score adjustment. Just apply the laws as written. > (Well, I guess you do need to get into personalities, but for _West_. > What would he have done without South's revoke?) > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > You said that according to HdW EW > > were suffering from failing laws. > > Herman wrote nothing of the sort, and I don't think the personal attack > (deleted to spare the group another reading of it) is warranted even if > he did. > > > EW are not > > compensated because the law says that there is no compensation if the > > revoking side wins no tricks after the revoke. > > Unless, of course, L64C applies. Reread that part about "...including > those not subject to penalty." > > > It is not very likely that there is insufficient compensation > > if 64B explicitly states there is no penalty. > > On the contrary, that is exactly the time there is most likely to be > insufficient compensation. A revoke from dummy is the obvious example, > but a second revoke in the same suit is another. This case is a third, > _if_ you buy that West would not have revoked if South had not done so > first. > > The rest of Jaap's argument appears to boil down to what he thinks the > intent of the law is, not what it actually says. Perhaps I have missed > his key point in his heated rhetoric. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 11:38:22 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:38:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c36626$f6ae8a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a801c3663e$894aebe0$eef17f50@Default> Sven: And if we agree that the second revoke would most probably not have occur= red absent the first then we end up with a case for Law 64C applied on the fi= rst revoke. That is the whole problem. I, and many others, don't agree on this logic. You fail to see the difference between consequent and subsequent. South playing a trump to the club trick is simply not an exuse for west not to follow suit. Suppose someone would tell you that west often made this typ= e of revoke (playing the suit RHO played rather than the suit which was lea= d to the trick), would that make a difference ? First of all, south ruffing rather than playing clubs might have some eff= ect on this west. But this level of west player has no idea whether or not so= uth still has a club. So the cause, if any, is that trump on the table, not t= he fact that south revoked. Second, all kind of distractions can 'cause' a revoke. Any infraction, specially when it involves a TD call, can create a lot of confusion (or external events like the waiter arriving). Your argument basically boils down to that after the first infraction the NOS are not responsible for anything anymore. I don't agree to that. It is a well establish principle that players should continue play under = the assumption that no infraction occured (of course as long as the TD has no= t established the infraction) and they risk their possible right to redress= if they don't do so (to a certain extend). It is a basic principle in UI/MI cases. What is so different in the current case. South ruffs the club trick. West should continue play under the assumption that south is now out of clubs. To rev= oke in this position is a major infraction and a major stupidity, so for me i= t is not connected anymore to the infraction by south, if only because that infraction at that moment was not even sure to exist. Brief, west revoked after club,discard,ruff. Without revoke it would go club,discard,club. You claim that west still holding a club is more likel= y to revoke in the first case rather than in the second. You might be right but I say it is irrelevant. West should follow suit and the first case is not too different from the second to cancel west's responsibility for observing one of the most fundamental rules of the game. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > First I think law 64 C is necessary. A non-offending side has to be > compensated in some cases. > In the actual case there is no non-offending side. When the director is > applying law 64 play is ended and both sides have broken the law (South= by > ruffing och West by over-ruffing). So, please, Herman, law 64 C cannot = be > applied. Do you really mean what you say Hans? If you do you apparently consider this case one single irregularity where both sides are offenders, but in that case you cannot apply law 64 at all because penalty tricks for revoke can only be transferred to a non-offend= ing side and you say there is none. Instead you have only one possibility and that is to adjust under law 12A1 simply because there is no other applica= ble law in the book. (We have no law covering multiple irregularities) The alternative is what we have been aiming for all the time: We have two distinct irregularities even though they occurred within the same trick. = For each irregularity we have an offender and a non-offending side. And if we agree that the second revoke would most probably not have occur= red absent the first then we end up with a case for Law 64C applied on the fi= rst revoke. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 19 12:03:06 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:03:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F41FDB3.40500@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 11:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> But if W revokes, the one trick penalty is insufficient to >>> compensate them, >> Compensate them for what? At this moment they are the offending side. > > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. They are offending side in the > second revoke, and if you believe this should change their status for > the first one, then point to something that says so. > Sorry, Gordon, that argument won't hold. > They ended up in a better position after the first revoke than before, so they weren't damaged by it. We now move on to the second revoke (in which they were the OS). We don't then go back to the first revoke again, and reassess it in the light of the penalty for the second revoke! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Aug 19 12:10:11 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:10:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c36642$7642a660$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 10:09 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: [blml] movement wanted > > > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > Mitchell has a share. I don't know what other constraints you have but a five table Howell with three Appendix tables should work, I think. 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Aug 19 12:23:41 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:23:41 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990060AB4D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote Sorry Harald, but in the middle of your beautiful argument you bury=20 one small statement as if that's the most normal thing in the world.=20 It's not. Skjaran, Harald wrote: > ----- > Herman; don't confuse matters here. West's revoke has nothing to do with > penalizing south's revoke. As you said elsewhere, the two revokes are two > separate matters, and are penalized separately. (I disagree with those > claiming the second revoke is consequent to the first.) The fact that > west subsequent to south's revoke also revokes, does not affect the > penaltizing of south's revoke.=20 Absolutely correct. > NS won no tricks after south's revoke, Exactly - we must not confuse "won" with "gained", as David said. > thus the revoke is not subject to penalty under L64AB.=20 Indeed. But then you simply state: > EW wasn't damaged > by south's revoke,=20 EW ended up with one trick in stead of two! Now I do agree that this is something we can discuss about, but you=20 should not write a whole paragraph that is completely correct but=20 which includes 6 words that we fundamentally disagree about. ----- Yes they did, but that has nothing to do with south's revoke. That's a result of their own infraction.=20 Come on Herman. You must stop muddling things. I restate: EW wasn't damaged by south's revoke.=20 They won the last three tricks. How could they get more than the rest of th= e tricks? Subsequently two of those tricks was transferred to NS, due to west's revoke. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo=20 > and are thus not compensated under L64C (which IMO does > apply). NS gets 2 tricks, EW 1. >=20 That conclusion would be correct if the premise were so. > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo > ----- >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Aug 19 12:29:22 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:29:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <015501c3663e$97e86060$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c36645$265001e0$0401a8c0@rui> I will help Herman=B4s side a little. If both sides are offending, then = we cannot transfer a trick to the "non-offending side". This does not mean I dont consider both as os on the whole. But Burn=B4s argument is very strong ans basically explains my point of view through another road. South=B4s revoke may be dealt with as being not subject to penalty, but = in that case it does not make sense to give something to West on that. If you want, you can adjust against South (OS). But not in favour of W (OS). So, after deep thinking, W loses two of the last three tricks. What can we adjust against South? If he did not revoke would West revoke? Who knows?... We should presume he would not, to restore something against S. If W did not revoke South would lose all tricks.=20 So, decision: West loses two tricks of the last three. South loses three tricks of the last three ("Bad Bad" score adjustment). -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 19 de Agosto de 2003 11:43 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes Herman wrote: > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first=20 > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer two tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Aug 19 12:41:54 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:41:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <000801c36642$7642a660$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <001201c36646$e9f02840$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 11:10 p.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] movement wanted > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 10:09 p.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: [blml] movement wanted > > > > > > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > > Mitchell has a share. > > I don't know what other constraints you have but a five table Howell > with three Appendix tables should work, I think. > > Wayne Damn didn't read without a share :-( 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 hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 12:44:12 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:44:12 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990060AB4D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990060AB4D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F420D8C.5@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > Indeed. But then you simply state: > > >>EW wasn't damaged >>by south's revoke, > > > EW ended up with one trick in stead of two! > Now I do agree that this is something we can discuss about, but you > should not write a whole paragraph that is completely correct but > which includes 6 words that we fundamentally disagree about. > ----- > Yes they did, but that has nothing to do with south's revoke. > That's a result of their own infraction. > Come on Herman. You must stop muddling things. > I restate: EW wasn't damaged by south's revoke. > They won the last three tricks. How could they get more than the rest of the tricks? > Subsequently two of those tricks was transferred to NS, due to > west's revoke. > > OK Harald, now we are on to the real discussion. You agree that EW were damaged, but that was not through the revoke, just through their own actions. You say they "won the last three tricks", which means they are not damaged. I say they did not get a score for those tricks, so I believe they can still be damaged. Please agree that this weakens your argument. I reiterate my other example. After a revoke, the NOS are in a position in which they can easily win all six remaining tricks. However, they play badly and win none of them. They get one trick back from the revoke, but that still leaves them with less than the two tricks they would always score. In this case too, EW are damaged, not by the revoke per se, but by their own subsequent action. Do you believe they are not guaranteed redress through L64C? How is this example different from the original? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 12:55:09 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:55:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <3F42101D.9050305@hdw.be> I installed some new software and it got this e-mail from blml for me. But I cannot answer from there so I have to start a new thread and paste the message in. But could not let this one unanswered: (new comments marked HDW:) -- Herman: > And L64C says that in that case equity shall be restored. > Not Herman, just The Laws. You keep on repeating that L64C should apply. Now you even say that L64C says so itself. It doesn't (if so please tell me were it says so) and apart from the header the word equity is not used. The laws don't say such a thing. Herman does (and he will continue). HDW: read L64C: when the TD deems that the NOS is insufficiently compensated, he shall assign an AS. There has been a revoke, I am the TD, and I deem that there is insufficient compensation. L64C applies. stop argueing that. We may argue about whether or not the compensation is sufficient, but not about whether L64C applies or not. There is only one requirement for L64C to apply : there has been a revoke. Herman > Godverdomme Jaap, do you really mean it when you dribble like this? > L64C is there precisely for this case. Literally. > Jaap, you do give the impression that you do not know what you are > talking about. Please read L64C again. Godverdomme is not a nice word dear Herman. But yes I mean what I say. I have reread L64C a couple of times (it is not very clear English by the way), But your statement 'L64C is there precisely for this case. Literally' is utterly ridiculous. But please stop shouting, you will have to come up with some arguments if you want to convince some people. So far you have little support. HDW: Like in many of our discussions, we seem to be the only ones left. Saying the other one has little support is a weak argument, when there are 248 out of 250 readers of blml who have not supported either point of view. Once more I will show the futility of your reasoning. You want to help west. What damage did west suffer from south's revoke. None, if west had followed suit he would have 'gained' all three remaining tricks rather than two. HDW: and what has that hypothetical got to do with it? You keep repeating the same thing. West might have made 3 tricks, but he did not. So the question remains: is "sufficiently compensated" to be viewed from the point of view of the expected outcome after the revoke or from the point of view of the final result of the deal? In line with the CoP regarding L12, I believe it is the latter. You believe it is the former and all the rest is futile discussion. But west revoked. The only damage is that south's revoke might have caused west's revoke. But how can west use this as a serious argumment. In the end he is responsible for following suit. Just suppose south didn't have any clubs anymore (given the level of play miscounts must be as normal as revokes). Can west now claim that his revoke was caused by south ruffing. Of course not. HDW: I have never used the argument that the one revoke "induced" the other. Although I have much sympathy for it and actually believe that in almost all cases of double revokes, the first caused the second. So the only argument I will buy is that south is a mean player who did this on purpose (see Tim WM). But that is not for 64C, that is the cheating department (or whatever you call it). HDW: agreed on that one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Tue Aug 19 13:00:04 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:00:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: *What about the idea to add to the established revokes not to be penalized with penalty tricks the case where both sides revoke in the same trick? The trick where LHO plays a side suit and dummy, RHO and declarer all ruff, with revokes from rho and declarer looks so natural that it probably will go unnoticed anyway. Isn't that a fair approach? (I try to avoid using 'equity' hoping David is willing to give it his appreciated considerations) ton Herman wrote: > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer two tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Aug 19 13:07:34 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:07:34 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB72@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Skjaran, Harald wrote: >=20 > Indeed. But then you simply state: >=20 >=20 >>EW wasn't damaged >>by south's revoke,=20 >=20 >=20 > EW ended up with one trick in stead of two! > Now I do agree that this is something we can discuss about, but you=20 > should not write a whole paragraph that is completely correct but=20 > which includes 6 words that we fundamentally disagree about. > ----- > Yes they did, but that has nothing to do with south's revoke. > That's a result of their own infraction.=20 > Come on Herman. You must stop muddling things. > I restate: EW wasn't damaged by south's revoke.=20 > They won the last three tricks. How could they get more than the rest of = the tricks? > Subsequently two of those tricks was transferred to NS, due to > west's revoke. >=20 >=20 OK Harald, now we are on to the real discussion. You agree that EW were damaged, but that was not through the revoke,=20 just through their own actions. You say they "won the last three tricks", which means they are not=20 damaged. I say they did not get a score for those tricks, so I believe=20 they can still be damaged. Please agree that this weakens your argument. ----- I don't agree. "Of course" they were damaged by west's revoke - you normally are. South was lucky in this regard. Try to explain to me and others how EW were damadged by south's revoke. (Or don't, as I will not agree with you= .) ----- I reiterate my other example. After a revoke, the NOS are in a=20 position in which they can easily win all six remaining tricks.=20 However, they play badly and win none of them. They get one trick back=20 from the revoke, but that still leaves them with less than the two=20 tricks they would always score. In this case too, EW are damaged, not by the revoke per se, but by=20 their own subsequent action. Do you believe they are not guaranteed=20 redress through L64C? How is this example different from the original? ----- The difference between your example and the original is that in the original the damage is due to a mecanical error (a revoke) from their own side induc= ing=20 a penalty, while in your exaple the damage is a combination of a revoke by = the=20 opponents and (presumably) bad play. The example is not very clear on this. The two cases are not comparable. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 19 13:32:20 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:32:20 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB72@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB72@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F4218D4.8020601@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: >=20 > OK Harald, now we are on to the real discussion. > You agree that EW were damaged, but that was not through the revoke,=20 > just through their own actions. > You say they "won the last three tricks", which means they are not=20 > damaged. I say they did not get a score for those tricks, so I believe=20 > they can still be damaged. Please agree that this weakens your argument. >=20 > ----- > I don't agree. "Of course" they were damaged by west's revoke - you nor= mally > are. South was lucky in this regard. Try to explain to me and others ho= w > EW were damadged by south's revoke. (Or don't, as I will not agree with= you.) I never said EW were damaged "by South's revoke". I merely say that=20 they are damaged. They ended up with fewer tricks than normal. > ----- >=20 > I reiterate my other example. After a revoke, the NOS are in a=20 > position in which they can easily win all six remaining tricks.=20 > However, they play badly and win none of them. They get one trick back=20 > from the revoke, but that still leaves them with less than the two=20 > tricks they would always score. > In this case too, EW are damaged, not by the revoke per se, but by=20 > their own subsequent action. Do you believe they are not guaranteed=20 > redress through L64C? > How is this example different from the original? >=20 > ----- > The difference between your example and the original is that in the ori= ginal > the damage is due to a mecanical error (a revoke) from their own side i= nducing=20 > a penalty, while in your exaple the damage is a combination of a revoke= by the=20 > opponents and (presumably) bad play. The example is not very clear on t= his. >=20 > The two cases are not comparable. >=20 No they are not, I agree - but is the difference important? In both cases, EW end up with fewer tricks than without the revoke. In both cases we can say that EW are damaged. In neither case can we say that they are damaged "by the revoke". Does L64C say anything on the subject? I don't think so. Yet=20 intuitively we both feel we need to apply L64C on the second case, yet=20 you refuse to do so on the first. > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo > ----- >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Aug 19 13:58:14 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:58:14 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB73@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: >Skjaran, Harald wrote: >=20 > HDW: OK Harald, now we are on to the real discussion. > You agree that EW were damaged, but that was not through the revoke,=20 > just through their own actions. > You say they "won the last three tricks", which means they are not=20 > damaged. I say they did not get a score for those tricks, so I believe=20 > they can still be damaged. Please agree that this weakens your argument. >=20 > ----- > HS: I don't agree. "Of course" they were damaged by west's revoke - you n= ormally > are. South was lucky in this regard. Try to explain to me and others how > EW were damadged by south's revoke. (Or don't, as I will not agree with y= ou.) HDW: I never said EW were damaged "by South's revoke". I merely say that=20 they are damaged. They ended up with fewer tricks than normal. > ----- >=20 > HDW: I reiterate my other example. After a revoke, the NOS are in a=20 > position in which they can easily win all six remaining tricks.=20 > However, they play badly and win none of them. They get one trick back=20 > from the revoke, but that still leaves them with less than the two=20 > tricks they would always score. > In this case too, EW are damaged, not by the revoke per se, but by=20 > their own subsequent action. Do you believe they are not guaranteed=20 > redress through L64C? > How is this example different from the original? >=20 > ----- > HS: The difference between your example and the original is that in the o= riginal > the damage is due to a mecanical error (a revoke) from their own side ind= ucing=20 > a penalty, while in your exaple the damage is a combination of a revoke b= y the=20 > opponents and (presumably) bad play. The example is not very clear on thi= s. >=20 > The two cases are not comparable. >=20 HDW: No they are not, I agree - but is the difference important? In both cases, EW end up with fewer tricks than without the revoke. In both cases we can say that EW are damaged. In neither case can we say that they are damaged "by the revoke". Does L64C say anything on the subject? I don't think so. Yet=20 intuitively we both feel we need to apply L64C on the second case, yet=20 you refuse to do so on the first. HS: I never refused to apply L64C. I quote myself from earlier in this thre= as: EW wasn't damaged by south's revoke, and are thus not compensated under L64= C=20 (which IMO does apply). I'll better quote L64C: 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 for the damage caused, he shall assi= gn an adjusted score. This means damage caused by the revoke (south's in this case). Apparently, = you read something more into "damage caused" than most others. Or maybe you= are reading more into paragraph 64.8 in the commentaries than I do. There = is no damage caused by south's revoke. The two tricks lost is solely due to= west's own revoke. Which is treated separately from south's. So I apply L64C, but find that NOS is sufficiently compensated (zero tricks= transferred) under L64A. Regards, Harald > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo > ----- >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 14:16:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:16:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <015501c3663e$97e86060$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000101c36654$27d8ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > Herman wrote: >=20 > > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. >=20 > Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't > entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer = two > tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back > and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some > of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". Maybe we should first of all try to reach some consensus on what we mean = by "equity"? As I understand the current policy of WBFLC "equity" refers to the most probable result (possibly weighted between several alternatives) had = there been no irregularity at all. (This last condition is important!) Now I believe we all agree that given the play up to the moment South revoked the only probable result is two tricks to EW and one trick to = NS. I shall assume that we also agree that had South not revoked then the probability that West would have revoked is next to nil. The revokes first by South and then by West changes the table result = from the only probable result before the irregularities to one trick for EW = and two tricks to NS (after the application of laws 64A and 64B). EW has a table result less favorable than "equity", are they damaged as = NOS? I am myself rather skeptical to my understanding of the WBFLC policy, = but once that policy has been established we cannot ignore it at random. The ruff by South caused West to revoke (inadvertently I suppose). Had = the ruff been legal that would have been end of story, but here the ruff constituted an irregularity; a revoke. Thus EW ended up through an interesting and rather exotic chain of events with a table result less favorable than the expectable "equity" result for their side. This is "damage" (as defined in the laws) for which EW has not been compensated = by the use of Law 64A or 64B. Hence Law 64C. Sven From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Aug 19 14:20:30 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:20:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <006301c36654$aadb7160$f34865d5@swipnet.se> Dear Herman, If a player leads out of turn at trick 4, that situation is dealt with = at once. The revoke at trick 6, if established, is dealt with after = play. If there are established revokes, those are dealt with after play. = The TD should decide who gets what number of tricks. In this case two = revokes are dealt with at the same time (after play) and both sides are = offending sides. I cannot see anything else. But I might be wrong, of = course. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 15:13:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:13:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00a801c3663e$894aebe0$eef17f50@Default> Message-ID: <000001c3665c$2a5bceb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Sven: > And if we agree that the second revoke would most probably=20 > not have occurred absent the first then we end up with a=20 > case for Law 64C applied on the first revoke. >=20 > That is the whole problem. I, and many others, don't agree on this=20 > logic. You fail to see the difference between consequent and=20 > subsequent.=20 Really! The very fact that West most probably would not have revoked = absent the first revoke makes the revoke by West not only subsequent but also consequent, at least according to my understanding of the English = language. > South playing a trump to the club trick is simply not an > exuse for west not to follow suit.=20 Of course not. I do not know of any irregularity in the book for which = there is an excuse. (However, there are a few borderline cases like leading = out of turn because an opponent falsely told you it was your turn to lead) ............. > Second, all kind of distractions can 'cause' a revoke. Any infraction, > specially when it involves a TD call, can create a lot of confusion = (or > external events like the waiter arriving). Your argument basically = boils > down to that after the first infraction the NOS are not responsible = for > anything anymore. I don't agree to that.=20 Nor do I. I require some connection leading to the statement: We feel = sure that the second irregularity would not have been committed had the first = not been. And I am not aware of ever indicating anything else. ......... > South ruffs the club trick. West should > continue play under the assumption that south is now out of clubs. Of course. We should all avoid causing irregularities. But we are not perfect and we do cause irregularities. In bridge we assume that nobody cause irregularities on purpose (unlike some other sports), but we still follow the principle that when an irregularity is the consequence from = an irregularity committed by another player the consequential irregularity = is more or less excused and we attempt to restore "equity" as if neither of = the irregularities had occurred. Our problem here is more a question on where to draw the line defining = which irregularities qualify as "consequential". My personal understanding of = this word is that if an irregularity had most probably not been committed = absent another (previous) irregularity then the second irregularity is consequential to the first. > To revoke in this position is a major infraction and a major = stupidity, > so for me it is not connected anymore to the infraction by south, if=20 > only because that infraction at that moment was not even sure to = exist.=20 The fact is that West revoked as a consequence of the ruff by South. As = I said in another post: If the ruff by South had been legal then this = would have been end of story. It is the fact that the revoke by West was the consequence of an irregularity and not a legal play which makes the = whole difference. And it makes no difference that West could not at the time = of his irregularity distinguish between the play being legal and a revoke. > Brief, west revoked after club,discard,ruff. Without revoke it would = go > club,discard,club. You claim that west still holding a club is more = likely > to revoke in the first case rather than in the second. You might be = right > but I say it is irrelevant. West should follow suit and the first case = is > not too different from the second to cancel west's responsibility for > observing one of the most fundamental rules of the game. If you are requested to rank the two irregularities on severity would = you rank them equal, South's revoke more severe or West's revoke more = severe? Does it strike you as interesting that the application of laws 64A and = 64B alone does not "restore equity" but in fact penalizes EW more severely = than NS? sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 15:07:28 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:07:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990060AB4D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F420D8C.5@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006b01c3665b$6cf8af00$56f77f50@Default> The rest of the world: > EW wasn't damaged by south's revoke, Herman: > > EW ended up with one trick in stead of two! Herman, sometimes players end up with more or less tricks than they normally should. For all kind of reasons. In this case EW getting only 1 trick was caused by west's revoke, not by south's revoke. Your position seems to be that the NOS always gets at least their normal result without revoke, even if they make 10 stupid mistakes and 3 revokes after the original revoke and ending with 51 cards only. My position is that the redress is limited to damage caused by the revoke. (of course I accept indirect damage like induced miscounting, and I always give the NOS the benefit of the doubt) This is actually what the law say explicitly. THE LAW (64C): 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 for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. If you read carefully it says 'for the damage caused'. That is not the same as 'damage' in general. Although it might be difficult in certain cases to decide what damage is caused by the revoke and what damage is not, the law seems clear to me. Anyway in our original case I don't accept that south's revoked CAUSED west's revoke. I will never accept that for an unintentional revoke. And an intentional revoke is something else altogether. And to finish, you mentioned a couple of hypothetical cases. Suppose normal result is 5 tricks. Now there is a revoke and we aplly the penalty (if any). Say the result is 4 tricks. I don't adjust automatically to 5 tricks under 64C. I will check if the damage is caused by the revoke. In almost all cases the answer will be yes but I can imagine no. Like in the case we are discussing. Jaap From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 15:08:48 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:08:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: Message-ID: <006c01c3665b$6d7ef600$56f77f50@Default> Ton: > *What about the idea to add to the established revokes not to be penalized > with penalty tricks the case where both sides revoke in the same trick? The > trick where LHO plays a side suit and dummy, RHO and declarer all ruff, with > revokes from rho and declarer looks so natural that it probably will go > unnoticed anyway. First this is typical a Dutch reflex, to make a law for everything. Second, following suit is a basic thing in bridge. You seem to say that if one side revokes it is understandable or even ok that the other side revokes as well. I don't like this approach. Third, you seem not to take bridge very seriously when you say that making a couple of revokes 'seems natural' (to you maybe but not to me) probably will go unnoticed anyway (to you maybe but nor te me). > Isn't that a fair approach? (I try to avoid using 'equity' hoping David is > willing to give it his appreciated considerations) I don't care a damn whether it is fair or not, fair in the way you (mis)use that word. What is the point in being fair about revokes. What we need is clear laws that can actually be used to play a competitive game. As long as the law is clear and the same for everybody it is fair by definition. But I guess fair and equity means something else to you. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" To: "'blml '" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > > *What about the idea to add to the established revokes not to be penalized > with penalty tricks the case where both sides revoke in the same trick? The > trick where LHO plays a side suit and dummy, RHO and declarer all ruff, with > revokes from rho and declarer looks so natural that it probably will go > unnoticed anyway. > > Isn't that a fair approach? (I try to avoid using 'equity' hoping David is > willing to give it his appreciated considerations) > > ton > > > Herman wrote: > > > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. > > Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't > entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer two > tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back > and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some > of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". > > 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 From juuso@jldata.fi Tue Aug 19 01:12:18 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:12:18 +0300 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: <000401c365e6$8d4d6950$c74dee88@Helzlapjuuso> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C365FF.B29AA150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that best way to do is handle both revokes as separate: First the "could have know" -case. Law 72B1 ... would be likely to = damage... In view Law 64C this can't be never true in any normal cases. The revoke almost always harms the maker not the other side. Second the first established revoke: West revokes ( established when = West plays to next trick). This case is clear: West won the revoke trick and won trick with club - = so two tricks to N-S. Third the second established revoke: South revokes. The case is also clear. N-S won no tricks, so no tricks to E-W. Now we must read 64 B 1. In this case it means either literally last 3 played tricks or it means that N-S can't lose any tricks they have get previously. In the latter case this means that there is two tricks at = N-S pocket, from we can transfer one to E-W. So N-S wins 1 and E-W wins 2 tricks. If we read 64B1 literally, there is no tricks to transfer, so we must = read Law 64 C. 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=20 It can applies to the case- ... including those not subject to penalty = ... E-W hasn't got any compensation of Souths revoke, because the N-S won no tricks. Still they have two more tricks after trick 10. I believe than = only in "La Law" we can give 1 trick to E-W and 2 tricks to E-W. In Finland we have very, very old judge's rules: " What is not justice = can't be the law" Juuso Leikola =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C365FF.B29AA150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think that best way to do is handle both revokes as = separate:

First the “could have know” –case. Law 72B1 = ... would be likely to damage... In view Law 64C this can’t be never true in = any normal cases. The revoke almost always harms the maker not the other = side.

Second the first established revoke: West revokes ( established = when West plays to next trick).

This case is clear: West won the revoke trick and won trick with = club – so two tricks to N-S.

Third the second established revoke: South = revokes.

The case is also clear. N-S won no tricks, so no tricks to = E-W.

Now we must read 64 B 1. In this case it means either literally = last 3 played tricks or it means that N-S can’t lose any tricks they have = get previously. In the latter case this means that there is two tricks at = N-S pocket, from we can transfer one to E-W. So N-S wins 1 and E-W wins 2 = tricks.

If we read 64B1 literally, there is no tricks to transfer, so we = must read Law 64 C.

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 =

It can applies = to the case- ... including those not subject to penalty ... E-W hasn’t = got any compensation of Souths revoke, because the N-S won no tricks. Still they = have two more tricks after trick 10. I believe than only in “La = Law” we can give 1 trick to E-W and 2 tricks to E-W.

In Finland we = have very, very old judge’s rules: “ What is not justice can’t be = the law”

Juuso = Leikola

 

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C365FF.B29AA150-- From foppe@hemminga.net Tue Aug 19 14:07:15 2003 From: foppe@hemminga.net (Foppe Hemminga) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:07:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted References: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006401c36652$d073b060$25e30ad5@v9p0e1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_H5WhaJfb1SyhFa0CT+XrIQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Zitting 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-2 A 3-4 B 5-6 C 7-8 D 9-10 E 11-12 F 13-14 G 15-16 H 17-18 I 15-10 A 16-14 B 13-11 C 18-12 D 7-6 E 9-8 F 5-3 G 1-17 H 4-2 I 16-9 A 15-13 B 14-12 C 17-11 D 8-5 E 10-7 F 6-4 G 18-2 H 1-3 I 6-17 A 10-11 B 16-18 C 3-9 D 4-15 E 2-13 F 1-7 G 8-14 H 5-12 I 5-18 A 9-12 B 15-17 C 4-10 D 3-16 E 1-14 F 2-8 G 7-13 H 6-11 I 8-12 A 1-5 B 4-7 C 16-2 D 17-13 E 18-3 F 11-15 G 6-10 H 9-14 I 11-7 A 2-6 B 3-8 C 1-15 D 14-18 E 4-17 F 12-16 G 5-9 H 10-13 I 14-3 A 8-18 B 1-9 C 6-13 D 12-2 E 16-5 F 17-10 G 11-4 H 15-7 I 4-13 A 7-17 B 2-10 C 5-14 D 1-11 E 6-15 F 9-18 G 3-12 H 8-16 I Zitting 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-18 A 4-5 B 6-16 C 7-12 D 10-14 E 9-11 F 3-13 G 8-15 H 2-17 A 9-15 A 1-13 B 8-11 C 3-10 D 5-7 E 18-6 F 12-4 G 16-17 H 14-2 B 8-13 A 15-3 B 1-10 C 11-14 D 6-12 E 16-7 F 17-5 G 4-18 H 2-9 C 16-4 A 12-17 B 18-7 C 1-6 D 3-11 E 8-10 F 14-15 G 13-9 H 5-2 D 7-3 A 6-8 B 14-4 C 17-9 D 1-16 E 12-13 F 11-18 G 5-10 H 2-15 E 10-12 A 11-16 B 5-13 C 15-18 D 8-17 E 1-4 F 6-9 G 7-14 H 3-2 F 11-5 A 18-10 B 12-15 C 13-16 D 9-4 E 14-17 F 1-8 G 6-3 H 2-7 G 6-14 A 7-9 B 3-17 C 4-8 D 18-13 E 5-15 F 16-10 G 1-12 H 11-2 H 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I Groningen, Nederland. Foppe Hemminga ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: [blml] movement wanted > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > Mitchell has a share. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 08/14/2003 --Boundary_(ID_H5WhaJfb1SyhFa0CT+XrIQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Zitting 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1-2  A  3-4  B  5-6  C  7-8  D  9-10 E 11-12 F 13-14 G 15-16 H 17-18 I
15-10 A 16-14 B 13-11 C 18-12 D  7-6  E  9-8  F  5-3  G  1-17 H  4-2  I
16-9  A 15-13 B 14-12 C 17-11 D  8-5  E 10-7  F  6-4  G 18-2  H  1-3  I
 6-17 A 10-11 B 16-18 C  3-9  D  4-15 E  2-13 F  1-7  G  8-14 H  5-12 I
 5-18 A  9-12 B 15-17 C  4-10 D  3-16 E  1-14 F  2-8  G  7-13 H  6-11 I
 8-12 A  1-5  B  4-7  C 16-2  D 17-13 E 18-3  F 11-15 G  6-10 H  9-14 I
11-7  A  2-6  B  3-8  C  1-15 D 14-18 E  4-17 F 12-16 G  5-9  H 10-13 I
14-3  A  8-18 B  1-9  C  6-13 D 12-2  E 16-5  F 17-10 G 11-4  H 15-7  I
 4-13 A  7-17 B  2-10 C  5-14 D  1-11 E  6-15 F  9-18 G  3-12 H  8-16 I
 
Zitting 2
  1       2       3       4       5       6       7       8       9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1-18 A  4-5  B  6-16 C  7-12 D 10-14 E  9-11 F  3-13 G  8-15 H  2-17 A
 9-15 A  1-13 B  8-11 C  3-10 D  5-7  E 18-6  F 12-4  G 16-17 H 14-2  B
 8-13 A 15-3  B  1-10 C 11-14 D  6-12 E 16-7  F 17-5  G  4-18 H  2-9  C
16-4  A 12-17 B 18-7  C  1-6  D  3-11 E  8-10 F 14-15 G 13-9  H  5-2  D
 7-3  A  6-8  B 14-4  C 17-9  D  1-16 E 12-13 F 11-18 G  5-10 H  2-15 E
10-12 A 11-16 B  5-13 C 15-18 D  8-17 E  1-4  F  6-9  G  7-14 H  3-2  F
11-5  A 18-10 B 12-15 C 13-16 D  9-4  E 14-17 F  1-8  G  6-3  H  2-7  G
 6-14 A  7-9  B  3-17 C  4-8  D 18-13 E  5-15 F 16-10 G  1-12 H 11-2  H
 0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I  0-0  I
 
Groningen, Nederland.
 
Foppe Hemminga
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw@hdw.be>
To: "blml" <blml@rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:09 PM
Subject: [blml] movement wanted

> Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share?
> Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded
> Mitchell has a share.
> --
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml@rtflb.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 08/14/2003
--Boundary_(ID_H5WhaJfb1SyhFa0CT+XrIQ)-- From henk@ripe.net Tue Aug 19 15:29:22 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:29:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <006401c36652$d073b060$25e30ad5@v9p0e1> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Foppe Hemminga wrote: > Zitting 1 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1-2 A 3-4 B 5-6 C 7-8 D 9-10 E 11-12 F 13-14 G 15-16 H 17-18 I > 15-10 A 16-14 B 13-11 C 18-12 D 7-6 E 9-8 F 5-3 G 1-17 H 4-2 I > 16-9 A 15-13 B 14-12 C 17-11 D 8-5 E 10-7 F 6-4 G 18-2 H 1-3 I > 6-17 A 10-11 B 16-18 C 3-9 D 4-15 E 2-13 F 1-7 G 8-14 H 5-12 I > 5-18 A 9-12 B 15-17 C 4-10 D 3-16 E 1-14 F 2-8 G 7-13 H 6-11 I > 8-12 A 1-5 B 4-7 C 16-2 D 17-13 E 18-3 F 11-15 G 6-10 H 9-14 I > 11-7 A 2-6 B 3-8 C 1-15 D 14-18 E 4-17 F 12-16 G 5-9 H 10-13 I > 14-3 A 8-18 B 1-9 C 6-13 D 12-2 E 16-5 F 17-10 G 11-4 H 15-7 I > 4-13 A 7-17 B 2-10 C 5-14 D 1-11 E 6-15 F 9-18 G 3-12 H 8-16 I > > Zitting 2 > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1-18 A 4-5 B 6-16 C 7-12 D 10-14 E 9-11 F 3-13 G 8-15 H 2-17 A > 9-15 A 1-13 B 8-11 C 3-10 D 5-7 E 18-6 F 12-4 G 16-17 H 14-2 B > 8-13 A 15-3 B 1-10 C 11-14 D 6-12 E 16-7 F 17-5 G 4-18 H 2-9 C > 16-4 A 12-17 B 18-7 C 1-6 D 3-11 E 8-10 F 14-15 G 13-9 H 5-2 D > 7-3 A 6-8 B 14-4 C 17-9 D 1-16 E 12-13 F 11-18 G 5-10 H 2-15 E > 10-12 A 11-16 B 5-13 C 15-18 D 8-17 E 1-4 F 6-9 G 7-14 H 3-2 F > 11-5 A 18-10 B 12-15 C 13-16 D 9-4 E 14-17 F 1-8 G 6-3 H 2-7 G > 6-14 A 7-9 B 3-17 C 4-8 D 18-13 E 5-15 F 16-10 G 1-12 H 11-2 H > 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I 0-0 I This looks like a 2-session, 9 table Howell, which is not what Herman asked for. Henk > > > Groningen, Nederland. > > Foppe Hemminga > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:09 PM > Subject: [blml] movement wanted > > > > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > > Mitchell has a share. > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 08/14/2003 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 15:30:48 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:30:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000101c36654$27d8ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007a01c3665e$7d923a40$56f77f50@Default> Sven: As I understand the current policy of WBFLC "equity" refers to the most probable result (possibly weighted between several alternatives) had there been no irregularity at all. (This last condition is important!) The problem of this approach is that in the extreme the players stop playing at all and a committee will decide the result of every board. Why bother to play it the committtee will restore to the most probable result anyway. Once we have written some software the game of bridge has been solved. In real life we like to play and mistakes and irregularities are part of the game. Sven: Now I believe we all agree that given the play up to the moment South revoked the only probable result is two tricks to EW and one trick to NS. I shall assume that we also agree that had South not revoked then the probability that West would have revoked is next to nil. We don't all agree to that one. At my level revokes are very rare. I would not buy at all that south's revoke really changed the probability of west's revoke. If some guy decides to rob a bank or commit suicide it doesn't mean that you or I should do so as well. At lower level players make technical mistakes all the time. Revokes, LOOT's you name it. Probably all kind of factors like the temperature influence the frequencies. And real beginners are likely to play the same suit as RHO. So I couldn't care less. Anyway, at really low level you might want to waive most if not all penalties, but that is another discussion. Besides humans are very bad at calculating and comparing small chances. Do we know how likely a player is to revoke at any given trick. Probably a very very small chance. Now every slight disturbance, like south ruffing that club, might dramatically improve that very very small chance. It might add a zero or two. But the chance is so small that even then it remains very very small. The likelyhood might just have improved from one a year to once a month or so. Don't you see the silliness of your argument: 'I shall assume that we also agree that had South not revoked then the probability that West would have revoked is next to nil'. If this is true the probabilty of South revoking is next to nil as well. Still south revoked. So what does nil actually mean. But I have to be honest. Whatever you are going to argue I simply will not buy that west is not responsible anymore for following suit. And that this is beyond the scope of 'damage caused by souths revoke'. If you want to continue concentrate on that issue. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > David Burn > Herman wrote: > > > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. > > Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't > entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer two > tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back > and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some > of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". Maybe we should first of all try to reach some consensus on what we mean by "equity"? As I understand the current policy of WBFLC "equity" refers to the most probable result (possibly weighted between several alternatives) had there been no irregularity at all. (This last condition is important!) Now I believe we all agree that given the play up to the moment South revoked the only probable result is two tricks to EW and one trick to NS. I shall assume that we also agree that had South not revoked then the probability that West would have revoked is next to nil. The revokes first by South and then by West changes the table result from the only probable result before the irregularities to one trick for EW and two tricks to NS (after the application of laws 64A and 64B). EW has a table result less favorable than "equity", are they damaged as NOS? I am myself rather skeptical to my understanding of the WBFLC policy, but once that policy has been established we cannot ignore it at random. The ruff by South caused West to revoke (inadvertently I suppose). Had the ruff been legal that would have been end of story, but here the ruff constituted an irregularity; a revoke. Thus EW ended up through an interesting and rather exotic chain of events with a table result less favorable than the expectable "equity" result for their side. This is "damage" (as defined in the laws) for which EW has not been compensated by the use of Law 64A or 64B. Hence Law 64C. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Aug 19 16:00:32 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:00:32 +1200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004a01c36662$a3f9c870$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 10:09 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: [blml] movement wanted > > > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > Mitchell has a share. 2nd attempt: It can easily be done with sit-outs. Pretend you have nine-tables with one phantom NS and one phantom EW pair. Play a nine-table Mitchell. 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 juuso@jldata.fi Tue Aug 19 15:52:08 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:52:08 +0300 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00ec01c36639$15bbbce0$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000a01c36661$76d2c050$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> >NS were subject to penalty and ruled accordingly. >If Law64C has to be applied than we can get rid of Law 64A and apply = Law64C >in any revoke case. >Ben No, Law 64A simple states that if you got nothing, you will keep your = tricks before the revoke, and you will not get any penalty. Juuso Leikola _______________________________________________=20 blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 15:56:01 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:56:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000001c3665c$2a5bceb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008001c36662$03717060$56f77f50@Default> Sven: Our problem here is more a question on where to draw the line defining which irregularities qualify as "consequential". My personal understanding of this word is that if an irregularity had most probably not been committed absent another (previous) irregularity then the second irregularity is consequential to the first. I guess we found our communication problem. I will never use consequential like that. Consequent and subsequent (it is Kaplan speak I guess) is normally used IMO to differentiate between something (clearly) related to the infraction (almost always damage) and something which happened later in time (assuming we know where to draw the line). The big theoretical discussion is always whether subsequent damage (say a stupid mistake by NOS) should also be compensated. The argument always is that without the infraction the NOS would not be in that position so was unable to make that mistake (forgetting that otherwise they would be in another position where they also could have made mistakes). In that logic all damage is consequent which means that continuing play makes no sense anymore because the NOS has a licence to kill. Whatever they do including infractions is covered. I happen to be of the school that limits redress to consequent damage or in other words damage that has some real link with the infraction. Which as far as I know is main stream nowadays. This leaves the question of drawing the line between consequent damage and subsequent damage. But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. Sven: If you are requested to rank the two irregularities on severity would you rank them equal, South's revoke more severe or West's revoke more severe? I couldn't care less. A revoke is a revoke, and there are mechanical laws that deal with them. Sven: Does it strike you as interesting that the application of laws 64A and 64B alone does not "restore equity" but in fact penalizes EW more severely than NS? Restoring equity ? Why should you want to do that. The way you argue you want to reduce 64 to 64C only. Who cares about the penalties in 64A and 64B if the TD is always going to restore equity under 64C. Besides even 64C doesn't say that 'equity should be restored'. Keep It Simple. Players commited a revoke. You are supposed to apply the revoke law. Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. Now it is true the result (NS2 EW1) is somewhat lopsided, I can understand EW are not very happy with the ruling. But for some reason we do have a law that penalises some revokes and doesn't penalise other revokes. Of course this is silly (I consider the law insane), but for this there is only one solution. Change the laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:13 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes Jaap van der Neut > Sven: > And if we agree that the second revoke would most probably > not have occurred absent the first then we end up with a > case for Law 64C applied on the first revoke. > > That is the whole problem. I, and many others, don't agree on this > logic. You fail to see the difference between consequent and > subsequent. Really! The very fact that West most probably would not have revoked absent the first revoke makes the revoke by West not only subsequent but also consequent, at least according to my understanding of the English language. > South playing a trump to the club trick is simply not an > exuse for west not to follow suit. Of course not. I do not know of any irregularity in the book for which there is an excuse. (However, there are a few borderline cases like leading out of turn because an opponent falsely told you it was your turn to lead) ............. > Second, all kind of distractions can 'cause' a revoke. Any infraction, > specially when it involves a TD call, can create a lot of confusion (or > external events like the waiter arriving). Your argument basically boils > down to that after the first infraction the NOS are not responsible for > anything anymore. I don't agree to that. Nor do I. I require some connection leading to the statement: We feel sure that the second irregularity would not have been committed had the first not been. And I am not aware of ever indicating anything else. ......... > South ruffs the club trick. West should > continue play under the assumption that south is now out of clubs. Of course. We should all avoid causing irregularities. But we are not perfect and we do cause irregularities. In bridge we assume that nobody cause irregularities on purpose (unlike some other sports), but we still follow the principle that when an irregularity is the consequence from an irregularity committed by another player the consequential irregularity is more or less excused and we attempt to restore "equity" as if neither of the irregularities had occurred. Our problem here is more a question on where to draw the line defining which irregularities qualify as "consequential". My personal understanding of this word is that if an irregularity had most probably not been committed absent another (previous) irregularity then the second irregularity is consequential to the first. > To revoke in this position is a major infraction and a major stupidity, > so for me it is not connected anymore to the infraction by south, if > only because that infraction at that moment was not even sure to exist. The fact is that West revoked as a consequence of the ruff by South. As I said in another post: If the ruff by South had been legal then this would have been end of story. It is the fact that the revoke by West was the consequence of an irregularity and not a legal play which makes the whole difference. And it makes no difference that West could not at the time of his irregularity distinguish between the play being legal and a revoke. > Brief, west revoked after club,discard,ruff. Without revoke it would go > club,discard,club. You claim that west still holding a club is more likely > to revoke in the first case rather than in the second. You might be right > but I say it is irrelevant. West should follow suit and the first case is > not too different from the second to cancel west's responsibility for > observing one of the most fundamental rules of the game. If you are requested to rank the two irregularities on severity would you rank them equal, South's revoke more severe or West's revoke more severe? Does it strike you as interesting that the application of laws 64A and 64B alone does not "restore equity" but in fact penalizes EW more severely than NS? sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 17:04:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:04:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <007a01c3665e$7d923a40$56f77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000501c3666b$aa80fde0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut=20 > Sven: > As I understand the current policy of WBFLC "equity"=20 > refers to the most probable result (possibly weighted > between several alternatives) had there been no=20 > irregularity at all. (This last condition is important!) >=20 > The problem of this approach is that in the extreme the=20 > players stop playing at all and a committee will decide=20 > the result of every board. Why bother to play it the > committtee will restore to the most probable result anyway. I never said I was unconditionally comfortable with the WBFLC policy in = this respect. On the contrary I feel quite a lot of skepticism. But once that policy is established we have to live with it and obey regardless of how each of us personally feels. The worst way we can act as directors is to obey that policy when it suits us and disregard it when we feel = otherwise. > Sven: > I shall assume that we also agree that had South not revoked then the > probability that West would have revoked is next to nil. >=20 > We don't all agree to that one. At my level revokes are very rare.=20 > I would not buy at all that south's revoke really changed the=20 > probability of west's revoke. If some guy decides to rob a bank or > commit suicide it doesn't mean that you or I should do so as well. You sound as if you consider South's and West's revokes as having been intentional (like it usually is when people rob banks or commit = suicide). We could have a much more fruitful discussion if we did not all the time drag in extraneous and irrelevant matters. I take it to be your opinion that West would probably have revoked also = if South had not revoked. Fine - that is your judgment, and on that basis = it is quite correct not to involve Law 64C on the revoke by South. (I have = never that I know indicated otherwise) I have a different opinion, and I believe that if I ever should be = involved in a situation like the way West was here and be ruled against according = to your reasoning I would quite likely have let the case go to an appeals committee for a final judgment on whether the second irregularity was consequential or just subsequent to the first. =20 ........ > Don't you see the silliness of your argument: 'I shall assume that we = also > agree that had South not revoked then the probability that West would = have > revoked is next to nil'. If this is true the probabilty of South = revoking > is next to nil as well. Still south revoked. So what does nil actually > mean. No I don't see any "silliness" here. The probability of revokes is in = any case very small, that is not the point. The point is that (in my = opinion) the probability for West to revoke increased tremendously (say from one = in a billion to one in a million) as the consequence of South playing a trump = to the club trick. The fact that South revoked in doing so is irrelevant, = the probability for West to revoke increased because South played the trump, = not because this actually was an irregularity. But of course this doesn't = help West a bit as long as South's play is legal. The major question which must be decided upon once the play by South was = a revoke is whether this makes the subsequent revoke by West consequential = or not to South playing the trump. If we judge it to be consequential we have a Law 64C case (according to WBFLC policy as I understand it), if not consequential then no Law 64C = case. =20 > But I have to be honest. Whatever you are going to argue I simply will = not > buy that west is not responsible anymore for following suit. And that = this > is beyond the scope of 'damage caused by souths revoke'. If you want = to > continue concentrate on that issue. If you have made up your mind and nothing is going to change that then = there is no reason to continue. I had seriously hoped for some logic showing = for instance why Law 64C is not applicable to damage directly caused by an inadvertent irregularity which is the consequence of a revoke. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 17:17:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:17:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <008001c36662$03717060$56f77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000001c3666d$69668260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. Excuse me - which definition? .......... > Restoring equity ? Why should you want to do that. Because of WBFLC policy > The way you argue you want to reduce 64 to 64C only. Not in my mind. Do you read minds I do not have? > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. I haven't seen that one before. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 17:11:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:11:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <008001c36662$03717060$56f77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000601c3666c$aea584d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. Excuse me - which definition? .......... > Restoring equity ? Why should you want to do that. Because of WBFLC policy > The way you argue you want to reduce 64 to 64C only. Not in my mind. Do you read minds I do not have? > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. I haven't seen that one before. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 17:19:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:19:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <008001c36662$03717060$56f77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000101c3666d$b6f7d6f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. Excuse me - which definition? .......... > Restoring equity ? Why should you want to do that. Because of WBFLC policy > The way you argue you want to reduce 64 to 64C only. Not in my mind. Do you read minds I do not have? > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. I haven't seen that one before. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 17:24:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:24:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <008001c36662$03717060$56f77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000201c3666e$7ca21aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. Excuse me - which definition? .......... > Restoring equity ? Why should you want to do that. Because of WBFLC policy > The way you argue you want to reduce 64 to 64C only. Not in my mind. Do you read minds I do not have? > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. I haven't seen that one before. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 18:01:42 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:01:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <2685997.1061312502022.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> > Jaap van der Neut > ......... > > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. > > Excuse me - which definition? I have no idea. But this is the fourth time I have received this message. Are others having the same problem, or is it merely with my mail system? David Burn London, England From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Aug 19 18:08:50 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:08:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404664C@hotel.npl.co.uk> I have received it four times also. This thread had already descended into people pointlessly repeating themselves that I did not notice the messages were identical. Robin -----Original Message----- From: dalburn@btopenworld.com [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com] Sent: 19 August 2003 18:02 To: svenpran@online.no; blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap van der Neut > ......... > > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. > > Excuse me - which definition? I have no idea. But this is the fourth time I have received this message. Are others having the same problem, or is it merely with my mail system? David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Aug 19 18:15:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:15:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sorry for inconvenience caused by my ISP mail server Message-ID: <000301c36675$8f4bc460$6900a8c0@WINXP> This afternoon my ISP (online.no) mail server has been at times very irregular with a vide variety of error messages returned to me. Apparently this has caused at least one of my posts to be transmitted = 4(?) times. I must assure this is not the way I send messages and I regret to = say that I have absolutely no idea what is (or was) the problem.=20 My apologies to everybody for the inconvenience. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 19 18:33:57 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:33:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <009701c3661e$29682910$281fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <00e701c36678$24665220$999868d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I think OB 3.3.5 helps. In my view if there is a reasonable possibility that a call is alertable a player in an EBU event should go down this route. [Nigel Guthrie] As usual, I agree. [At least while the alert laws, about which we both have reservations, remain on the books]. But surely all these should be in TFLB, rather than in a local EBU publication. Also, Grattan, please address my main question... In a regular partnership, suppose you do alert a call by partner; but you are *always* uncertain (to some degree) what any of partner's calls mean; should you say "I don't know" or just guess? As a crude estimate, assume that you are 80-99% sure of the meaning of almost all partner's calls. At the other extreme, suppose that you are in a new partnership, and an opponent asks the meaning of a call that you alerted. You are fairly sure that you have never discussed this call but from the gestalt of a couple of previous play-sessions and a few brief chats about style, you know that you are likely to have a much better idea of its meaning than your opponent can have. If you estimate that your chances of being right are only 60-80%, should you say "undiscussed" or should you hazard a guess. And if you do admit to being unsure, should you still offer to guess? Or, should you guess in all circumstances, concealing your doubt, and accepting the penalty from any consequent misinformation? In which case, you could excise TFLB references to "no agreement", "undiscussed", "general bridge knowledge and experience", "protection from incomplete disclosure", and so on. Marvin, Hermann, and, perhaps, Kaima seem to agree with me that the "always guess" interpretation is clear, rigorous, simple, and equitable; but I fear that the current law makes it illegal to guess; so for the majority of players, the only legal reply is "Don't know". (: Incidentally, my contributions to a discussion on a similar topic may have been the final straw that qualified me for David Stevenson's kill-file :( From juuso@jldata.fi Tue Aug 19 18:43:48 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:43:48 +0300 Subject: Sven PranRE: [blml] Sorry for inconvenience caused by my ISP mail server In-Reply-To: <000301c36675$8f4bc460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c36679$71fa9770$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> I think that is world-wide virus problem. W32.Sobig and W32.Welchia = worms have nearly stopped both major ISP's in Finland. juuso -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Sven Pran Sent: 19. elokuuta 2003 20:16 To: blml Subject: [blml] Sorry for inconvenience caused by my ISP mail server This afternoon my ISP (online.no) mail server has been at times very irregular with a vide variety of error messages returned to me. Apparently this has caused at least one of my posts to be transmitted = 4(?) times. I must assure this is not the way I send messages and I regret to = say that I have absolutely no idea what is (or was) the problem.=20 My apologies to everybody for the inconvenience. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 19 18:49:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:49:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert References: <009401c365f0$d0c2f560$869868d5@default> <003401c36615$f7e915a0$089c68d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20030819092557.01d44b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c3667a$4e58edc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >When the opponents have obviously forgotten > >their system and I have their CC in front > >of me, I see no point in asking questions > >and enabling them to exchange information." > > AG : except perhaps when one opponents tells you that the CC could be > wrong, which is not uncommon. Then not asking is in a way "failure to > protect oneself". Telling an opponent that the CC could be wrong is unacceptable for several reasons. Unless it's behind a screen, it creates too much UI. What is on the CC is *ipso facto* correct, as it documents the partnership's agreements even if they are ignorant of what it contains. If their CCs disagree, that is a problem that a good TD should be able to handle. What a player cannot do is waffle in hopes of escaping the consequences of misexplaining partner's call. At my table a client once doubled my partner's 2H after several rounds of a competitive auction. At that time a non-penalty double was Alertable, but there was no Alert. The pro removed the double and partner, who ought to have bid 3H but was intimidated by the double, let them steal the hand. When I summoned the TD after seeing client's dummy, the pro defended her action by saying "No agreement, I was guessing." The TD accepted that because there was nothing on the CC to show an agreement, but he should not have. If she was going to "guess" the double was "card showing," takeout-oriented, she should have Alerted the double and confidently explained it as such. To let a player get away with a no-risk waffle is just not acceptable. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 19 19:02:18 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:02:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] movement wanted References: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002901c3667c$08d72080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > Mitchell has a share. Herman, what do you have against an 8-table Howell, 13 rounds, two boards to a round? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 19 19:06:34 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:06:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000201c3666e$7ca21aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003301c3667c$a58d8900$48e87f50@Default> Sven: > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. > Excuse me - which definition? By definition is some kind of expression. Anyway we are discussing 'damage caused by the revoke'. Damage is for all practical purposes tricks won and lost. Revokes might gain directly (after the revoke you stop a suit you didn't stop before) or indirectly (opponents do something silly because of an induced miscount). Including west's revoke in the damage means you make south responsible for west revoking which for me is ridiculous. As I said before, the moment west revoked he didn't even know south revoked so how can that revoke (which was discovered later) cause this damage. Sven: No I don't see any "silliness" here. The probability of revokes is in any case very small, that is not the point. The point is that (in my opinion) the probability for West to revoke increased tremendously (say from one in a billion to one in a million) as the consequence of South playing a trump to the club trick. The fact that South revoked in doing so is irrelevant, the probability for West to revoke increased because South played the trump, not because this actually was an irregularity. But of course this doesn't help West a bit as long as South's play is legal. Two issues here. One. Relative that means 1000 times more likely (that cannot be true, if you were right we should see way more double revokes, given my experience I guess the factor is maybe 2 to 4 rather than 1000), in absolute terms it is still next to nil. Or do you propose to give 999 times 1NS 2EW and 1 time 2NS 1EW (or 999999 to 1)? But I warned you before, be careful doing math on very small numbers. Two. To my big suprise you use my own argument against me. You say (as I did) that playing a trump changed the chance of west revoking. You say (as I did) that the fact that South revoked in doing so is irrelevant. Now for me the revoke being irrelevant means there is no damage and no damage means no compensation (see 64C). Sven: If we judge it to be consequential we have a Law 64C case (according to WBFLC policy as I understand it), if not consequential then no Law 64C case. One. How can you judge it to be irrelevant and consequential at the same time? This is not playing with words, the two concepts are each others opposite. Two. What is this silly WBFLC policy that seems to say you should not apply the law as it is. Whatever the WBFLC is doing (who knows anyway) Law 64C is about insuffient compensation for damage caused by a revoke, it is not about restoring equity on a larger scale. So even if it is a 64C case there is no damage caused by the revoke if you think the revoke is irrelevant (and you seem to think so). Three. Anyway since when has a WBFLC policy some status. The WBFLC is not known for communicating or publishing whatever they are doing in a meaningful way. And is there an article in the law that says that an WBFLC policy overrides the current law. And if so how the WBFLC is supposed to publish a policy to give it a formal status ? I am not against some dynamic upgrading of the laws during that ridiculous 10 year interval. But if do so you need a serious procedure known to all. The fact that the WBFLC thinks something, feels something or decides something at a meeting doesn't mean anything in itself. If they include it in the COC of a tournament OK, but then the scope is limited to that tournament. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap van der Neut > ......... > > But an opponents revoke is subsequent by definition. > > Excuse me - which definition? > > .......... > > Restoring equity ? Why should you want to do that. > > Because of WBFLC policy > > > The way you argue you want to reduce 64 to 64C only. > > Not in my mind. Do you read minds I do not have? > > > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. > > I haven't seen that one before. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 19 19:33:35 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:33:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the TD seeing the > redeal himself or being told that there was one. > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across the room to inform the TD about a revoke he saw, the TD must act upon that information. I dislike this law, preferring that a TD act only when summoned to a table by one of the players involved. If instead s/he goes around spotting irregularities in a random manner, or letting un-involved people report them, then the contestants are not being treated equally. Scoring errors excepted, of course. Some years back during a regional championship, there was an argument at a nearby table regarding a possible revoke. I called the TD over and said, "It's none of my business, but I think that table needs your help." "You're right, it is none of your business," she said, and walked away. I think she was right to do that, despite 81C6. To determine what is the better course to follow when there is doubt, it often helps to take one or the other to an extreme and see if it still works. Imagine that an expert pair drops in for the local club Mitchell, playing N-S, and the TD decides to kibitz them on every round. He can then spot every E-W irregularity that he sees throughout the game, whether a revoke, misuse of UI, Alert failure, whatever. Is this fair to all the other N-S pairs, who do not have a TD to catch opposing irregularities for them? I think not. The TD should say nothing about an irregularity unless one of the players draws attention to it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 19 19:36:48 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:36:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <009701c3661e$29682910$281fe150@endicott> <00e701c36678$24665220$999868d5@default> Message-ID: <003501c36680$da8b11a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > (: Incidentally, my contributions to a discussion on > a similar topic may have been the final straw that > qualified me for David Stevenson's kill-file :( > Just wait a while. David put me in his kill-file some years back, but before long he relented and put me back. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 19 20:14:38 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:14:38 +0100 Subject: 202 revokes (was Re: [blml] 2 revokes) References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404664C@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <003601c36686$3dbf3da0$da5687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > I have received it four times also. > > This thread had already descended into people pointlessly > repeating themselves that I did not notice the messages > were identical. > > Robin > +=+ Repetition not progress is the order of the day. Earlier in holding back from intervention, I had it in mind to observe that the tricks 'won' are determined after play has ended on the board and before any rectification is assessed. Tricks transferred are not tricks won. DB has just made the point in other words, but we have to hope that the point is taken by those who have seemed to confuse them in their remarks. I am slightly surprised that we have so much verbiage on a subject that appeared simple to answer, and was - I thought - simply answered at the outset. In respect of 'offending' and 'non-offending' let me draw attention to item 4 of the WBFLC minutes of 1 Nov 2001. This sets out clearly the principle that each revoke is examined separately and in each instance the side not revoking is 'non-offending'. In the instance discussed in the WBFLC the committee decided that there should be recourse to Law 64C. I have not explored whether the case exercising blml is comparable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 19 20:56:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:56:35 +0200 Subject: 202 revokes, including WBFLC minute quoted (was Re: [blml] 2 revokes) In-Reply-To: <003601c36686$3dbf3da0$da5687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000501c3668b$ffc51820$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval ........... > let me draw > attention to item 4 of the WBFLC minutes of 1 Nov 2001. > This sets out clearly the principle that each revoke is > examined separately and in each instance the side not > revoking is 'non-offending'. In the instance discussed > in the WBFLC the committee decided that there should > be recourse to Law 64C. I have not explored whether > the case exercising blml is comparable. I took the liberty to look it up and if my ability to read and = understand the English language is still working I would say it concerns a case = which seems identical to the one we have been discussing for some time now: 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and = is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The = committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the Director should deal with = this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C. By the way, I have received confirmation that the problems I had earlier today was due to overload of the ISP outgoing (SMTP) mail server. Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 19 21:02:56 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:02:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <009701c3661e$29682910$281fe150@endicott> <00e701c36678$24665220$999868d5@default> Message-ID: <003201c3668d$235809e0$21e9193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Don't know > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ I think OB 3.3.5 helps. In my view if > there is a reasonable possibility that a > call is alertable a player in an EBU event > should go down this route. > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > As usual, I agree. [At least while the alert > laws, about which we both have reservations, > remain on the books]. But surely all these > should be in TFLB, rather than in a local EBU > publication. < +=+ Only if there were universal accord on what should happen. At the EBL Open recently I had a discussion with Bill Pencharz on the subject; he expressed his very strong opinion that where authorities in different parts of the world have conflicting approaches, firmly held on all sides, to treatment of a situation under the laws, the laws should provide options allowing them the freedom to follow their own perspectives; I am in agreement with him on this. +=+ < Also, Grattan, please address > my main question... > > In a regular partnership, suppose you do alert a > call by partner; but you are *always* uncertain > (to some degree) what any of partner's calls mean; > should you say "I don't know" or just guess? > +=+ I do not understand how you can be 'always uncertain' of the meaning of partner's calls. Perhaps you should be getting your act together. The fact is that the laws require you to explain correctly, if asked, the meanings of partner's calls; if you fail to do so, for whatever reason, you contravene the laws. If you do have a difficulty you should call the Director and tell him. If he thinks fit he can send you away from the table while partner tells opponents what he thinks is going on. My rigorous view of the law does not admit of 'just guess'ing - opponents are entitled to more than that. And bear in mind that we are talking about the meaning according to your partnership methods, not the vagaries of partner's mind. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 19 22:09:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:09:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000001c3665c$2a5bceb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <00a801c3663e$894aebe0$eef17f50@Default> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030819165710.01fcf300@pop.starpower.net> At 10:13 AM 8/19/03, Sven wrote: >The very fact that West most probably would not have revoked absent >the first revoke makes the revoke by West not only subsequent but also >consequent, at least according to my understanding of the English >language. If we accept Sven's premise in the above ("West most probably would not have revoked absent the first revoke"), his conclusion ("the revoke by West [was] not only subsequent but consequent [to the first revoke]") follows. >The fact is that West revoked as a consequence of the ruff by South. As I >said in another post: If the ruff by South had been legal then this would >have been end of story. It is the fact that the revoke by West was the >consequence of an irregularity and not a legal play which makes the whole >difference. And it makes no difference that West could not at the time of >his irregularity distinguish between the play being legal and a revoke. But here, Sven contradicts that premise. He says, "The fact is that West revoked as a consequence of the ruff by South." Let us accept this for the sake of argument. So if South had been out of clubs, and had ruffed legally, West would still have ruffed, and he would still have, consequently, revoked. The fact that South's ruff happened to be a revoke didn't affect the probability of West's revoking at all. That makes it nonsense to call to West's revoke a consequence of South's having revoked. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Aug 19 06:15:43 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:15:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert In-Reply-To: <009401c365f0$d0c2f560$869868d5@default> Message-ID: Board 12. NS vulnerable. Dealer East. West KJ753..AQ762..7......96 North T4.....K9.....AT964..Q832 East 9862...8543...K3.....K54 South AQ.....JT.....QJ852..AJT7 West North East South - - P 1D 3C* 4D 4H 5D End * After North's 4D bid, East said he thought West's 3C was alertable and alerted. +++ I presume East alerted the 3C's before making the 4H bid which allows North to change his bid at this stage. (On the E-W CC, on the front, "Jump overcalls" are explained as "11-14 6-card suit" but on the back, as "note 2" the 3C bid is correctly explained. +++ Was there a reference in the Jump overcall section to note 2 ?? South refused the club finesse in 5D, going down two. +++ This is ridiculous. An insane player might overcall 3C's on Kxxxx but after West follows to the club from dummy that leaves Kxxx for 3C's ... I think not. Even if the above diagram is wrong and N/S have a club less, I'd still say Kxxxx is just so wayyyy out there as to make it phenomenally unlikely and that the ghestem explanation is pretty much a cert. Excerpt from East's description of events: "We are not an experienced partnership. I do not play Ghestem with any other partner and this feature of Ghestem causes me to think for a while. However, after some thought I convinced myself that 3C was Ghestem so I alerted and said "I think I should have alerted 3C". (I was almost certain by this stage, so perhaps "Think" implied more doubt than I felt but I was trying to reassure myself that I had correctly remembered Ghestem). North's response was "Not according to your convention card". This rather took me aback and caused me to doubt whether or not I was right but I clearly could not pursue the discussion. Neither North nor South asked the meaning of 3C. At the end of the auction, I was aware that there still might be some confusion, so in order to avoid damaging South in the play, I very clearly stated that 3C was conventional. Again, South did not ask the meaning." +++ Haven't we all been there. Doubt creeps in but eventually the ole grey cells recall the agreement and we alert late. West IMO did his best to draw his opponents attention to their agreement. Excerpt from South's claim of damage: "It was not a pause in alerting. It was a failure to alert at the correct time and then a very doubtful alert. +++ The alert was late but I don't think there is any law against this "late" alert scenario. Nobody can tell what they would have bid in different circumstances... North mentioned the possibility of 4HX-1 immediately... We might have played in 3N making on a spade lead... +++ This is basically the crux of the matter. N/S had E/W's CC. It appears as if it may have been missing a note (2) reference. N could and should have checked out the whole of the CC, in case there was further documentation on this sequence .. (as there was). When the opponents have obviously forgotten their system and I have their CC in front of me, I see no point in asking questions and enabling them to exchange information." +++ Well it is all fine and well assuming the opps forgot their system and decide not to allow them to exchange UI information (personally I'd be in favour of letting them do so as the UI will certainly have ramifications on their bidding) ... but quite often the opps have given u the correct information even if late. Surely you should protect yourself by making sure that the bid as explained is documented in their CC or notes. +++ In summary E/W have not done anything wrong in terms of the auction, play and defence. E/W are at fault via a badly worded CC. Still the correct information is on the CC. N/S failed IMO to try to establish, as best they could, the meaning of 3C's when there were 2 possible divergent explanations. S's play and N/S's failure to fully inquire into the meaning of 3C's IMO suggests they were backing 2 horses. If the score works out so be it, if not then get the score changed due to MI. Score adjustment : Result stands. I'd like to penalise E/W for a poorly laidout or inconsistent CC, but I don't think the laws allow to do that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 20 00:40:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:40:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F42101D.9050305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8ED4087A-D29E-11D7-A4D5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 07:55 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > There is only one requirement for L64C to apply : there has been a > revoke. No sir. There are two: that there has been a revoke, and that the TD deems the NOS are insufficiently compensated by the penalty therefor. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 20 00:45:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:45:44 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3F4218D4.8020601@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FDEA6EA-D29F-11D7-A4D5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 08:32 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I never said EW were damaged "by South's revoke". I merely say that > they are damaged. They ended up with fewer tricks than normal. So if Wendy comes round and I'm looking at her instead of concentrating on the play, and so I make a mistake that lets the other side get more tricks than they should have, there was damage (we ended up with fewer tricks than normal) and you will compensate me for that? Hm. Maybe I do want to play in your games after all. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 20 02:26:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:26:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Doubtful alert References: Message-ID: <004a01c366ba$1eecee20$2f9868d5@default> [Karel] +++ I presume East alerted the 3C's before making the 4H bid which allows North to change his bid at this stage. [Nigel] Yes [Karel] +++ Was there a reference in the Jump overcall section [about 11-14 6+suit] to note 2 ?? [Nigel] No. [Karel] +++ [refusing the club finesse] is ridiculous. [Nigel] Agree. [Karel] +++ Haven't we all been there.... West IMO did his best to draw his opponents attention to their agreement. [Nigel] Yes. [Karel] +++ The alert was late but I don't think there is any law against this "late" alert scenario. [Nigel] You're the expert. [Karel] +++ This is basically the crux of the matter. N/S had E/W's CC. It appears as if it may have been missing a note (2) reference. N could and should have checked out the whole of the CC, in case there was further documentation on this sequence .. (as there was). [Nigel] You are correct. North-South didn't read the whole card. They perused only the section on jump overcalls where therw was no reference to note [2]. [Karel] +++ ... Surely you should protect yourself by making sure that the bid as explained is documented in their CC or notes. [Nigel] Yes [Karel] +++ In summary E/W have not done anything wrong in terms of the auction, play and defence. E/W are at fault via a badly worded CC. Still the correct information is on the CC. [Nigel] North-South differ. [Karel] N/S failed IMO to try to establish, as best they could, the meaning of 3C's when there were 2 possible divergent explanations. [Nigel] N-S didn't ask. [Karel] S's play and N/S's failure to fully inquire into the meaning of 3C IMO suggests they were backing 2 horses. If the score works out so be it, if not then get the score changed due to MI. [Nigel] South isn't so devious but I take your point. [Karel] Score adjustment : Result stands. I'd like to penalise E/W for a poorly laidout or inconsistent CC, but I don't think the laws allow to do that. [Nigel] Thank you Karel, Frances, Grattan, Marvin and Alain for your assessments. The arbiter ruled for N-S but the appeals committee decided as you have. Result stands. No PP for East-West. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 20 06:11:24 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:11:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <009701c3661e$29682910$281fe150@endicott> <00e701c36678$24665220$999868d5@default> <003201c3668d$235809e0$21e9193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000d01c366d9$8769cc60$039868d5@default> [Grattan] +=+ I do not understand how you can be 'always uncertain' of the meaning of partner's calls. Perhaps you should be getting your act together. [Nigel] Sorry Grattan, I tried to make my position clear: If certainty means 100% certain and I never guess then I must always answer "Don't know". [Grattan] The fact is that the laws require you to explain correctly, if asked, the meanings of partner's calls; if you fail to do so, for whatever reason, you contravene the laws. If you do have a difficulty you should call the Director and tell him. If he thinks fit he can send you away from the table while partner tells opponents what he thinks is going on. {Nigel] Partner is likely to be as uncertain as I am. Must partner guess? There are few beliefs of which we should be certain. I am uncertain what the time is now. I am much less sure about partnership agreements. As far as call-explanations are concerned, my confidence-levels vary. Perhaps, roughly... ~99% Basic system call, regularly discussed. ~90% Fourth round call, well documented. ~80% Rare call with rough notes from a month ago. ~70% Undiscussed call but relevant style chats. ~60% Undiscussed but experience of similar calls. Maybe players would accept a typical TFLB fudge such as redefining "certainty" as "~99% sure"; but, you still have the difficult problem of deciding below what confidence level, you should stop explaining and start saying "Don't know" [Grattan] My rigorous view of the law does not admit of 'just guessing' - opponents are entitled to more than that. And bear in mind that we are talking about the meaning according to your partnership methods, not the vagaries of partner's mind. [Nigel] I accept your distinction. I am referring to the vagaries of the explainer's own memory. Whatever confidence-levels you specify, however, current law on this matter will still be subjective. How can a TD enforce such disclosure rules? They seems to render disclosure more a matter of conscience than of law. Surely it is be simpler and more equitable to insist that the explainer guesses if he doesn't know. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 20 06:54:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:54:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <8ED4087A-D29E-11D7-A4D5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c366df$8949a130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert=20 > Herman De Wael wrote:=20 > > There is only one requirement for L64C to apply :=20 > > there has been a revoke. >=20 > No sir. There are two: that there has been a revoke, and that the TD > deems the NOS are insufficiently compensated by the penalty therefor. NO SIR! He is right: Law 64C requires the Director to investigate after a revoke whether the = NOS have been insufficiently compensated and if so to assign an adjusted = score. A condition that NOS is insufficiently compensated is not a prerequisite = for using Law 64C; it is what shall be checked under Law 64C. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 20 06:56:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:56:52 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <3FDEA6EA-D29F-11D7-A4D5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c366df$daaff290$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I never said EW were damaged "by South's revoke". I merely say that > > they are damaged. They ended up with fewer tricks than normal. > > So if Wendy comes round and I'm looking at her instead of concentrating > on the play, and so I make a mistake that lets the other side get more > tricks than they should have, there was damage (we ended up with fewer > tricks than normal) and you will compensate me for that? > > Hm. Maybe I do want to play in your games after all. Yes, you would be damaged, No, no decent director will compensate you. Regards Sven From toddz@att.net Wed Aug 20 07:12:23 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:12:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000401c366df$8949a130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran > Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > > A condition that NOS is insufficiently compensated is > not a prerequisite for > using Law 64C; it is what shall be checked under Law 64C. Besides the point, though I disagree. If the test results come back negative, there should be no adjustment. I like being a words dick as much as the next guy, but this is just petty. -Todd From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 20 07:40:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:40:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000401c366df$8949a130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <34933E4C-D2D9-11D7-A4D5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 01:54 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 64C requires the Director to investigate after a revoke whether > the NOS > have been insufficiently compensated and if so to assign an adjusted > score. > > A condition that NOS is insufficiently compensated is not a > prerequisite for > using Law 64C; it is what shall be checked under Law 64C. He didn't say "prerequisite for using" he said "for law 64C to apply". If the NOS were not insufficiently compensated, then 64C does not apply. And please don't yell at me. I'm not deaf. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Aug 20 07:59:55 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:59:55 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB74@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > David Burn > Herman wrote: >=20 > > No, they are not. They remain the non-offending side in the first > > revoke. Nothing they do changes that. >=20 > Quite so. And as such, they receive no tricks, because they aren't > entitled to any. When they become the offending side, they transfer two > tricks, because that is what the law requires. They don't then go back > and become the non-offending side again, so that they can receive some > of those tricks back in the interests of "equity". Maybe we should first of all try to reach some consensus on what we mean by "equity"? As I understand the current policy of WBFLC "equity" refers to the most probable result (possibly weighted between several alternatives) had there been no irregularity at all. (This last condition is important!) Now I believe we all agree that given the play up to the moment South revoked the only probable result is two tricks to EW and one trick to NS. I shall assume that we also agree that had South not revoked then the probability that West would have revoked is next to nil. ----- Here we don't agree. How can you know that the ruff by south caused west to revoke? It's quite normal that cards get ruffed. You don't revoke as a result of that. It's quite possible that west wouldn't have ruffed if south had followed suit, but the opposite is also possible. (More so, I believe.) The normal thing is to follow suit, no matter what the other players do. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo -----=20 The revokes first by South and then by West changes the table result from the only probable result before the irregularities to one trick for EW and two tricks to NS (after the application of laws 64A and 64B). EW has a table result less favorable than "equity", are they damaged as NOS? I am myself rather skeptical to my understanding of the WBFLC policy, but once that policy has been established we cannot ignore it at random. The ruff by South caused West to revoke (inadvertently I suppose). Had the ruff been legal that would have been end of story, but here the ruff constituted an irregularity; a revoke. Thus EW ended up through an interesting and rather exotic chain of events with a table result less favorable than the expectable "equity" result for their side. This is "damage" (as defined in the laws) for which EW has not been compensated by the use of Law 64A or 64B. Hence Law 64C. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Aug 20 09:16:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:16:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <002901c3667c$08d72080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> <002901c3667c$08d72080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F432E58.4030105@hdw.be> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > >>Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? >>Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded >>Mitchell has a share. > > > Herman, what do you have against an 8-table Howell, 13 rounds, two boards to > a round? > Nothing per se, but I need a 9x3 movement (it's what I have for all number of tables). We want to use a universal starting position, so that we can start with however many tables turn up. Which is also why a share would be unacceptable. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From henk@ripe.net Wed Aug 20 09:32:30 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:32:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > > > 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the TD seeing the > > redeal himself or being told that there was one. > > > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across the room to inform the TD > about a revoke he saw, the TD must act upon that information. If a kibitzer walks up to inform the TD that he believes that F and Z are using foot signals, I'm sure the TD would thank him and act on it. > To determine what is the better course to follow when there is doubt, it > often helps to take one or the other to an extreme and see if it still > works. Imagine that an expert pair drops in for the local club Mitchell, > playing N-S, and the TD decides to kibitz them on every round. He can > then spot every E-W irregularity that he sees throughout the game, > whether a revoke, misuse of UI, Alert failure, whatever. Is this fair to > all the other N-S pairs, who do not have a TD to catch opposing > irregularities for them? I think not. No, it is not fair, but it is also not what will happen. The same TD will also spot every irregulariy by NS and act. This works to the advantage of the other NS pairs. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Aug 20 09:46:36 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted References: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002d01c366f7$b04d0a20$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> Herman, Frans Schiereck made one: 16 pairs 8 tables and 1 table spare. Is that what you want? I can mail it to you. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: [blml] movement wanted > Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > Mitchell has a share. > -- > 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 Wed Aug 20 09:49:32 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:49:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] movement wanted (fwd) Message-ID: I got another suggestion with request to post it... Zitting 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-2 A 3-4 B 5-6 C 7-8 D 9-10 E 11-12 F 13-14 G 15-16 H 0-0 I 4-13 A 2-7 B 10-11 C 5-9 D 8-12 E 6-16 F 1-15 G 0-0 H 3-14 I 8-3 A 13-9 B 7-4 C 16-10 D 14-11 E 15-2 F 0-0 G 12-5 H 1-6 I 5-11 A 6-10 B 2-8 C 12-13 D 3-15 E 0-0 F 16-7 G 1-14 H 4-9 I 14-7 A 15-8 B 12-9 C 11-6 D 0-0 E 1-13 F 5-4 G 10-3 H 16-2 I 6-9 A 11-16 B 13-15 C 0-0 D 1-7 E 10-14 F 3-12 G 2-4 H 5-8 I 10-15 A 12-14 B 0-0 C 1-4 D 13-16 E 3-5 F 2-6 G 8-9 H 7-11 I 16-12 A 0-0 B 1-3 C 15-14 D 2-5 E 4-8 F 11-9 G 6-7 H 13-10 I 0-0 A 1-5 B 14-16 C 2-3 D 4-6 E 7-9 F 8-10 G 11-13 H 12-15 I 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 Wed Aug 20 10:44:44 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:44:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > > > 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the TD seeing the > > redeal himself or being told that there was one. > > > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across the room to inform the TD about a > revoke he saw, the TD must act upon that information. > > I dislike this law, preferring that a TD act only when summoned to a table > by one of the players involved. If instead s/he goes around spotting > irregularities in a random manner, or letting un-involved people report > them, then the contestants are not being treated equally. > > The intervention because of the breach of Law22A does not influence the play; Law22A describes just the procedure. Speed control is not done at every high-way and jet every breach is punished when detected. What is the intention of Law81C6? Does this law belong to the beginning of bridge, the time before duplicate bridge? Maybe a rubber bridge player did not want the obtain advantage of an unintentional and undetected fault: like a fair player does. And so the law was introduced. Who knows history better? In 1891 the Football Association in England wanted to introduce the penalty kick. This led to morale indignation. The players put forward that it was an attack on their integrity: a gentleman would never lay down an opponent in the area of the goal-mouth! Ben From juuso@jldata.fi Wed Aug 20 11:22:25 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:22:25 +0300 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <3F432E58.4030105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c36704$f3423b40$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> I believe that there is no 8 table movement for 9 rounds without share. If you want universal starting position why not 7-11 table Howell for 13 rounds. If you start, say, 8 tables, and you must expand to 9 tables, = you simple change table-cards. Player's number will change, but nothing = else. 7T: 3-12, 5-11, 8-8, 14-1, 4-6, 10-13, 2-7, 6R 8T: 6-10, 8-13, 11-5, 4-3, 14-2, 7-9, 16-1, 15-12, 5R 9T: 18-1, 17-2, 8-5, 2-10, 13-9, 7-16, 15-6, 11-4, 3-14, 4R 10T: 20-1. 6-19, 18-8, 13-17, 3-7, 16-12, 15-2, 11-5, 10-14, 9-4, 3R 11T: 7-8, 22-1, 21-3, 20-5, 2-19, 10-18, 12-17, 4-16, 15-11, 14-13, 6-9, = 2R Pair number14 and higher are stationary.=20 juuso -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Herman De Wael Sent: 20. elokuuta 2003 11:16 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] movement wanted Marvin French wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" >=20 >=20 >=20 >>Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? >>Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded >>Mitchell has a share. >=20 >=20 > Herman, what do you have against an 8-table Howell, 13 rounds, two = boards to > a round? >=20 Nothing per se, but I need a 9x3 movement (it's what I have for all=20 number of tables). We want to use a universal starting position, so that we can start=20 with however many tables turn up. Which is also why a share would be unacceptable. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 20 12:30:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:30:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> References: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030820132732.024783a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:44 20/08/2003 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >In 1891 the Football Association in England wanted to introduce the penalty >kick. >This led to morale indignation. The players put forward that it was an >attack on their integrity: a gentleman would never lay down an opponent in >the area of the goal-mouth! AG : a gentleman, wouldn't, indeed. But remember the old saying : "Rugby is a brute's game, but played by gentlemen. Football is the exact opposite" How many penalty trials and sendoff do you see on a Rugby field ? From juuso@jldata.fi Wed Aug 20 11:17:02 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:17:02 +0300 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <3F432E58.4030105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c36704$32bbbb80$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> I believe that there is no 8 table movement for 9 rounds without share. If you want universal starting position why not 7-11 table Howell for 13 rounds. If you start, say, 8 tables, and you must expand to 9 tables, = you simple change table-cards. Player's number will change, but nothing = else. 7T: 3-12, 5-11, 8-8, 14-1, 4-6, 10-13, 2-7, 6R 8T: 6-10, 8-13, 11-5, 4-3, 14-2, 7-9, 16-1, 15-12, 5R 9T: 18-1, 17-2, 8-5, 2-10, 13-9, 7-16, 15-6, 11-4, 3-14, 4R 10T: 20-1. 6-19, 18-8, 13-17, 3-7, 16-12, 15-2, 11-5, 10-14, 9-4, 3R 11T: 7-8, 22-1, 21-3, 20-5, 2-19, 10-18, 12-17, 4-16, 15-11, 14-13, 6-9, = 2R Pair number14 and higher are stationary.=20 juuso -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Herman De Wael Sent: 20. elokuuta 2003 11:16 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] movement wanted Marvin French wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" >=20 >=20 >=20 >>Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? >>Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded >>Mitchell has a share. >=20 >=20 > Herman, what do you have against an 8-table Howell, 13 rounds, two = boards to > a round? >=20 Nothing per se, but I need a 9x3 movement (it's what I have for all=20 number of tables). We want to use a universal starting position, so that we can start=20 with however many tables turn up. Which is also why a share would be unacceptable. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 20 12:33:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:33:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen > > > 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the=20 > > > TD seeing the redeal himself or being told that there was one. > > > > > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across the room to inform the=20 > > TD about a revoke he saw, the TD must act upon that information. > > > > I dislike this law, preferring that a TD act only when summoned=20 > > to a table by one of the players involved. If instead s/he goes > > around spotting irregularities in a random manner, or letting=20 > > un-involved people report them, then the contestants are not=20 > > being treated equally. > > > The intervention because of the breach of Law22A does not influence=20 > the play; Law22A describes just the procedure. >=20 > Speed control is not done at every high-way and jet every breach is > punished when detected. >=20 > What is the intention of Law81C6? Does this law belong to the=20 > beginning of bridge, the time before duplicate bridge? ....... some speculation snipped. The change was introduced in 1987. When I was trained to become a director back around 1980 we were told = that the director who causally walked around the room and watched players had = the same status as any kibitzer, he should not act on irregularities he = noticed unless he was summoned from the table in question.=20 Out teacher told us of an incident when he was directing the finals in = the national championships for teams; he heard the RAMA commentator saying = "that play is a revoke" after which he had prepared himself to be readily available to the RAMA room when (if) he were summoned. But he did not intervene because he was indeed never summoned.=20 I looked up the laws from 1975, the Danish translation with comments and found the following commentary to Law 9: Begin quote: Regarding irregularities for which the laws advice a specified penalty = (i.e. insufficient bid, lead out of turn, revoke etc.) the Director has no authority (and must not intervene) before being summoned by one of the players.=20 Violation of bridge ethics and proprieties, cases of extraneous = information and irregularities giving cause for procedural penalties are situations where the Director on his own initiative may intervene and penalize.=20 End quote. Sometimes when directing I have faced situations where players had every reason to believe that my presence at or near a table was in my full capacity as Director while I were there just to follow up on a previous irregularity. A common example is when I had ruled a card to be a penalty card, = remaining at the table to assist them in the disposition of that card. Strictly according to the older laws I was now unauthorized to act on any irregularity not directly connected to the existence of that penalty = card, but would the players at the table know that they had to "summon me" = again in the case for instance of a lead from the wrong hand? Usually they = laughed and said: "The director is already here, no need to yell for him". =20 Personally I welcome the change that I am authorized and supposed to act = on any irregularity I become aware of, but I certainly try to exercise this duty with a bit of care. And I am fully aware of the cases where I must = not in any way intervene on my own initiative within a period during which = an offender may discover and correct his own irregularity and thereby = reduce the damage otherwise caused (to either side). Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Aug 20 12:37:58 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:37:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <000301c36704$f3423b40$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> References: <000301c36704$f3423b40$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> Message-ID: <3F435D96.2070501@hdw.be> Many thanks, Juuso, but those solutions won't work. I need something with 9 rounds and 9 sets of boards. Meanwhile, two dutchmen have sent me a solution that was worked out (trial-and-error-wise, I believe) by a dutchmen. I even have that gu's book, so why did I not look there? Many thanks as well to all who have looked in their libraries and did not find anything. Juuso Leikola wrote: > I believe that there is no 8 table movement for 9 rounds without share. > If you want universal starting position why not 7-11 table Howell for 13 > rounds. If you start, say, 8 tables, and you must expand to 9 tables, you > simple change table-cards. Player's number will change, but nothing else. > > 7T: 3-12, 5-11, 8-8, 14-1, 4-6, 10-13, 2-7, 6R > 8T: 6-10, 8-13, 11-5, 4-3, 14-2, 7-9, 16-1, 15-12, 5R > 9T: 18-1, 17-2, 8-5, 2-10, 13-9, 7-16, 15-6, 11-4, 3-14, 4R > 10T: 20-1. 6-19, 18-8, 13-17, 3-7, 16-12, 15-2, 11-5, 10-14, 9-4, 3R > 11T: 7-8, 22-1, 21-3, 20-5, 2-19, 10-18, 12-17, 4-16, 15-11, 14-13, 6-9, 2R > Pair number14 and higher are stationary. > juuso > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman > De Wael > Sent: 20. elokuuta 2003 11:16 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] movement wanted > > Marvin French wrote: > > >>From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> >> >> >>>Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? >>>Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded >>>Mitchell has a share. >> >> >>Herman, what do you have against an 8-table Howell, 13 rounds, two boards > > to > >>a round? >> > > > Nothing per se, but I need a 9x3 movement (it's what I have for all > number of tables). > > We want to use a universal starting position, so that we can start > with however many tables turn up. > > Which is also why a share would be unacceptable. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Aug 20 13:48:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <00b101c365fe$58049620$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > I don't like giving declarer a "no > > lose gamble" option when he chooses to commit an infraction. > > Right, but no need for 72B1 here. Just use 64C in the standard way, > and ask what would have happened if the irregularity had not occurred. My reading of L64C was that it could not be used this way. The WBFLC have interpreted it differently so I was wrong. Curse those careless TDs who make rulings without consulting the WBFLC minutes. > > I would rule differently on > > the actual case depending on whether declarer was H**** or H**** and I > > would know (in both cases) that I was ruling correctly. > > I think you would be wrong in one of those cases. No need to get into > personalities for score adjustment. Just apply the laws as written. > (Well, I guess you do need to get into personalities, but for _West_. > What would he have done without South's revoke?) Well, H**** is incapable of hand analysis at the best of times and doesn't really understand the revoke law despite encountering it once a week - no way "could have known" applies. H****, OTOH, is a skilled player well capable of understanding the implications and also well capable of a bit of sharp practice on occasion. Not that this has relevance any more since I will be using L64c in future. Tim From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Aug 20 18:29:27 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:29:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal (Law81C6) References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006401c36740$be101a00$fa053dd4@m1q9j9> Ben Schelen > > > 81C6 says "in any manner". Surely this must include the > > > TD seeing the redeal himself or being told that there was one. > > > > > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across the room to inform the > > TD about a revoke he saw, the TD must act upon that information. > > > > I dislike this law, preferring that a TD act only when summoned > > to a table by one of the players involved. If instead s/he goes > > around spotting irregularities in a random manner, or letting > > un-involved people report them, then the contestants are not > > being treated equally. > > > The intervention because of the breach of Law22A does not influence > the play; Law22A describes just the procedure. > > Speed control is not done at every high-way and jet every breach is > punished when detected. > > What is the intention of Law81C6? Does this law belong to the > beginning of bridge, the time before duplicate bridge? ....... some speculation snipped. The change was introduced in 1987. * Ben: No: basically it was already in the FBL1975 as Law90F and maybe earlier. * When I was trained to become a director back around 1980 we were told that the director who causally walked around the room and watched players had the same status as any kibitzer, he should not act on irregularities he noticed unless he was summoned from the table in question. * Ben: That depends: maybe Laws 16-75. Maybe Law22A and a revoke are exceptions. That is the question. * Out teacher told us of an incident when he was directing the finals in the national championships for teams; he heard the RAMA commentator saying "that play is a revoke" after which he had prepared himself to be readily available to the RAMA room when (if) he were summoned. But he did not intervene because he was indeed never summoned. * Ben: I appreciate his view like the view of the director Marvin mentioned, but I do not agree. Earlier I tried to gather official publications from all over the world regarding the application of Law81C6 but did not succeed. I only saw personal opinions which I appreciate of course but they are not in conformity. CONFLICTING APPROACHES. (see Re: [BLML] D'ont know discussion between Bill and Grattan) >From the other side of the globe I got a questionaire made by Jens Brix Christiansen comprising 17 questions with 8 subquestions. It is not necessary to complete all these questions in order to get an idea about your views. During the International Directors Course at Teneriffe the following was presented as an irregularity: A spectator went to the director and informed him about a revoke. The correct solution was that the director had to wait after round has ended and had to apply Law64C. * I looked up the laws from 1975, the Danish translation with comments and found the following commentary to Law 9: Begin quote: Regarding irregularities for which the laws advice a specified penalty (i.e. insufficient bid, lead out of turn, revoke etc.) the Director has no authority (and must not intervene) before being summoned by one of the players. * Ben: Correct, some irregularities can be accepted by the LHO. * Violation of bridge ethics and proprieties, cases of extraneous information and irregularities giving cause for procedural penalties are situations where the Director on his own initiative may intervene and penalize. End quote. * Ben: And time never expires for such violations. * Sometimes when directing I have faced situations where players had every reason to believe that my presence at or near a table was in my full capacity as Director while I were there just to follow up on a previous irregularity. * Ben: A couple of directors are of the opinion that you have to manage such an irregularity at that table as well. See your own comment below. * A common example is when I had ruled a card to be a penalty card, remaining at the table to assist them in the disposition of that card. Strictly according to the older laws I was now unauthorized to act on any irregularity not directly connected to the existence of that penalty card, but would the players at the table know that they had to "summon me" again in the case for instance of a lead from the wrong hand? Usually they laughed and said: "The director is already here, no need to yell for him". Personally I welcome the change that I am authorized and supposed to act on any irregularity I become aware of, but I certainly try to exercise this duty with a bit of care. And I am fully aware of the cases where I must not in any way intervene on my own initiative within a period during which an offender may discover and correct his own irregularity and thereby reduce the damage otherwise caused (to either side). * Ben: Sorry, but I am not yet so sure. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 20 17:46:12 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:46:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000201c3666e$7ca21aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c36741$d9187620$c16c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > Jaap van der Neut > ......... > > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. > > Sven > > I haven't seen that one before. > +=+ I think maybe you have. It is the concept of equity that says "Have a law which prescribes a penalty to be applied for a given infraction wholly regardless of other factors and circumstances". That punishment, inflicted with eyes bandaged, is equitable say the proponents of the argument. It is not the concept with which the word is used in the law book, and with which I agree: this says that equity is found in weighing the circumstances of each player's case, moderating the punishment to fit the measure of the crime and, in particular, restoring to each side what may be judged its fair outcome. This is, one agrees, a more complex regime, and does require that there be judges since the blindfold must be removed. It is a loftier aim, one argues, and better for the game, but those of us who think this should not expect to persuade embattled arbitrary attitudes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 20 17:49:48 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:49:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000501c3666b$aa80fde0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c36741$da8091a0$c16c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes Jaap van der Neut > Sven: > As I understand the current policy of WBFLC "equity" > refers to the most probable result (possibly weighted > between several alternatives) had there been no > irregularity at all. (This last condition is important!) > > The problem of this approach is that in the extreme the > players stop playing at all and a committee will decide > the result of every board. Why bother to play it the > committtee will restore to the most probable result > anyway. I never said I was unconditionally comfortable with the WBFLC policy in this respect. On the contrary I feel quite a lot of skepticism. But once that policy is established we have to live with it and obey regardless of how each of us personally feels. The worst way we can act as directors is to obey that policy when it suits us and disregard it when we feel otherwise. < +=+ The responsibility to implement the law, the regulation, the authorized interpretation and the stated policy, devolves upon us all. It applies not only in the case of Directors. Those who must set aside personal opinions and feelings include also members of ACs and members of Laws Committees, including the highest. You could find things in the WBFLC minutes with which, writing to blml, Ton, Kojak or I, may sit uncomfortably, but each of us is loyal to the committee position. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ........ > From juuso@jldata.fi Wed Aug 20 11:17:02 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:17:02 +0300 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <3F432E58.4030105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c36704$32bbbb80$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> I believe that there is no 8 table movement for 9 rounds without share. If you want universal starting position why not 7-11 table Howell for 13 rounds. If you start, say, 8 tables, and you must expand to 9 tables, = you simple change table-cards. Player's number will change, but nothing = else. 7T: 3-12, 5-11, 8-8, 14-1, 4-6, 10-13, 2-7, 6R 8T: 6-10, 8-13, 11-5, 4-3, 14-2, 7-9, 16-1, 15-12, 5R 9T: 18-1, 17-2, 8-5, 2-10, 13-9, 7-16, 15-6, 11-4, 3-14, 4R 10T: 20-1. 6-19, 18-8, 13-17, 3-7, 16-12, 15-2, 11-5, 10-14, 9-4, 3R 11T: 7-8, 22-1, 21-3, 20-5, 2-19, 10-18, 12-17, 4-16, 15-11, 14-13, 6-9, = 2R Pair number14 and higher are stationary.=20 juuso -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Herman De Wael Sent: 20. elokuuta 2003 11:16 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] movement wanted Marvin French wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" >=20 >=20 >=20 >>Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? >>Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded >>Mitchell has a share. >=20 >=20 > Herman, what do you have against an 8-table Howell, 13 rounds, two = boards to > a round? >=20 Nothing per se, but I need a 9x3 movement (it's what I have for all=20 number of tables). We want to use a universal starting position, so that we can start=20 with however many tables turn up. Which is also why a share would be unacceptable. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 20 19:33:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:33:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal (Law81C6) In-Reply-To: <006401c36740$be101a00$fa053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000501c36749$7cf85970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen=20 > > > > 81C6 says "in any manner .......... > The change was introduced in 1987. >=20 > * > Ben: No: basically it was already in the FBL1975 as Law90F and maybe > earlier. This law said: "to rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware". The Danish translation with commentaries says to this law (in my own translation back to English): Quote: However not every irregularity may be rectified by the director on his = own initiative, see the comments to law 9 and also Law 91. Unquote. The words "in any manner" were added to "of which he becomes aware" in = 1987. Except for these words added in 1987 that law appears to me to have been essentially unchanged at least since the laws of 1949. I have also looked up my copies of the 1933 laws and the 1935 laws:=20 The 1933 laws do not include any reference to a Director at all. The 1935 laws recognize the Director, but it appears that he had no duty = to rectify errors or irregularities except after receiving "protest of = laws, facts or ethics" from player(s). Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 20 19:38:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:38:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: <000b01c36741$d9187620$c16c87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000601c3674a$347b6a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval ......... > > Jaap van der Neut > > ......... > > > Equity for me is applying the same law to both sides. > > > > Sven > > > > I haven't seen that one before. > > > +=+ I think maybe you have. Sure I have, but in this context I was limiting myself to the scope of the bridge laws and commentaries thereupon. With my comments I try to avoid dragging in too much what I consider extraneous items and circumstances. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Aug 20 19:52:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:52:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > > > > > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across > > the room to inform the TD about a revoke > > he saw, the TD must act upon that information. > > +=+ This is so. Not whilst the board is in progress but, as it may be, after the penalty in Law 64A no longer applies. He will also admonish the spectator for illegally drawing attention to an irregularity and warn him of his removal if he repeats the Law 76B offence. See item 11 of WBFLC minute 28 Oct 2001, and see also Law 11B, which may apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 20 20:25:50 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:25:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <000c01c36751$7e77d3e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal > Marvin French writes: > > > To determine what is the better course to follow when there is doubt, it > > often helps to take one or the other to an extreme and see if it still > > works. Imagine that an expert pair drops in for the local club Mitchell, > > playing N-S, and the TD decides to kibitz them on every round. He can > > then spot every E-W irregularity that he sees throughout the game, > > whether a revoke, misuse of UI, Alert failure, whatever. Is this fair to > > all the other N-S pairs, who do not have a TD to catch opposing > > irregularities for them? I think not. > > No, it is not fair, but it is also not what will happen. The same TD will > also spot every irregulariy by NS and act. This works to the advantage of > the other NS pairs. But the advantage/disadvantage won't be balanced. My example was of an expert NS pair, who would probably not have MI/UI irregularities, coming into a club game. The point is that every contestant should be subject to equal scrutiny, which is not possible if TDs spot irregularities randomly or in a biased manner (e.g., by kibitzing). Rubber bridge is the parent game, to which it is often helpful to look for guidance in matters such as this. A rubber bridge "Arbiter," who acts in the role of TD for games played under "Club Laws," would not dare call attention to an irregularity that went unnoticed by the four players. Scoring errors excepted, of course. L81C6 should be revised accordingly. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 20 20:36:55 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: <000601c3674a$347b6a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008d01c36752$a3ae6380$c16c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > > > > > > I haven't seen that one before. > > > > > +=+ I think maybe you have. > > Sure I have, but in this context I was limiting > myself to the scope of the bridge laws and > commentaries thereupon. > +=+ Ah! I see! You were disputing the application of the Law with Jaap! Cui bono? ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 20 20:50:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:50:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <97A44368-D347-11D7-B8EE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 05:44 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > Speed control is not done at every high-way and jet every breach is > punished > when detected. That turns out not to be the case, at least in this country. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 20 20:49:32 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:49:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000f01c36754$2f149e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ben Schelen" > From: "Marvin French" (regarding L81C6). > > > > I dislike this law, preferring that a TD act only when summoned to a table > > by one of the players involved. If instead s/he goes around spotting > > irregularities in a random manner, or letting un-involved people report > > them, then the contestants are not being treated equally. > > > Speed control is not done at every high-way and jet every breach is punished > when detected. I knew this would be brought up by someone. Traffic laws are not analogous with the laws of bridge. > > What is the intention of Law81C6? Does this law belong to the beginning of > bridge, the time before duplicate bridge? It was added sometime after 1946. In the 1946 version of the Laws it does not exist. The strong implication was that the TD corrects irregularities only when called to the table for that purpose. Other than that, his duty was to rectifiy errors in tournament procedure (including scoring). In 1975 the law read "To rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware." (Pretty hard to rectify something of which one is unaware!) In 1987/1990 the words "in any manner" were added. > Maybe a rubber bridge player did not want the obtain advantage of an > unintentional and undetected fault: like a fair player does. And so the law > was introduced. Who knows history better? The concept of an uninvolved person's calling attention to an irregularity is unknown in rubber bridge, except for scoring errors. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 20 21:04:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:04:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal Message-ID: <000301c36756$4683d880$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin French" in re 81C6 > It was added sometime after 1946. In the 1946 version of the Laws it > does not exist. The strong implication was that the TD corrects > irregularities only when called to the table for that purpose. Other > than that, his duty was to rectifiy errors in tournament procedure > (including scoring). > The same was true in 1963, when his duties (among others) were "to assess penalties when applicable" and "to adjust disputes." L9 defines who may call attention to an irregularity during the auction or play, and the TD is not included. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 20 23:17:12 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:17:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> <000f01c36754$2f149e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c36768$d320aea0$1b9868d5@default> IMO at Duplicate Bridge, a kibitzer or TD is often morally obliged to break this peculiar law that mandates turning a blind eye to law- breaking. For example, when you witness... 1. Cheating. 2. Misboarding. 3. Pairs moving to wrong tables. Were I a TD I would act on such a Kibitzer's report because incidents like these can wreck the enjoyment of many players. Also, I would thank the kibitzer not ban him. Don't worry. It's OK. I'm never a TD outside my local club. Why do civilised people vilify whistleblowers? Remember the doctor/nurses that reported the Bristol surgeons? Six years later, management finally acted to save the lives of hundreds of infants. But the brave whistle-blowers had long since been sacked and their careers ended. There are fresh examples every day in all walks of life. (e.g. the WMD dossiers). If law is just then why are we so keen on protecting law-breakers. If a passing TD spotted a revoke and ruled against it, even I would not complain -- and I am keen on equity (in the dictionary meaning). From john@asimere.com Thu Aug 21 00:28:13 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:28:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> References: <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? >Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded >Mitchell has a share. curiously I was looking for a movement for 6 tables 7 rounds this evening. I can't find one. It seems to me that if you play a standard share and relay 8 tables you put one set between 4 and 5. If you hold up the pair one round by rotating them at table 8 you need 2 sets, and thus we get our single hesitation Mitchell. You can do it by playing the Blackpool, curtailed, but it means different tops on one set of boards. (1 set between 8&1, and one between 4 & 5). Normal move for 9 rounds (1 revenge) I'm pursuing the matter with david martin at the moment. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Aug 21 01:15:27 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:15:27 +1200 Subject: [blml] movement wanted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c36779$55080ac0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2003 11:28 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] movement wanted > > > In article <3F41F754.8030908@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Does anyone have a movement for 8 tables, 9 rounds, without a share? > >Before you ask, the Swedish book doesn't have that - the expanded > >Mitchell has a share. > > curiously I was looking for a movement for 6 tables 7 rounds this > evening. I can't find one. It seems to me that if you play a standard > share and relay 8 tables you put one set between 4 and 5. If > you hold up > the pair one round by rotating them at table 8 you need 2 > sets, and thus > we get our single hesitation Mitchell. > > You can do it by playing the Blackpool, curtailed, but it means > different tops on one set of boards. (1 set between 8&1, and > one between > 4 & 5). Normal move for 9 rounds (1 revenge) > > I'm pursuing the matter with david martin at the moment. We need an odd table movement with two tables sharing one set of boards and then we can convert this into an even table movement by effectively setting the phantoms to the two shared board tables and playing the other two pairs at the 'phantom' table against each other. This avoids the double phantom in my other solution - play a seven-table Mitchell movement with two phantoms, one NS and one EW. As if the two phantoms are sharing boards then the players at those tables can play against each other without problem and eliminating the phantoms. This is what a hesitation Mitchell is. Even tables shared boards but with phantom at NS in both shared tables. Then the two 'EW' pairs play each other evolving the movement into an odd numbered movement with the 'hesitation' table. Wayne > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From David Stevenson Thu Aug 21 02:13:50 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:13:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of >a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable >to stand well back from the edge. In the past >Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, >and in the exchanges with David, if it has >occurred I have missed it. Let me ask you something, Grattan. If I gave an opinion on a Law would you reply that I had no concept of high-level bidding and clearly made my own ideas of ethics up? Do you think this is acceptable? So be it. There is little point in arguing. In the last two weeks I have thought further, and received several emails. The opinions seem to be divided between those who see abuse as part of BLML, and those who wish it was not. I was not here to insult people, nor to be insulted. I was here to discuss the Laws. It has been said that I only get upset because people disagree with me. Ok, what do the following have in common: Herman Grattan Ton Kojak Steve W John P Ian C Fearghal Karel Eric L Ed Frances Alain Gordon B and many, many more? Simple, they have disagreed with me, sometimes strongly, but without abuse - and they do not upset me. It is not compulsory. It has been suggested that I write offensive posts. That is true, and one reason why I must leave BLML. I hate and loathe the people who like to wind me up, or abuse me, and I retaliate - and then I get so generally upset that I find myself abusing others. I remember a time when someone was having a go at me continuously - and I found myself writing something really rude to Ton, who had done nothing wrong whatever. People who enjoy winding me up must have really enjoyed their successes. Ok, there are only a very few of you, but why does BLML need abuse? I am not the only person by any means who gets attacked, and it does not seem to do any good. There are several things wrong with BLML. People do not follow the basic rules of Netiquette, they are abusive without cause, they are abusive but only in losing positions, they will never concede a point, they do not answer questions, some wave their egos around continuously, they go on for ever when a subject is clearly finished, they mix things up on threads and when asked a question they answer something totally different. Does it matter? I believe so. Once, BLML was a way of searching for the truth: now it is the perfect means of having a good bicker. It has been suggested to me that what we need now is a moderated list. Despite my previous strong opposition to this idea I now think it is the only thing that can save us. I suggest a new list, where people discuss the Laws, and the moderator keeps us on track, and then we can leave the people who wish to enjoy the world famous 'Bickering over Laws Mailing List'. Bill Bickford writes >I agree with this. I think it also should be pointed out that email is a >relatively new phenomomen. When talking face to face, you can always use >body language to know when to back up and explain in a different way and/or >adapt your wording to get your point across. This is extremely difficult in >email. I think it is a two-way street. The writer has to make every effort >to explain clearly and without causing offense and the recipient has to >realize the writer is merely trying to make a point. In an international >forum, this is exacerbated by language differences. Fair comment, which is why I did not get immediately upset at someone having a go at me within 24 hours of my return. I always allow some slack. My problem is with people who are abusive or winding me or others up over a period of time: one single post need not be intended. -- 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 Aug 21 07:46:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:46:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Message-ID: <003b01c367b0$08111c70$3215e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of > >a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable > >to stand well back from the edge. In the past > >Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, > >and in the exchanges with David, if it has > >occurred I have missed it. > > Let me ask you something, Grattan. If I gave > an opinion on a Law would you reply that I had > no concept of high-level bidding and clearly > made my own ideas of ethics up? Do you think > this is acceptable? > > So be it. There is little point in arguing. In > the last two weeks I have thought further, and > received several emails. The opinions seem to > be divided between those who see abuse as > part of BLML, and those who wish it was not. > I was not here to insult people, nor to be > insulted. I was here to discuss the Laws. > +=+ I have certainly read messages of which I deplored the content because it took too strong a swipe at the person rather than at his statements. Some were addressed to you. But people like Herman have suffered abuse, too - he rides it, you do not. OK, you are entitled to do as you think best about it. I am saddened that you do not feel able to delete such messages and ignore them. Totally unconnected with bridge I was reading the other day a feature on national characteristics and the difficulties for some in the relationships, ensuing from diversity of cultures. The article pointed to the Dutch as a nation that speaks its mind without restraint and can be bruising to people accustomed to greater finesse. Even at that, some of what we have seen goes beyond mere bluntness of speech. I will say that I do incline to delete messages that indulge in personal abuse, of whomsoever: there is plenty worthy of attention in the generality of the cultivated correspondence. Cheers ~ G ~ +=+ From juuso@jldata.fi Tue Aug 19 15:28:26 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:28:26 +0300 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <000101c3665e$276dc490$9707a8c0@Helzlapjuuso> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C36677.4CBAFC90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that best way to do is handle both revokes as separate: =20 First the "could have know" -case. Law 72B1 ... would be likely to = damage... In view Law 64C this is seldom true in any normal cases. The revoke = almost always harms the maker not the other side. =20 Second the first established revoke: West's revoke (established when = West plays to next trick). This case is clear: West won the revoke trick and won trick with club - = so two tricks to N-S. Third the second established revoke: South's revoke. The case is also clear. N-S won no tricks, so no tricks to E-W. =20 Now we must read 64 B 1. In this case it means either literally last 3 played tricks or it means that N-S can't lose any tricks they have get previously. In the latter case this means that there is two tricks at = N-S pocket, from we can transfer one to E-W. So N-S wins 1 and E-W wins 2 tricks. =20 If we read 64B1 literally, there is no trick to transfer, so we must = read Law 64 C. 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=20 =20 It can applies to the case- ... including those not subject to penalty = ... E-W hasn't got any compensation of South's revoke, because the N-S won = no tricks. Still they have two more tricks after trick 10. I believe than only in "La Law" we can give 1 trick to E-W and 2 tricks = to E-W. =20 In Finland we have very, very old judge's rules: "What is not justice = can't be the Law" =20 Juuso Leikola =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C36677.4CBAFC90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think that best way to do is handle both revokes as separate:

 

First the “could have know” –case. = Law 72B1 ... would be likely to damage... In view Law 64C this is seldom = true in any normal cases. The revoke almost always harms the maker not the other = side.

 

Second the first established revoke: West’s = revoke (established when West plays to next trick).

This case is clear: West won the revoke trick and won = trick with club – so two tricks to N-S.

Third the second established revoke: South’s = revoke.

The case is also clear. N-S won no tricks, so no = tricks to E-W.

 

Now we must read 64 B 1. In this case it means either literally last 3 played tricks or it means that N-S can’t lose any = tricks they have get previously. In the latter case this means that there is = two tricks at N-S pocket, from we can transfer one to E-W. So N-S wins 1 and = E-W wins 2 tricks.

 

If we read 64B1 literally, there is no trick to = transfer, so we must read Law 64 C.

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

 

It can applies to the case- ... including those not = subject to penalty ... E-W hasn’t got any compensation of South’s = revoke, because the N-S won no tricks. Still they have two more tricks after = trick 10.

I believe than only in “La Law” we can = give 1 trick to E-W and 2 tricks to E-W.

 

In Finland we have very, very old judge’s = rules: “What is not justice can’t be the Law”

 

Juuso Leikola

 

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C36677.4CBAFC90-- From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Thu Aug 21 09:13:24 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:13:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: talking about equity oriented decisions to be taken Sven says: > The problem of this approach is that in the extreme the > players stop playing at all and a committee will decide > the result of every board. Why bother to play it the > committtee will restore to the most probable result > anyway. When discussing these subjects we should try to avoid using ridiculous arguments to support an opinion. This statement from Sven sounds rather strong but doesn't come even close to a useful contribution when thinking about the desirability of including 'equity' in decisions to be taken. To keep it easy it is enough to say that not every board ends up in an irregularity and to illustrate it 'in the extreme' it suffices to tell that at least in the Netherlands judges apply 'equity' when they include circumstances in deciding the penalties. According to Sven this is a problem because in the extreme we all could stop living and let the judges decide what to do with our lives. I am not trying to defend that 'equity' should be the main criterion in all TD-decisions. Though I find that idea attractive it is hardly realistic. But we need better arguments not to do so than this one. ton From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 21 09:28:38 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:28:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: <003b01c367b0$08111c70$3215e150@endicott> References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> <003b01c367b0$08111c70$3215e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3F4482B6.2060203@hdw.be> I second this emotion. There is some abuse around, certainly, but never stronger than "you idiot, how can you believe such stupidity". I've received some of those, and written a few myself. I too would feel saddened to see David depart once again. I've always enjoyed our discussions, even when we believe the other to be a moron who understands less about bridge laws than the average Chimpansee. Just kidding, David ;-) I actually believe you know more about bridge laws than the average blml reader. Most of whom, sadly, appear to be chimpansees. There, I've just insulted our entire reader base. Everyone happy, now? Or do I get a Fatwa from Henk? Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Indignation is the seducer of thought. " > - G.J. Nathan > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > > > >>Grattan Endicott writes >> >> >>>+=+ It is a fine line that separates criticism of >>>a person from abuse of the person. It is desirable >>>to stand well back from the edge. In the past >>>Jaap has certainly stepped over it, but of late, >>>and in the exchanges with David, if it has >>>occurred I have missed it. >> >> Let me ask you something, Grattan. If I gave >>an opinion on a Law would you reply that I had >>no concept of high-level bidding and clearly >>made my own ideas of ethics up? Do you think >>this is acceptable? >> >> So be it. There is little point in arguing. In >>the last two weeks I have thought further, and >>received several emails. The opinions seem to >>be divided between those who see abuse as >>part of BLML, and those who wish it was not. >>I was not here to insult people, nor to be >>insulted. I was here to discuss the Laws. >> > > +=+ I have certainly read messages of which > I deplored the content because it took too > strong a swipe at the person rather than at his > statements. Some were addressed to you. But > people like Herman have suffered abuse, too > - he rides it, you do not. OK, you are entitled > to do as you think best about it. I am saddened > that you do not feel able to delete such > messages and ignore them. > Totally unconnected with bridge I was > reading the other day a feature on national > characteristics and the difficulties for some > in the relationships, ensuing from diversity > of cultures. The article pointed to the Dutch > as a nation that speaks its mind without > restraint and can be bruising to people > accustomed to greater finesse. Even at > that, some of what we have seen goes > beyond mere bluntness of speech. > I will say that I do incline to delete > messages that indulge in personal abuse, > of whomsoever: there is plenty worthy of > attention in the generality of the cultivated > correspondence. > Cheers ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 21 10:29:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:29:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c367c6$ace992c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. (Ton) > Sven says: > > > > The problem of this approach is that in the extreme the > > players stop playing at all and a committee will decide > > the result of every board. Why bother to play it the > > committtee will restore to the most probable result > > anyway. Sorry Ton, I never said that. It was part of a post to which I commented. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Aug 21 11:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <000c01c36751$7e77d3e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Rubber bridge is the parent game, to which it is often helpful to > look for guidance in matters such as this. A rubber bridge "Arbiter," > who acts in the role of TD for games played under "Club Laws," would > not dare call attention to an irregularity that went unnoticed by the > four players. Well I certainly would. If I see a good player apparently concealing a revoke from lesser players I act. To do otherwise will, in the long term, undermine the reputation of the club. I would also expect kibbers to report such nefarious activity to me. What I wouldn't do is attempt to impose a revoke penalty where the players noticed but felt no need to call me. In my experience irregularities very seldom go unnoticed - but very frequently go unremarked (no damage, no mention). Mind you I have no idea what "for cause" means when duplicate players request a penalty waiver. As far as I am concerned the mere request is enough to avoid penalties. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 21 03:26:00 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:26:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> [Herman De Wael wrote] No need to express the HdW school of thought, Nigel arrived there in the end: And I believe such is the law. Or rather, that there is no reason for a player not to act in this manner. It avoids UI to partner and gives opponents all the information they are entitled to, nothing more, nothing less (you hope). [Nigel] I wish Herman and I were singing from the same hymn book but fear I we are not. My impression is that Herman recommends that you guess what partner *actually* means by his call, whether or not it is your partneship agreement. IMO, you should guess what partner's call means *according to your partnership agreements and understandings*. That is "what the call would mean had you made it yourself in the same context.". Mine may still be a heretical view but it is more orthodox than the doctrine of the Herman School. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 21 11:52:55 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:52:55 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <002901c367d2$623a8020$99ed7f50@Default> Dear Ton, Read a lilttle more carefully next time. It was me that wrote it. And yes I know it is extreme but extreme examples are often used to expose ridiculous concepts. It is a well known and accepted technique in science, rethorics and yes also in law. And I would like very much that before you or anybody else writes more about 'equity' that you give a meaningful definition of 'equity'. Ton: > in the Netherlands judges apply 'equity' when they include circumstances in deciding the penalties One, Dutch judges don't use the concept at all because as far as I know there is no 1 to 1 translation of that concept to our language so itb is not in our code of laws. Two, in any sensible legal system all over the world, including the Netherlands, judges include circumstances in deciding penalties. If not you don't need judges. Three, including circumstances has little to do with equity which is an concept normally related to civil cases (where there are no 'penalties'). Applying equity when decicing the penalty ???? If you overspeed by 20 units you get a higher penalty than when you overspeed by 10 units. Maybe you can sell the judge you needed to be in the hospital asap to have him waive the penalty (partially). That is more or less how penal law works. And now dear Ton where does your equity kick in. And once again what does that word mean. Ton: > I am not trying to defend that 'equity' should be the main criterion in all > TD-decisions. Though I find that idea attractive it is hardly realistic. But > we need better arguments not to do so than this one. This is too vague. TD's should apply the law. Now the law can state that TD's should apply 'equity' in certain cases. To a certain extend you can change the law any way you like. But then the law should be clear when equity applies and when not, and what equity actually means. Because it would also be nice if one TD tends to take the same decision as another TD in an identical case. One concept of equity I have seen on blml is 'the most probable result (possibly weighted between several alternatives) had there been no irregularity at all'. That is at least something I understand. But often I read that equity is also restoring the result to the above. This makes no sense to me because taken logically it means the penalty for the irregulartity is lost in the proces. Probably I am too stupid but how can you apply a penalty and restore to the moment before the infraction at the same time (that is basically what Herman was trying to do in this case whether or not he realised it). Anyway this discussion only make sense when we agree on the language. Some notion of equity is fundamental to our western culture and all western legal systems so you don't need to mention it explicitly to use it. All serious cases are judged by judges who are supposed to hear both sides of the stories (which translates to an AC judging a case and I have never seen an AC not using equity one way or another even long before that word started to become popular) . But this doesn't apply to simple cases. If you overspeed in the Netherlands and get caught by a radar you get a computer generated invoice (amount depending on speed) and your chances of appealling are next to nil (this translate to a mechanical rule like the revoke law). I do think that to keep bridge playable we should have as much simple mechanical laws, easily understood by all and easy to apply, as possible. Don't worry, bridge is complicated enough that there always will remain plenty of difficult rulings where equity of course has it place. If only we could agree on what it means. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" To: "'grandeval '" ; "'blml '" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > > talking about equity oriented decisions to be taken > > Sven says: > > > > The problem of this approach is that in the extreme the > > players stop playing at all and a committee will decide > > the result of every board. Why bother to play it the > > committtee will restore to the most probable result > > anyway. > > > > When discussing these subjects we should try to avoid using ridiculous > arguments to support an opinion. This statement from Sven sounds rather > strong but doesn't come even close to a useful contribution when thinking > about the desirability of including 'equity' in decisions to be taken. To > keep it easy it is enough to say that not every board ends up in an > irregularity and to illustrate it 'in the extreme' it suffices to tell that > at least in the Netherlands judges apply 'equity' when they include > circumstances in deciding the penalties. According to Sven this is a problem > because in the extreme we all could stop living and let the judges decide > what to do with our lives. > > I am not trying to defend that 'equity' should be the main criterion in all > TD-decisions. Though I find that idea attractive it is hardly realistic. But > we need better arguments not to do so than this one. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Aug 21 09:44:46 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:44:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001601c367da$33b5f4c0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Indignation is the seducer of thought. " > - G.J. Nathan > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:33 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > > > > > > > 81C6 means that if a kibitzer walks across > > > the room to inform the TD about a revoke > > > he saw, the TD must act upon that information. > > > > +=+ This is so. Not whilst the board is in progress > but, as it may be, after the penalty in Law 64A no > longer applies. He will also admonish the spectator > for illegally drawing attention to an irregularity and > warn him of his removal if he repeats the Law 76B > offence. > See item 11 of WBFLC minute 28 Oct 2001, > and see also Law 11B, which may apply. > > Unfortunately a TD observes a revoke and acts accordingly. Believe it or not but it happens in the same session for the second time. Now he cannot act because he has to remove himself if he acts! Ben From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Aug 21 10:21:06 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:21:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000301c36756$4683d880$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701c367da$34656ea0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > From: "Marvin French" in re 81C6 > > > It was added sometime after 1946. In the 1946 version of the Laws it > > does not exist. The strong implication was that the TD corrects > > irregularities only when called to the table for that purpose. Other > > than that, his duty was to rectifiy errors in tournament procedure > > (including scoring). > > > The same was true in 1963, when his duties (among others) were "to > assess penalties when applicable" and "to adjust disputes." > > L9 defines who may call attention to an irregularity during the > auction or play, and the TD is not included. > > L9: during the auction and play period. But after that? L81C6 again is not clear: it does not say immediately, only rectification (no punishment) within the correction period. The interesting part of the case is: What does rectify mean in this connection? Turn back immediately or equity after f.i. round has ended? Ben From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Aug 21 12:29:54 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:29:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> <000f01c36754$2f149e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000b01c36768$d320aea0$1b9868d5@default> Message-ID: <001801c367da$35367a40$17053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > IMO at Duplicate Bridge, a kibitzer or TD is > often morally obliged to break this peculiar > law that mandates turning a blind eye to law- > breaking. For example, when you witness... > > 1. Cheating. > 2. Misboarding. > 3. Pairs moving to wrong tables. > > That's why I started the discussion by making a distinction in the laws: I mentioned Laws16-75 with the exception of Law22A and a revoke, being auction, play and proprieties. A few years ago the session had just started and I as a TD walked back to my seat. Sitting in my chair I overlooked the field playing with screens. I never look at tables or at players but maybe there was a little angel on my shoulder. I saw in a flash that the left dummy contains the K of clubs and the right dummy the ace of clubs. I realized that at my left side and at my right side a board was played with the same number. I informed the CTD immediately and it appeared that the boards of one group was duplicated one number of the boards higher. So we could intervene in time and had only to solve a small problem. Ben From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Thu Aug 21 13:32:32 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:32:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: Dear Ton, Read a lilttle more carefully next time. It was me that wrote it. **I can read as careful as you like but it keeps showing Sven as the one having said this. Well if he didn't he didn't. ** And yes I know it is extreme but extreme examples are often used to expose ridiculous concepts. **You don't need examples, let alone extreme examples, to expose ridiculous concepts. They expose themselves. It is a well known technique to use ridiculous examples when there are no better arguments to support ones opinion. ** And I would like very much that before you or anybody else writes more about 'equity' that you give a meaningful definition of 'equity'. ** Let me try: Procedures after irregularities should not disturb the normal continuation had the irregularity not occurred. I hate for example that after a bid out of turn partner might be barred from the bidding as after an insufficient bid. This creates non-bridge results. It includes both: technical infractions and judgement cases. Which means that after an infraction leading to an adjusted score that score should be based on a reconstruction in which no irregularity takes place. 'What would have happened etc....'. Hence probabilities enter the stage, so I adore 12c3. And the concession I make is that in judgement cases the non-offenders get the best of those probabilities, but without the exaggeration we created after the introduction of the '87 laws. In the example with the BOOT my solution would be to declare this information unauthorized, making it a judgement case etc. Isn't that a simple philosophy? ** **ton** From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Aug 21 14:10:11 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:10:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: <5643206.1061471411714.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > Isn't that a simple philosophy? Yes. But unfortunately, it isn't a particularly fair one. You see, what it implies is that if someone commits an irregularity, his result on the board ceases to be a function of his (or his opponents') skill at bridge. Rather, it becomes a function of the judgement of others, people who are not involved in the contest. At present, if someone bids out of turn, he must guess what to do at his next turn; the making of that guess may not involve very much in the way of skill, but at least the player is in control of his own destiny. If a bid out of turn is treated in the same way as other cases of unauthorised information, then almost whenever one occurs, it will be necessary for outsiders to judge whether logical alternatives existed, whether advantage was taken, and so on. A "bridge result" to my way of thinking can be generated only by four people in two partnerships playing bridge (and "playing bridge" includes knowing whose turn it is to bid and whether or not you have a card in your hand of the suit led). Results awarded by outsiders are not, in fact, "bridge results" at all. That is what Japp means when he says that if the present trend continues, the players might as well not bother to turn up, and I agree with him. Of course, infractions do not occur on the majority of boards. But I suspect that, if the notion prevails that an infraction will lead only to the offending side's being awarded its expected score on, or "equity in", the deal, the number of infractions will increase markedly. Why should you pay attention, if the price of inattention is zero? David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 21 05:48:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:48:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Message-ID: <011501c3679f$b9a587c0$1b9868d5@default> [David Stevenson] I suggest a new list, where people discuss the Laws, and the moderator keeps us on track, and then we can leave the people who wish to enjoy the world famous 'Bickering over Laws Mailing List'. [Nigel] If posts that bicker about laws were removed then there would be no mailing list. (: Have you read something similar elsewhere? :) Henk does an excellent job as informal moderator. We do not want a hard-line moderator who would "Ton" down the colourful, forthright, and robust language of the likes of Koojiman, Jaap van der Neut, Jurgen Rennenkampff, David Burn, and Herman De Wael whose amusing and erudite views are the among the main attractions of the list. We must not throw out these babies with the bath-water. As has been suggested before, however, a masochistic moderator might take up the onerous task of formulating guidelines about email format, FAQs, subject headings (e.g. law nos) and so on. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 21 05:54:20 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:54:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: <011f01c367a0$4e9ac520$1b9868d5@default> [David] It has been suggested that I write offensive posts. That is true, and one reason why I must leave BLML. I hate and loathe the people who like to wind me up, or abuse me, and I retaliate... [Nigel] Even when written by an authority on the laws like David Stevension, patronising emails can irritate especially when they evade simple humble relevant direct questions. Very rarely, an email of David S's seems to be deliberately offensive. I try not to retaliate but perhaps others cannot restrain themselves. David will agree, however, that hate and loathing are gross over-reactions. In contrast, David Burn is horrible to all but in such an interesting and amusing way that nobody can possibly take offence. I'm sure that naive questions like mine are just as irritating to the likes of Grattan and Sven. They encounter the same whinges in different guises year after year; but still manage to answer most with good grace; and new players would-be TDs all learn something. David, please conquer your feelings, and stay with BLML, in the interests of the game, for which you have already done so much and to which you can contribute so much more. From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Thu Aug 21 15:07:06 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:07:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes Message-ID: Ton wrote: > Isn't that a simple philosophy? Yes. But unfortunately, it isn't a particularly fair one. You see, what it implies is that if someone commits an irregularity, his result on the board ceases to be a function of his (or his opponents') skill at bridge. **only in a minority of such cases the table result has to be cancelled. And I don't have an objection against penalizing a player for using UI, to discourage such behaviour. Then the prize of not paying attention is not zero anymore. But then still the not on skills based reward for having opponents not paying attention is not far from zero (field equity oriented). That I consider to be an important improvement. ton ** Rather, it becomes a function of the judgement of others, people who are not involved in the contest. At present, if someone bids out of turn, he must guess what to do at his next turn; the making of that guess may not involve very much in the way of skill, but at least the player is in control of his own destiny. If a bid out of turn is treated in the same way as other cases of unauthorised information, then almost whenever one occurs, it will be necessary for outsiders to judge whether logical alternatives existed, whether advantage was taken, and so on. A "bridge result" to my way of thinking can be generated only by four people in two partnerships playing bridge (and "playing bridge" includes knowing whose turn it is to bid and whether or not you have a card in your hand of the suit led). Results awarded by outsiders are not, in fact, "bridge results" at all. That is what Japp means when he says that if the present trend continues, the players might as well not bother to turn up, and I agree with him. Of course, infractions do not occur on the majority of boards. But I suspect that, if the notion prevails that an infraction will lead only to the offending side's being awarded its expected score on, or "equity in", the deal, the number of infractions will increase markedly. Why should you pay attention, if the price of inattention is zero? David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 21 17:06:59 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:06:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes References: Message-ID: <004201c367fe$589f60e0$aeed7f50@Default> Ton: > **only in a minority of such cases the table result has to be cancelled. > And I don't have an objection against penalizing a player for using UI, to > discourage such behaviour. Then the prize of not paying attention is not > zero anymore. But then still the not on skills based reward for having > opponents not paying attention is not far from zero (field equity oriented). > That I consider to be an important improvement. That I consider the end of bridge as a competitive sport (holds true for any sport). In any sport motivation and paying attention are key factors to success. And in any sport, whatever goes your way goes against the opponent(s) and the other way around. How are you going to be a successful soccer player (or whatever) if you are not paying attention to opportunities that might arrise. To put it extreme again, you advocate a bridge where players don't have to bother anymore (or at least not too much) about basic fundamentals as following suit, not bidding out of turn, etc. Maybe perfect for social bridge put please stop pretending bridge is a serious sport. But now a completely different angle. In the end we (ton and me) agree on much more than we disagree. Being Dutch and often ruling in a Dutch environment my rulings tend to be far more based on equity than all kind of (in Dutch eyes) ridiculous international rulings where some zealous AC or person wanted to make a (personal) point. Yes, equity (or something close to it) is an important concept in Dutch law, I guess more so than in other countries, so this influences my judgements. But what I am worry about that the 'bridge penal code' gets blurred. Mechanical errors like revoking need a more or less automatic penalty. Now the current revoke law is far from perfect (it is silly certain revokes go unpunished) and you can change it in a dozen way to improve it. But all this has nothing to do with equity. We play a game, a game needs rules, rules need to be simple so players can understand them and TD's can apply them without too much fuss. Now bridge is a complicated game were we (probably) cannot avoid judgement calls. But we should try to avoid them as much as possible. You (ton) seem to worry about 'non bridge' results. I don't understand why. As soon as people start revoking, Booting, Looting, playing with 12/14 cards (all 'mechanical' infractions) you cannot expect normal bridge result anymore. I think most of those laws should be improved, the penalties can be much improved. You mentioned BOOT. Actually I understand your objection to the current 'barring' penalties (you have my support getting rid of them). They force the OS to gamble what easily can lead to a good result for the OS. I can understand the BOOT > UI idea, but the BOOT should also gets a PENALTY (probably some imps/matchpoints is easiest). And your 'non skill based' is also an absurd argument. Ones skill to make fewer revokes (or whatever) than opponents is also a bridge skill that merits some award. I understand your field equity argment but everything with a field is a kind of lottery anyway. What is the difference between your opponent making his only revoke of the day against you or making his only 'bridge mistake' of the day against you. In the end it is impossible to differentiate between the two. The next thing on the menu is that we should compenstate people who suffer a slam on a (true) finesse. Also a terrible unfair part of tournament bridge, lots of points but no skill involved. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" To: ; Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 4:07 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes > > > Ton wrote: > > > Isn't that a simple philosophy? > > Yes. But unfortunately, it isn't a particularly fair one. > > You see, what it implies is that if someone commits an irregularity, his > result on the board ceases to be a function of his (or his opponents') > skill at bridge. > > **only in a minority of such cases the table result has to be cancelled. > And I don't have an objection against penalizing a player for using UI, to > discourage such behaviour. Then the prize of not paying attention is not > zero anymore. But then still the not on skills based reward for having > opponents not paying attention is not far from zero (field equity oriented). > That I consider to be an important improvement. > > ton ** > > > > > Rather, it becomes a function of the judgement of > others, people who are not involved in the contest. At present, if > someone bids out of turn, he must guess what to do at his next turn; the > making of that guess may not involve very much in the way of skill, but > at least the player is in control of his own destiny. If a bid out of > turn is treated in the same way as other cases of unauthorised > information, then almost whenever one occurs, it will be necessary for > outsiders to judge whether logical alternatives existed, whether > advantage was taken, and so on. > > A "bridge result" to my way of thinking can be generated only by four > people in two partnerships playing bridge (and "playing bridge" includes > knowing whose turn it is to bid and whether or not you have a card in > your hand of the suit led). Results awarded by outsiders are not, in > fact, "bridge results" at all. That is what Japp means when he says that > if the present trend continues, the players might as well not bother to > turn up, and I agree with him. > > Of course, infractions do not occur on the majority of boards. But I > suspect that, if the notion prevails that an infraction will lead only > to the offending side's being awarded its expected score on, or "equity > in", the deal, the number of infractions will increase markedly. Why > should you pay attention, if the price of inattention is zero? > > 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 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 21 18:55:08 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:55:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: Message-ID: <005b01c3680d$618e86e0$669468d5@default> [Ton Kooijman] ** Let me try [to give a meaningful definition of 'equity']: Procedures after irregularities should not disturb the normal continuation had the irregularity not occurred. I hate for example that after a bid out of turn partner might be barred from the bidding as after an insufficient bid. This creates non-bridge results. It includes both: technical infractions and judgement cases. Which means that after an infraction leading to an adjusted score that score should be based on a reconstruction in which no irregularity takes place. 'What would havehappened etc....'. Hence probabilities enter the stage, so I adore 12c3. And the concession I make is that in judgement cases the non-offenders get the best of those probabilities, but without the exaggeration we created after the introduction of the '87 laws. In the example with the BOOT my solution would be to declare this information unauthorized, making it a judgement case etc. [Nigel] Obvious disadvanteages of the Ton Kooijman/Jeff Rubens approach to equity... 1. This peculiar concept of "equity" seems to have no advantage whatsoever for the ordinary player. 2. It is complex for players and TDs to understand. 3. It is artificial: the TD must imagine a hypothetical scenario (for example, in which the OS decided not to break the law). 4. It is spuriously subjective: the decision is over-dependent on the whim and personal feelings of the TD. Hence rulings are different in identical contexts. Treating people unequally is against "equity" (according to the dictionary). 5. It encourages a lax attitude to rules. Why should you bother to abide by the rules if the worst result of irregularity is that the status quo will be restored. 6. It tempts you to transgress. For example, this law encourages you to to revoke against selected opponents. You accept the slight risk of the hassle of a TD call; but normally you get an easy top. You cannot lose. 7. It makes no concession to reality. Many infractions (e.g. less than complete disclosure) are rarely detected and almost never enforced. To discourage such infractions, the penalties for them should be draconian. Instead, this proposal is a cheat's charter. 8. It flouts the principles of Justice. Justice is not seen to be done. The victims of law-breakers know that the best they may hope for is partial restitution; because not all irregularities are noticed by players; or recognised as such TDs. The proposal protects law-breakers at the expense of victims. 9. It flouts basic principles for the construction of games: I know of no game which survived in spite of implementing such rules. At golf, suppose I fluff a shot and the ball goes out of bounds. Can you imagine the effect on the game if the referee had to work out what might have happened without the infraction? Starting with a 0.01% probability of my holing my approach? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Aug 21 18:46:32 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:46:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <005701c3680c$2b9e5980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > Rubber bridge is the parent game, to which it is often helpful to > > look for guidance in matters such as this. A rubber bridge "Arbiter," > > who acts in the role of TD for games played under "Club Laws," would > > not dare call attention to an irregularity that went unnoticed by the > > four players. > > Well I certainly would. If I see a good player apparently concealing a > revoke from lesser players I act. To do otherwise will, in the long term, > undermine the reputation of the club. I would also expect kibbers to > report such nefarious activity to me. What I wouldn't do is attempt to > impose a revoke penalty where the players noticed but felt no need to call > me. I thought it would go without saying that "nefarious activities" are an exception to the general rule. I should have said it. > > In my experience irregularities very seldom go unnoticed - but very > frequently go unremarked (no damage, no mention). Mind you I have no idea > what "for cause" means when duplicate players request a penalty waiver. Generally the cause is a physical disability that played a prime role in the irregularity. > As far as I am concerned the mere request is enough to avoid penalties. For rubber bridge, sure. But not for duplicate bridge, surely, where penalties must be uniformly applied. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 21 08:53:22 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:53:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <003001c36680$67787360$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <006101c36700$b0f038e0$3f053dd4@m1q9j9> <000f01c36754$2f149e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000b01c36768$d320aea0$1b9868d5@default> Message-ID: <000a01c36821$dea3ebc0$9c54e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > If law is just then why are we so keen on protecting > law-breakers. If a passing TD spotted a revoke and > ruled against it, even I would not complain -- and I > am keen on equity (in the dictionary meaning). > +=+ The laws give the TD some discretion in the manner in which he handles irregularities and infractions. They do not suggest that he should not give attention to any such that he is aware of - however that awareness may be induced. He can, however, do much at times by being especially slow to arrive at the table when the information is given to him illegally and the curtains are not on fire. Spectators are guests and not part of the game. They may observe but (except by invitation of the Director) the laws do not give them any part to play; it is only the undisciplined kibitzer, or one ignorant of the laws of the game, who does not control his inclination to say something about a breach of procedure when he thinks he has noticed one. If you read the WBFLC minutes you will see it said that: "spectators should not count - i.e. they should not be involved actively in a tournament.". The review subcommittee has been asked to examine the subject. (28 October 01 :: # 11). ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 21 21:35:35 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:35:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> <001601c367da$33b5f4c0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <006d01c36823$e7b70060$9c54e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > > Unfortunately a TD observes a revoke and acts > accordingly. Believe it or not but it happens in > the same session for the second time. Now he > cannot act because he has to remove himself if > he acts! > +=+ I am sorry to learn there is something confusing in the fact that (a) it is legal for a TD to draw attention to an irregularity, whilst (b) it is illegal for a spectator to draw attention to an irregularity. The one who acts illegally may be removed. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 21 21:52:15 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:52:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: <011501c3679f$b9a587c0$1b9868d5@default> References: <151BAAAB-C8D4-11D7-A049-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000701c35d3f$2cb0e860$ee2de150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030821164214.02332470@pop.starpower.net> I've tried to stay out of the controversy over the tone of some people's posts, but feel the need to say something now. At 12:48 AM 8/21/03, Nigel wrote: >[David Stevenson] > >I suggest a new list, where people discuss the >Laws, and the moderator keeps us on track, and >then we can leave the people who wish to enjoy >the world famous 'Bickering over Laws Mailing >List'. > >[Nigel] > >If posts that bicker about laws were removed >then there would be no mailing list. Of course we will bicker; that is what we are about. But we can bicker without insult, debate without denunciation, and argue without personal attack. Even those who don't consider ourselves masters of language can manage to do this if they try. >Henk does an excellent job as informal moderator. >We do not want a hard-line moderator who would "Ton" >down the colourful, forthright, and robust language >of the likes of Koojiman, Jaap van der Neut, >Jurgen Rennenkampff, David Burn, and Herman De Wael >whose amusing and erudite views are the among the >main attractions of the list. We must not throw >out these babies with the bath-water. Those who find amusement in personal insult can always buy some old Don Rickles records. Or stick to unmoderated mailing lists and newsgroups. The substance of the issues before us gives plenty of scope for colorful, forthright, robust argument, without the need to air our views on the personal failings of our members. I see no reason why we should want our mailing list to tolerate behavior that we would find unacceptable at the bridge table. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 21 23:17:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:17:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <006c01c3662a$f71c6a40$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <004a01c36832$2dd393c0$8d9868d5@default> [Marvin] Imagine that an expert pair drops in for the local club Mitchell, playing N-S, and the TD decides to kibitz them on every round. He can then spot every E-W irregularity that he sees throughout the game, whether a revoke, misuse of UI, Alert failure, whatever. Is this fair to all the other N-S pairs, who do not have a TD to catch opposing irregularities for them? I think not. The TD should say nothing about an irregularity unless one of the players draws attention to it. [Henk] The same TD will also spot every irregularity by NS and act... If a kibitzer walks up to inform the TD that he believes that F and Z are using foot signals, I'm sure the TD would thank him and act on it... [Nigel] IMO Henk is right. There are 2 approaches to law-breaking (or its extreme form -- cheating). A. You can hear and see no evil, ignoring the reports of kibitzers and turning a blind eye to transgression as recommended by BLML gurus. Then, when you catch a law-breaker in flagrante, you can try to restore equity for that incident; but protect the OS, leaving them free to offend again and again without penalty. B. Alternatively, you can actively investigate alleged law-breakers, soliciting reports from independent observers and monitoring events as closely as you can without arising suspicion. When you have evidence, you can provide some restitution for the victim and a mild deterrent for the law-breakers in the form of a penalty that much more than restores the status quo. IMO, the ordinary law must provide deterrent punishment because you cannot always be certain enough of deliberate malfeasance to apply PPs or more severe sanctions. IMO all evidence should be grist to your mill. Minimising irregularities and thus protecting victims and ensuring the enjoyment of a the majority of ordinary players is of greater priority for a TD than saving the embarrassment of a few law-breakers. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 21 23:19:13 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:19:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> Message-ID: <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> OK, Nigel, permit me to assume that we are on similar wave-lenghts here. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael wrote] > > No need to express the HdW school of thought, > Nigel arrived there in the end: And I believe > such is the law. Or rather, that there is no > reason for a player not to act in this manner. > It avoids UI to partner and gives opponents all > the information they are entitled to, nothing more, > nothing less (you hope). > > [Nigel] > > I wish Herman and I were singing from the same > hymn book but fear I we are not. > The question that was put (by you?) is how you should answer. The options were something like "I don't know", "I think it's..." and "It's ...". My opinion is that it should be the third. You seem to be saying the same thing. As to what actually comes behind those ...: > My impression is that Herman recommends that you > guess what partner *actually* means by his call, > whether or not it is your partneship agreement. > Yes. > IMO, you should guess what partner's call means > *according to your partnership agreements and > understandings*. > Yes. I don't see the difference. Do you mean that a call can have different meanings according to your partner and to your system? That just means that partner has made a mistaken bid, and whether or not we can prove this is not important to our decision about what to answer - we can never know partner's intentions if they differ from the system. Or are you saying that partner's intentions can exceed partnership agreement? Surely they can. But: A call has a meaning (probably). The level to which this meaning is based on firm partnership agreement or not is, IMO, totally irrelevant towards opponents. When the TD has to judge, he will often use the apparent meaning as the basis of a partnership understanding. So again the distinction becomes irrelevant, unless we reply "no partnership understanding". Which is almost always insufficient IMO (unless opponents know partner better than you do). > That is "what the call would mean had you made > it yourself in the same context.". > > Mine may still be a heretical view but it is more > orthodox than the doctrine of the Herman School. > I don't see a great deal of difference. The important part of the Hdw School (if we want to name it that) is that we advice people to say "it is" rather than "I believe it is" or "I don't know". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Steve Wright Fri Aug 22 01:08:03 2003 From: Steve Wright (Steve Wright) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:08:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: Scoring : Teams Vulnerability : None Dealer : North As East you hold; S: KQ954 H: T74 D: 4 C: KJ52 Bidding is; North East South West You Partner Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation Pass ? What are you logical options? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 22 01:33:54 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:33:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> I hope we do agree, Herman. Lets check... You explain partner's call as what you think it should mean within the context of partnership understanding -- i.e. what you yourself would have meant by the call had you made the same call, in the same context. You never try to guess what partner *intends* the call to mean if that meaning is not in accord with your agreements and understandings. For example, suppose LHO opens 1H and after two passes you protect with 2NT. You are not sure but you have a dim memory that, several months ago, partner and you agreed this shows 19-21 flat. Surprisingly, partner alerts, so you deduce that he has interpreted your bid as "unusual notrump", showing a minor two-suiter. LHO passes and partner bids 3D. Over a natural 2NT, your system says 3D is a transfer to hearts (opponent's suit) but you think it is unlikely to be what partner intends. If partner thinks that your 2NT is unusual, then partner probably intends 3D to be natural (minor suit preference). Do you alert 3D? If opponents ask, do you explain 3D as a heart transfer? (: IMO the answers should always both be YES. Do you agree, Herman? :) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Aug 22 01:32:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:32:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <006c01c3662a$f71c6a40$c8053dd4@m1q9j9> <004a01c36832$2dd393c0$8d9868d5@default> Message-ID: <001901c36844$ef5b2aa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Marvin] > Imagine that an expert pair drops in for the > local club Mitchell, playing N-S, and the TD > decides to kibitz them on every round. He can > then spot every E-W irregularity that he sees > throughout the game, whether a revoke, misuse > of UI, Alert failure, whatever. Is this fair > to all the other N-S pairs, who do not have a > TD to catch opposing irregularities for them? > I think not. The TD should say nothing about > an irregularity unless one of the players > draws attention to it. > > [Henk] > > The same TD will also spot every irregularity > by NS and act... > > If a kibitzer walks up to inform the TD that > he believes that F and Z are using foot > signals, I'm sure the TD would thank him and > act on it... > > [Nigel] > > IMO Henk is right. Jeez m'beads, I was talking about normal bridge irregularities, not cheating, tearing up cards, swearing, setting fire to the table, or other crimes. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Aug 22 01:55:11 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:55:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:08 PM 8/21/2003, Steve Wright wrote: >Scoring : Teams >Vulnerability : None >Dealer : North > >As East you hold; > >S: KQ954 >H: T74 >D: 4 >C: KJ52 > >Bidding is; > >North East South West > You Partner > >Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation >Pass ? > >What are you logical options? Since you are a passed hand and are prepared for anything partner does, I would consider double as well as the obvious 1S. Pass is not a logical alternative; you have a clear overcall in the direct seat, never mind the balancing issue. Under the UK standard, I don't think double is a logical alternative unless this is your balancing style; under the US standard, it might be. In any case, the hesitation suggests double over 1S, since partner has apparently passed a big hand and might leave in the double. Thus double is an infraction whether it is a logical alternative or not. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 22 02:05:21 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:05:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity Message-ID: <003801c36849$7d5f3a40$189468d5@default> [Ed Repert] This is dangerous - it implies that the OS *decided* to break the law. That is rarely the case. [Nigel] (a) I agree that the OS deciding to break the law is only one of the valid hypotheses. But I think you have made the point that I was trying to express. Under Ton's "equity" protocol the TD must pursue imaginary effects of a variety of plausible assumptions. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 22 02:06:24 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:06:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <003c01c36849$9f0f7ec0$189468d5@default> [Steve Wright] East S: KQ954 H: T74 D:4 C: KJ52 North East South West You Partner Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation Pass ? What are you logical options? [Nigel] 1S=10 X=8 P=6 IMO Pass is an LA because experts like Richard Hills spurn other options. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Aug 22 02:31:10 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:31:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <002501c3684d$12d008e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Wright" > Scoring : Teams > Vulnerability : None > Dealer : North > > As East you hold; > > S: KQ954 > H: T74 > D: 4 > C: KJ52 > > Bidding is; > > North East South West > You Partner > > Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation > Pass ? > > What are your logical options? > 1S and Dbl, but the hesitation suggests the double might work well, so that leaves only 1S. What about passing, to teach partner not to hesitate and to show opponents how ethical you are? I consider that to be illegal, but some might argue otherwise. It means that the UI has prompted a very illogical action when there is a logical alternative. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Steve Willner" > From: "Ben Schelen" > That's why I started the discussion by making a distinction in the laws: > I mentioned Laws16-75 with the exception of Law22A and a revoke, being > auction, play and proprieties. > Grattan Endicott Spectators are guests and not part of the game. ... > The review subcommittee has been asked to > examine the subject. (28 October 01 :: # 11). It seems to me that there are at least four types of situations with the potential for different rules. 1. Misconduct: abusive language, violence, cheating, etc. There seems to be widespread agreement that a spectator or anyone else should report these at once, but privately to a TD. I suppose the report might go to the police as well as the TD if the conduct in question rises to the level of a criminal offense. 2. Movement or other procedural errors. There is at least some sentiment on BLML that these should be reported to the TD. Who wants to see the event curtailed or boards thrown out because somebody moved the boards wrong or got North the wrong way? (And even if spectators are not supposed to be involved, what about caddies, tournament officials, or team captains?) 3. Drawing attention while play is in progress. No one wants spectators doing this, and the Laws already provide for cancelling penalties in some cases. 4. Drawing attention after play is over but within the correction/appeals periods. This is a thorny question. In practice, it is impossible to prevent post-play discussions between players and spectators, and it isn't clear that one would wish to do so. Shouldn't players be allowed to consult friends or advisors on the merits of an appeal? Do you wish to sequester players? Can't an otherwise unremarked irregularity be noticed in casual conversation? Does it matter whether the player or the spectator initiates the conversation? Will anyone know the who did? Is there any difference between a spectator at the tournament site and a consultant the player phones up at home? Are there different types of cases: a straight score correction, a fact noticed by a spectator but not by a player, or a judgment question related to UI or MI? Grattan has indicated his sentiment that spectators should not be involved in "type 4" situations, but I don't see how it is possible to prevent it. Also, given the necessity for judgment in some kinds of rulings, I don't think it is desirable to try. At any rate, this is a question the review subcommittee should address. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 22 07:23:48 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:23:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> Message-ID: <3F45B6F4.70100@hdw.be> Sorry Nigel, that was absolutely NOT the case I thought you were talking of. And it is the one on which the HdW school has the least followers. I'll answer your question, but I don't think we need to start the discussion again. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I hope we do agree, Herman. Lets check... > > You explain partner's call as what you think it > should mean within the context of partnership > understanding -- i.e. what you yourself would > have meant by the call had you made the same > call, in the same context. > > You never try to guess what partner *intends* > the call to mean if that meaning is not in > accord with your agreements and understandings. > > For example, suppose LHO opens 1H and after two > passes you protect with 2NT. You are not sure but > you have a dim memory that, several months ago, > partner and you agreed this shows 19-21 flat. > > Surprisingly, partner alerts, so you deduce > that he has interpreted your bid as "unusual > notrump", showing a minor two-suiter. > > LHO passes and partner bids 3D. > > Over a natural 2NT, your system says 3D is a > transfer to hearts (opponent's suit) but you > think it is unlikely to be what partner intends. > > If partner thinks that your 2NT is unusual, then > partner probably intends 3D to be natural (minor > suit preference). > > Do you alert 3D? > If opponents ask, do you explain 3D as a heart > transfer? > > (: IMO the answers should always both be YES. > Do you agree, Herman? :) > Absolutely not. You don't alert, and you wait until they ask. Hopefully they will ask what 2NT means, and your partner will confirm your suspicions that he thinks it is for the minors. Surely they will not ask what 3Di is then, but if they do, you reply "diamonds". That is the only way, IMO, that you can conform to L75D2 "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". You have kept your partner from having UI. Next you bid 3He, and hope that partner wakes up. If he does, he has done so without having UI available to him, so his actions cannot be adjusted. Meanwhile, the opponents have received MI about your call of 2NT. There is sadly nothing you are allowed to do about this (L75D2 again). I assume that your answer, Nigel, is to alert 3Di and explain it as transfer. Next you will bid 3He, your partner will retreat to 3NT, the TD will assume this is based on UI, and adjust your +600 to -500 for 3He undoubled -5. At my table, I won't alert, my partner will assume 2NT was 19-21, explain that to the TD, correct 3He to 3NT and I will score +600. The TD will check for MI, find that the opponents are not damaged and leave the score. (or find that they are damaged and change the score to 4SpX-2, still +500 to me). Which is my point: I have broken no more or fewer laws than you (although I have broken other ones, as sadly we are not in any position to leave not a single law unbroken) and I have ended up, after the TD intervention, with +500, you with -500. But as we already said, it is unlikely that the whole world shall ever agree with this one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Aug 22 09:28:58 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:28:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CCD3@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Steve Wright: Sent: 22 August 2003 01:08 Scoring : Teams Vulnerability : None Dealer : North As East you hold; S: KQ954 H: T74 D: 4 C: KJ52 Bidding is; North East South West You Partner Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation Pass ? What are you logical options? --=20 1S. For me personally double is not a LA, but I'd be prepared to believe = that it is for others. Certainly nothing else. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Aug 22 10:40:23 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:40:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB77@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Steve Wright: Sent: 22 August 2003 01:08 Scoring : Teams Vulnerability : None Dealer : North As East you hold; S: KQ954 H: T74 D: 4 C: KJ52 Bidding is; North East South West You Partner Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation Pass ? What are you logical options? --=20 Double or 1S. Unpassed I would prefers 1S, as I would be in truble if parner doesn't conv= ert to penalty, since bidding spades after a double would show a stronger h= and. After an original pass, double is more attractive, since I'm limited b= y the pass, and partner wouldn't expect more than this if I bid spades late= r. UI from the hesitation prohibits the double, so I would have to bid 1S anyw= ay. Pass, of course, could be the winning action, if South is very strong. But = I don't think it would rate as a LA. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 22 10:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <005b01c3680d$618e86e0$669468d5@default> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > At golf, suppose I fluff a shot and the ball goes > out of bounds. Can you imagine the effect on the > game if the referee had to work out what might > have happened without the infraction? Starting > with a 0.01% probability of my holing my approach? Surely nobody would be stupid enough to follow a game where the referees had to make decisions like "where would the ball have gone if X had not happened?". Unless we call the referees umpires of course. Nor could we countenance extremely large sums of money changing hands based on somebody deciding "would the result have been different if horse X had not crossed the path of horse Y?". The LBW laws in cricket and the interefence laws in racing are both "equity based". Sure umpires/stewards make mistakes from time to time (but those who are competent and well trained make far fewer mistakes than others). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 22 10:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <005701c3680c$2b9e5980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > > > As far as I am concerned the mere request is enough to avoid > penalties. > > For rubber bridge, sure. But not for duplicate bridge, surely, where > penalties must be uniformly applied. "Penalties are always waived on request" *is* a uniform policy. A director who becomes aware of (e.g.) a revoke may wait until the penalty provisions of L64b expire and then "rectify the error" by adjusting (if necessary) under L64c without being in breach of 81c6. Whether the above policy is "right" for every club game/world championship is a matter of choice for the Club/SO/CTD. I do know that it is exactly the right policy to ensure maximum customer satisfaction in some clubs where I have directed. Tim From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Aug 22 10:20:38 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:20:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: >Steve Wright: >Sent: 22 August 2003 01:08 > >Scoring : Teams >Vulnerability : None >Dealer : North > >As East you hold; > >S: KQ954 >H: T74 >D: 4 >C: KJ52 > >Bidding is; > >North East South West > You Partner > >Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation >Pass ? > >What are you logical options? >--=20 ----------------------- Suppose the logical alternatives, after the hesitation, are considered to be: 1S, X, pass. Now the hesitation *could* demonstrably suggest 1S over pass pass over X X over 1S depending upon the players, their agreements, the director, and the standards of demonstrability. Jürgen From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 22 11:36:16 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:36:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity References: Message-ID: <000e01c36899$3a92f3a0$39f57f50@Default> Tim, Of course you are both right. But the basic idea is to cover as much as possible with simple fool proof rules that your dumb 'referee' can handle. Now I know very well that in most if not all sports there will be judgement calls for the referee/umpire. But you typically want to avoid that as much as possible if only because the more judgements they have to make the more mistakes they make, and it is always a hard problem (in any sport) to get some 'standard' in umpire judgements. To put it in other words, in all serious sports they try to minimise the effect of who is the 'umpire' today. This is a far bigger problem in bridge than in any other sport I know because in bridge (at a serious level) it is quite common the umpire understands (far) less about the game than the players do. Unfortunatly in bridge it is necessary to be as good as the players, preferably even better, to make most types of judgement calls. This is atypical. In most sports you can be a perfect referee without being a top player yourself. And most sports can use retired players as referees/umpires, but bridge players do not retire. So at bridge we should try even harder to avoid judgement calls than in other sports. Of course as long as we consider bridge a serious competitive sport. Now I understand perfectly well what you say about your local club. Customer satisfaction at that level requires a different approach than running and 'refereering' a serious championship. For this reason and many others I think it is an illusion we can play bridge with uniform rules all over the planet. Well everybody agrees I guess. First of all the WBFLC who nowadays only produces rules that can be overruled by any lower authority anyway. But I have the impression they deny this reality. It would be much better to have some basic rules, some intermediate rules, and some high level rules, rather than the current situation where they pretend the rules are uniform but every SO can make up their own version of the rules, and don't worry they do. The results are well known. The rules are different everywhere, even ignoring the differences the top authorities don't agree on what the rules are anyway, so nobody gives a damn anymore. If we want to reverse that trend there is a lot of work to do. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > Nigel wrote: > > > At golf, suppose I fluff a shot and the ball goes > > out of bounds. Can you imagine the effect on the > > game if the referee had to work out what might > > have happened without the infraction? Starting > > with a 0.01% probability of my holing my approach? > > Surely nobody would be stupid enough to follow a game where the referees > had to make decisions like "where would the ball have gone if X had not > happened?". Unless we call the referees umpires of course. Nor could we > countenance extremely large sums of money changing hands based on somebody > deciding "would the result have been different if horse X had not crossed > the path of horse Y?". The LBW laws in cricket and the interefence laws > in racing are both "equity based". Sure umpires/stewards make mistakes > from time to time (but those who are competent and well trained make far > fewer mistakes than others). > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 11:59:35 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:59:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: >From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" >To: >Subject: RE: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:28:58 +0100 > > >Steve Wright: >Sent: 22 August 2003 01:08 > >Scoring : Teams >Vulnerability : None >Dealer : North > >As East you hold; > >S: KQ954 >H: T74 >D: 4 >C: KJ52 > >Bidding is; > >North East South West > You Partner > >Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation >Pass ? > >What are you logical options? >-- > >1S. >For me personally double is not a LA, but I'd be prepared to believe that >it is for others. >Certainly nothing else. Well, pass is an option, I suppose. Casting my mind back to the days when Mrs. Scorbie and I first learnt to play bridge (in the case of Mrs. Scorbie this might as well have been yesterday), it was a point of honour, if an opponent opened in front of you with what you planned to open, one passed in tempo, giving the appearance of not having a care in the world. I would hardly describe myself as having a mind that worked at the speed of light - more the speed of an arthritic snail, but this sort of hesitation (if it turns out to be what we think it is) always strikes me as pathetic. Someone opens (say) 1D in front of you. How long does it take to decide whether to pass, overcall 1NT or double? About half a second, that's how long. Give me strength. Norman Scorbie Nr. Diss Norfolk UK _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 22 11:56:23 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:56:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <001401c3689c$08b878c0$39f57f50@Default> Steve, I think at least 95% of all players of all levels would bid 1S without giving it a second thought. So pass and double are hardly a LA. Actually if you start thinking deeper it is possible to double. You are limited by your initial pass, and you can stand any bid by partner. Still I don't see much of an advantage in doubling over 1S. Even if partner is going to pass 1D* it is far from sure double will work well. 1D* might not go down enough (we have enough S fit to make game and or they have enough H fit to make enough tricks in 1D) and it might let them find a heart fit (which often doesn't matter but can have disastrous effects). But then I really don't care about LA's on this one. What is the UI from the pause? Partner wanted to bid something but couldn't figure out what to do. So we know partner has some points, but that is hardly relevant UI since we are not going to stop the guy from bidding 1S. Does the pause suggest double. I don't think so. With a real penalty pass you normally don't need a long time because it is relatively easy. The pause (at my level) tends to suggest he considered an off shape double, a creative 1NT overcall, or maybe a four card suit overcall. Opposite that type of hand probably the obvious 1S overcall works as well if not better than the imaginitive double. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:08 AM Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > Scoring : Teams > Vulnerability : None > Dealer : North > > As East you hold; > > S: KQ954 > H: T74 > D: 4 > C: KJ52 > > Bidding is; > > North East South West > You Partner > > Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation > Pass ? > > What are you logical options? > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 22 12:49:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:49:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030822134434.0247c540@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:59 22/08/2003 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >I would hardly describe myself as having a mind that worked at the speed >of light - more the speed of an arthritic snail AG : Do snails suffer for arthritis ? Do snakes make pushups ? >, but this sort of hesitation (if it turns out to be what we think it is) >always strikes me as pathetic. Someone opens (say) 1D in front of you. How >long does it take to decide whether to pass, overcall 1NT or double? About >half a second, that's how long. AG : perhaps. That's why some will consider that partner's hesitation suggests a fair 4-card major or 5-card club suit (the hesitation was about making a suit overcall). In this case, nothing is suggested ; 1S and double will work equally well (partner's hand shouldn't be 34 majors). But in real life, I'd say that tortoises (that's more plausible) tend to be more arthritic when they solidly hold oppoennts' suit. And I'd be inclined to think that, if anything is suggested over anything else, it's double over a suit. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 22 13:12:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:12:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030822080906.0233c340@pop.starpower.net> At 08:08 PM 8/21/03, Steve wrote: >Scoring : Teams >Vulnerability : None >Dealer : North > >As East you hold; > >S: KQ954 >H: T74 >D: 4 >C: KJ52 > >Bidding is; > >North East South West > You Partner > >Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation >Pass ? > >What are you logical options? 1S or double. Not pass, at least not where I live. Partner's huddle, if significant, suggests double over 1S (he probably has a suit, and it may well be diamonds). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Aug 22 13:15:27 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:15:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> <001601c367da$33b5f4c0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> <006d01c36823$e7b70060$9c54e150@endicott> Message-ID: <009e01c368a8$308c4780$4e053dd4@m1q9j9> > > > > > Unfortunately a TD observes a revoke and acts > > accordingly. Believe it or not but it happens in > > the same session for the second time. Now he > > cannot act because he has to remove himself if > > he acts! > > > +=+ I am sorry to learn there is something confusing in > the fact that (a) it is legal for a TD to draw attention to an > irregularity, whilst (b) it is illegal for a spectator to draw > attention to an irregularity. The one who acts illegally > may be removed. > > I am not a lawyer, but: Consequent (b): The TD should in that case ignore the attention drawn AND Law81C6 should not be valid. Otherwise it is conflicting? Is not it one or other? If the information received is legal, the TD acts. If the information received is illegal, he does not act. * In the Netherlands the court may not use illegally gained information. * In the Netherlands football players can be punished afterwards in case the referee did not, but television pictures show the violence. Only a few matches are transmitted and mostly incomplete. Please do not mention that speed-control and football has no relation with bridge; that kills the discussion. * In practice it is impossible and not done to sequester players (parc fermee) during the expiration time to prevent players to be informed by a spectator. (similar as to inform the TD) For the sake of clearness "in any manner" is a hollow phrase in case we do not have a global consensus and act accordingly. We cannot hide ourselves for that. Ben From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 22 13:49:51 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:49:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> <3F45B6F4.70100@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002101c368ab$e5a380e0$739868d5@default> [Herman] Sorry Nigel, that was absolutely NOT the case I thought you were talking of. [Nigel] In earlier posts, I didn't refer to such cases specifically; but unfortunately they are part of the underlying scenario. I was delighted when you said that my views accorded with DWS because I hoped that would increase the pressure for more sensible laws. My euphoria subsided as I recalled earlier discussions and was further diminished by your latest email confirming our differences. At least we agree that the law on disclosure should be simpler and clearer and that you should guess rather than claim "Don't Know". Where we differ is that you would guess what partner *intends* whereas I would guess "what *I* would mean by the bid". [Herman] I assume that your answer, Nigel, is to alert 3Di and explain it as transfer. Next you will bid 3He, your partner will retreat to 3NT, the TD will assume this is based on UI, and adjust your +600 to -500 for 3He undoubled -5. [Nigel] Something like that except that presumably partner will alert 3H as a cuebid agreeing diamonds; so he probably won't pass. I suppose we may end up in a red suit grand redoubled and four or five down. Our best chance of escape is impatient opponents who start doubling prematurely. [Herman] At my table, I won't alert, my partner will assume 2NT was 19-21, explain that to the TD, correct 3He to 3NT and I will score +600. The TD will check for MI, find that the opponents are not damaged and leave the score. (or find that they are damaged and change the score to 4SpX-2, still +500 to me). [Nigel] Good luck, Herman. Although as TD, I'd impose a PP for failing to alert 3D (at least). [Herman] Which is my point: I have broken no more or fewer laws than you (although I have broken other ones, as sadly we are not in any position to leave not a single law unbroken) and I have ended up, after the TD intervention, with +500, you with -500. But as we already said, it is unlikely that the whole world shall ever agree with this one. [Nigel] As I argued before one problem with your interpretation is when partner's alert was a mistake -- he hasn't really forgotten the system at all. Now your deliberate mis- explanations of *his* calls not only deceive opponents but also pose unnecessary ethical problems for partner. "Oh! what a tangled web..." From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 22 14:03:24 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:03:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <002b01c368ad$c88e3660$739868d5@default> [Tim West-Mead's] "Penalties are always waived on request" *is* a uniform policy. A director who becomes aware of (e.g.) a revoke may wait until the penalty provisions of L64b expire and then "rectify the error" by adjusting (if necessary) under L64c without being in breach of 81c6. Whether the above policy is "right" for every club game/world championship is a matter of choice for the Club/SO/CTD. I do know that it is exactly the right policy to ensure maximum customer satisfaction in some clubs where I have directed. {Nigel] In our club, one player refuses to call the TD or enforce *any* mechanical penalties on opponents. A regular partner won't call the TD about blatant coffee-housing or in cases that involve subjective judgements e.g. tempo UI. His game is adversely affected whenever I call the TD. IMO, they are both wrong. IMO, the TD should always be called. If the NOS want to waive a penalty, the TD should agree that there are extenuating circumstances. For example, the OS are beginners -- not merely friends with a good chance of winning. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 22 14:46:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:46:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: Message-ID: <003101c368b3$d09eab40$739868d5@default> [Tim West-Meads] The LBW laws in cricket and the interefence laws in racing are both "equity based". Sure umpires/stewards make mistakes from time to time (but those who are competent and well trained make far fewer mistakes than others). [Nigel] ARRGH! Well done Tim! You got me ......... You shot a hole in the ninth argument :( :( :{ I've not played or watched cricket for a long time but *then* it was not an *infraction* of the laws if your body deflected the ball from the wicket or if the ball hit the wicket or whatever. These were all perfectly legal ways of getting a player out. (Like winning a trick by playing a trump if you cannot follow suit) But that is a quibble. I concede that sometimes such laws *are* necessary, like in your horse-racing example, to protect the field. I notice however that in most games, after law-breaking, "restitution" usually involves more than restoring the *status quo*. Thus, a rider may be penalised, for example. Anyway, in Bridge, IMO, some legal-gurus want *equity* laws where there is no necessity. From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Aug 22 19:21:58 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:21:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <001401c3689c$08b878c0$39f57f50@Default> Message-ID: But then I really don't care about LA's on this one. What is the UI from the pause? Partner wanted to bid something but couldn't figure out what to do. So we know partner has some points, but that is hardly relevant UI since we are not going to stop the guy from bidding 1S. Does the pause suggest double. I don't think so. With a real penalty pass you normally don't need a long time because it is relatively easy. The pause (at my level) tends to suggest he considered an off shape double, a creative 1NT overcall, or maybe a four card suit overcall. Opposite that type of hand probably the obvious 1S overcall works as well if not better than the imaginitive double. +++ Agree with Jaap here. 1S or dbl are fine. Pass is criminal. We have already passed (why I don't know) but in the balancing position any sneeze of an excuse to get back in is winning bridge. P P 1x P P ?? - I mean what do ya want?? One opp has passed twice - clearly a hand to throw in the bin. Pd has in most cases has an opening bid, usually flat with 4+ diamonds normally 12-14 and can't double. This is why you are re-opening in the 1st place. My choice is double - I have a fit for anything pd bids and should the bidding get out of hand 3S's will hardly be a disaster. 1S is too unilateral and just doesn't get a 9 count 5314 shape across. As to the posts which state the pause precludes a double - losen up guys. If pd did a back flip on his seat I can't see anyone arguing we don't have a clearcut double. K. From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Aug 22 20:04:00 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:04:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: <3F45B6F4.70100@hdw.be> Message-ID: Sorry Nigel, that was absolutely NOT the case I thought you were talking of. And it is the one on which the HdW school has the least followers. I'll answer your question, but I don't think we need to start the discussion again. +++ I recall a huge posting session about the Hdw school a few months back (maybe more) and I didn't get the full implications other than there is a problem with the laws under certain circumstances, a sort of catch 22 situation, which the powers to be seem to be abit silent on. Just on alerting undiscussed sequences. Take this one form Menton Pd RHO Me LHO P(1) 1NT 2C(2) P 2D(3) P 2H(4) 2S 3C(5) P ?? (1) We open any 11 count and various 5/4 hands etc so we can "normally" depending on vul etc preclude these hand types. (2) Diamonds or M/m 5/4+ (3) Relay (4) H's & a minor (5) Undiscussed. I alerted the 3C bid (as I felt it could be conventional and unlikely to be natural) and when asked said it was undiscussed. Why hadn't pd bid 2NT to say pick a minor?? 2NT was hardly natural or was it ?? Could 3C's be natural?? I was very unlikely as with a 6 card club suit we may have pre-empted. I went into my box and concluded that pd was 4/4 in the minors with 2/3 hearts. I passed. LHO again asked for the meaning of 3C's and I said no agreement but my best guess and I stressed guess was 4/4 minors 2/3 hearts. As it turned out this was exactly what pd had. Now we were using screens so there was very little UI etc ... but assuming no screens I don't see the problem with saying no agreement or undiscussed and IF an opp wants my best guess then fair enough. At least (1) the opps know there is an element of doubt in our auction and are not under the illusion that we definitely know what we are doing which we don't (2) they have my best guess (if they want it) as to what the bid means and can act accordingly (3) pd hearing my explanation (maybe I should have asked him to leave and explain my guess to the opps) or at the least knowing I'm in doubt to the meaning of the bid will have to do his best to bid on without using this UI. At least the opps on this scenario are undamaged. Alerting the bid giving a guessed meaning to that bid hurts everyone. Pd is either happy and smug you guessed correctly (and in receipt of UI) or tearful as the wheels seem to be comming off (once agin has UI). But on top of that the Opps are now damaged. They are ignorant that their bidding is now based on a guess. The only advantage to this approach is if you guess right. K. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 22 06:59:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:59:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <002501c3684d$12d008e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 21:31 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > It means that the UI has prompted a very > illogical action when there is a logical alternative. Um. What law requires a player to choose a logical alternative? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 22 20:49:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:49:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <009e01c368a8$308c4780$4e053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: On Friday, Aug 22, 2003, at 08:15 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > Please do not mention that speed-control and football has no relation > with > bridge; that kills the discussion. For you, perhaps. For me, the discussion is about bridge, and invalid analogies to other things add nothing to it. Having said that: >> +=+ I am sorry to learn there is something confusing in >> the fact that (a) it is legal for a TD to draw attention to an >> irregularity, whilst (b) it is illegal for a spectator to draw >> attention to an irregularity. The one who acts illegally >> may be removed. >> > I am not a lawyer, but: > Consequent (b): The TD should in that case ignore the attention drawn > AND > Law81C6 should not be valid. Law 81C6 is valid (meaning it has legal efficacy or force - Merriam-Webster), whatever happens. If a spectator draws attention to an irregularity in violation of law 76, the TD is nonetheless constrained by Law 81C6 to deal with that irregularity, unless there is a minute from the WBFLC to the effect that the words of Law 81C6 do not mean what they literally say. I have looked for such a minute. I found that in Paris on 28 Oct 2001, the question was referred to the Laws Review Subcommittee. I found no subsequent report back from that subcommittee on the question. While I did not find minutes from 2002, at the moment I can only see that Law 81C6 still applies. Have I missed something? > Otherwise it is conflicting? Is not it one or other? I'm not sure I understand these questions, but I'll take a stab: yes, it appears to be the intent of Law 76 that the TD not become aware of an irregularity via a spectator. Nonetheless, Law 81C6 (nor any other law, as far as I can see) provides exception when this happens to the requirement for the TD to rectify the irregularity. > If the information received is legal, the TD acts. If the information > received is illegal, he does not act. And by not acting, violates Law 81C6. I do not think this can be right. Sven mentions that Law 81C6 in its current form was introduced in 1987. He also mentions principles regarding this question he was taught before that time. They were, in my opinion, good principles for the time (and would still be so, if the law were different), but as soon as the law was changed to include the current form of Law 81C6, those principles became invalid. We may not like it, but when the laws tell us what to do, who are we to decide to do something else? From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 22 21:14:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:14:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c368ea$103c5050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert .......... > Law 81C6 is valid (meaning it has legal efficacy or force - > Merriam-Webster), whatever happens. If a spectator draws attention to > an irregularity in violation of law 76, the TD is nonetheless > constrained by Law 81C6 to deal with that irregularity, unless there is > a minute from the WBFLC to the effect that the words of Law 81C6 do not > mean what they literally say. I have looked for such a minute. I found > that in Paris on 28 Oct 2001, the question was referred to the Laws > Review Subcommittee. I found no subsequent report back from that > subcommittee on the question. While I did not find minutes from 2002, > at the moment I can only see that Law 81C6 still applies. Have I missed > something? Not that I can see. And the minutes from 2002 are available from http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm Regards Sven From nancy@dressing.org Fri Aug 22 23:01:47 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:01:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> <001601c367da$33b5f4c0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> <006d01c36823$e7b70060$9c54e150@endicott> <009e01c368a8$308c4780$4e053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <004a01c368f8$fc95f510$6501a8c0@hare> Unfortunately, I have deleted most of this thread. I cannot remember any reference to Law 11 regarding spectators pointing out irregularities, which I think applies here. Also, I would think that Law 76B would apply. As a director, I feel that when I sit down to watch play at a table, I wear my spectator hat. If that is not the case, and I can rule on irregularities that I see and the players don't, I have two problems. 1. I am interfering with the play and 2. by my presence, I am assisting the player I am watching. (don't worry about irregularities, I will find them). Again, since I feel I am a spectator, I can only watch one hand! If it is true that when I watch, I am still a director, I will never watch another hand. And when I am sitting as a player, I will exercise my right to ban 1 spectator, which will always be the director, should he choose to watch the play at my table!.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > > > > > > Unfortunately a TD observes a revoke and acts > > > accordingly. Believe it or not but it happens in > > > the same session for the second time. Now he > > > cannot act because he has to remove himself if > > > he acts! > > > > > +=+ I am sorry to learn there is something confusing in > > the fact that (a) it is legal for a TD to draw attention to an > > irregularity, whilst (b) it is illegal for a spectator to draw > > attention to an irregularity. The one who acts illegally > > may be removed. > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but: > Consequent (b): The TD should in that case ignore the attention drawn AND > Law81C6 should not be valid. > Otherwise it is conflicting? Is not it one or other? > If the information received is legal, the TD acts. If the information > received is illegal, he does not act. > > * In the Netherlands the court may not use illegally gained information. > * In the Netherlands football players can be punished afterwards in case the > referee did not, but television pictures show the violence. Only a few > matches are transmitted and mostly incomplete. > > Please do not mention that speed-control and football has no relation with > bridge; that kills the discussion. > > * In practice it is impossible and not done to sequester players (parc > fermee) during the expiration time to prevent players to be informed by a > spectator. (similar as to inform the TD) > For the sake of clearness "in any manner" is a hollow phrase in case we do > not have a global consensus and act accordingly. > We cannot hide ourselves for that. > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From iwendijames1@juno.com Fri Aug 22 23:34:38 2003 From: iwendijames1@juno.com (AUSTIN WILLIAMS) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:34:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) THANK FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION Message-ID: FROM THE DESK OF MR=2EIWENDI JAMES AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING UNIT=2E FOREIGN REMITTANCE DEPT=2E UNION BANK PLC=2E E-MAIL=3A iwendijames1=40juno=2Ecom Atten=3A Woodson Dear Sir=2FMadam=2C Permit me to introduce myself to you=2C My name is Iwendi James=2C I am one of the Senior Managers in the bank I work for =28Union Bank=2C Nigeria PLC=29and I work under the Director of Foreign Exchange Operations =28International Remittance=29=2E I am contacting You presently because I need your urgent assistance in a business transaction that will be of immense benefit to both of us=2E I have the immediate need to transfer some money that has long been declared =22UNCLAIMED=22 by the chairman and some members of the board of directors of our bank=2E The money is the closing balance of one of our best customers ever=2C Late Engr=2E Manfred Becker=2C I was his personal account officer just before he died in the ADC plane crash of 1996 in Nigeria=2E Engr=2E Manfred Becker an American citizen was a contractor with the Federal Government of Nigeria=2C he supplied and installed equipment and his company Creek land Contractors completed some of the best construction contracts in the country=2E His closing balance in the Bank=2C Union Bank of Nigeria PLC =28US$10=2E5Million=29 has been tagged Unclaimed because no relative of Engr=2E Becker has come forward to make a statement of claim=2E We have no knowledge of a next of kin=2E At this point I trust you can picture what the situation is like=2E We have strong proof that the chairman and the board of directors will keep most of the money for themselves and donate the remainder to a discredited military trust here in Nigeria=2E This invariably is an attempt to infuse more money into the acquisition of military equipment =28arms and ammunition=29 for use in an already prostrate Africa=2E This of course=2C is senseless=2C hence my mission=2E My colleagues and my self have made several attempts at locating personsthat could be remotely related to Engr=2E Becker and we have been doing this for about 4 years now=2E Right now I am almost alone in this enterprise and I have presently decided on moving the money to a foreign account=2E I am hereby soliciting your assistance and I will be very grateful if you will be willing to help in this regard=2E We have access to most of what it will take to transfer the money=2E The only thing we do not have is a safe account=2E We will provide you with answers to all the security questions=2C which you will have to answer to move the process towards completion=2E We will also provide you answers to questions that only a person related to him will know=2E You may however not need to make any appearance every thing will be concluded on phone and fax between you and the bank =5BUNION BANK NIGERIA PLC=2C LAGOS=5D for your participation you will get 30%=2C 5% has been earmarked for the expenses that may be incurred on both ends=2E 65% shall be for my colleague and I=2E I make this proposal in trust and in good faith=2C therefore=2C if you are interested and you agree to assist me then contact me immediately you receive this email=2C there is a lot more to talk about=2E If you are not interested=2C then=2C please=2C do get rid of this email and please forgive me if this message has upset you in any way=2E Thank you and best regards=2E Mr=2E Iwendi James iwendijames=40elvis=2Ecom From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 22 23:44:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:44:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <004a01c368f8$fc95f510$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000101c368fe$e897f300$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nancy T Dressing: > Unfortunately, I have deleted most of this thread. The key is the amendment to Law 81C6: ..... of which becomes aware "in any manner" and the effect of these three words which were added to that law in 1987. The question has not satisfactorily been settled: Where to draw the line between laws 81C6 and 11B when a spectator notifies the Director of an irregularity. Most comments seem to be that the Director must act (Law 81C6), but not necessarily in the same way as he would (should) act when summoned to the table in the regular way. Obviously the nature of the irregularity is of some importance here. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 23 01:09:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:09:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal Message-ID: <004801c3690a$e4beba00$399868d5@default> [Apologies to Nancy L. Dressing -- I meant my reply for BLML] Following in Ed's footsteps, I have appended some relevant laws and minutes below. I admit to being pleasantly surprised. Laws 11 and 76 talk about what spectators *may/may not* do; also TDs have limited jursidiction over spectators, so they do not have anything like the force of 816c which addresses the TD's *duties* -- what he *must* do. The minutes may as well have stayed in Richard's locked box in the room labelled "Beware of the Tiger" -- they imply only vague intentions to look into the law on this matter. Any TD who turns a blind eye to law-breaking or a deaf ear to a kibitzer's report of an irregularity [or even delays in the hope that the OS may have time to cover up the offence] is in clear dereliction of duty. Perhaps a responsible director should also make it clear from the start that he is open to reports of irregularities from kibitzers, so that they have no inhibitions or need to wait for a request to report transgressions to him. This should reduce chat about irregularities among kibitzers that could get back to the players. This is especially important when players like Zia attract hoards of partisan kibitzers. Are there any sanctions for TDs who deliberately flout the law in this or other matters? [TFLB 1997 L11] The right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table [either] side is responsible. [TFLB 1997 L76 B] A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. [TFLB 1997 L76 B] [Director's duties and powers normally include the following...] ...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [28-Oct-1901 WBFLC Minutes Paris 11] The Chairman felt that a spectator was only a spectator when observing the play and that he ceased to be a spectator when he was no longer doing so. Other members of the committee were of the opinion that a spectator had responsibilities that continued after he was no longer observing the play. (The Secretary had drawn attention to the regulation in force at the current Championships.) It was suggested "spectators should not count" - i.e. that they should not be involved actively in a tournament. Mr. Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a spectator draws attention to an irregularity there should be an adjustment for one side only so that a score may be reduced but no trick awarded to a side in a manner to increase its score. The subject was remitted for the consideration of the Laws Review Subcommittee. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Aug 23 02:16:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:16:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <000001c368ea$103c5050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <71D59249-D507-11D7-9622-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Aug 22, 2003, at 16:14 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > And the minutes from 2002 are available from > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm Thanks, Sven. I looked on David's site first; somehow I missed the minutes page. IAC, I am happy to find that the 2002 minutes do not address the question at hand, so my previous post goes unchanged. :-) From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Aug 23 00:43:41 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:43:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Steve Wright" ; Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > In any case, the hesitation suggests double over 1S, > since partner has apparently passed a big hand > and might leave in the double. Thus double is an > infraction whether it is a logical alternative or not. > +=+ I would be fiercely angry if partner failed to pass smoothly over 1D. Partner should not allow himself to be caught out. My style would be to double; I would not consider 1S; but if he groped for his pass I would feel obliged to select the revolting Spade bid. Pass is never an option here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gillp@bigpond.com Sat Aug 23 09:16:02 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:16:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <016f01c3694e$d5a2fce0$98c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Steve Wright wrote: >Scoring : Teams, Vulnerability : None >Dealer : North > >As East you hold; > >S: KQ954 >H: T74 >D: 4 >C: KJ52 > >North East South West > You Partner > >Pass Pass 1D Pass after hesitation >Pass ? > >What are you logical options? 1S and Double. Double has the advantage that the diamond ruffs will be taken in the hand with the shorter trumps, and thus should ba accepted as a logical possible call IMO. Peter Gill Australia. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 23 08:51:01 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:51:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <001001c36979$9967c5a0$5d31e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > Law 81C6 is valid (meaning it has legal efficacy > or force - Merriam-Webster), whatever happens. > If a spectator draws attention to an irregularity in > violation of law 76, the TD is nonetheless > constrained by Law 81C6 to deal with that > irregularity, unless there is a minute from the > WBFLC to the effect that the words of Law 81C6 > do not mean what they literally say. I have looked > for such a minute. I found that in Paris on 28 Oct 2001, > the question was referred to the Laws Review > Subcommittee. I found no subsequent report back > from that subcommittee on the question. While I > did not find minutes from 2002, at the moment I can > only see that Law 81C6 still applies. Have I missed > something? > ---------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > We may not like it, but when the laws tell us what > to do, who are we to decide to do something else? > +=+ In the post of which these statements are part Ed hits the nail squarely on its head. The drafting subcommittee will not issue anything in isolation on a subject referred to it; it is compiling a fresh Code of laws for 2005/06/07 and, apart from consulting bodies affiliated to the WBF, it will not be publishing anything until it presents its proposals to the WBF Executive. Having referred the subject to the review body the WBFLC itself will not be issuing any further thoughts, and has not done so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 23 08:54:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:54:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> <001601c367da$33b5f4c0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> <006d01c36823$e7b70060$9c54e150@endicott> <009e01c368a8$308c4780$4e053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <001101c36979$9a399490$5d31e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > > > > * In the Netherlands the court may not use > illegally gained information. * In the Netherlands > football players can be punished afterwards in > case the referee did not, but television pictures > show the violence. Only a few matches are > transmitted and mostly incomplete. > > Please do not mention that speed-control and > football has no relation with bridge; that kills > the discussion. > +=+ More than two members of the Laws drafting subcommittee will be aware of some of what has been said here. Blml has been discussing the law as it is, with glances at the future: we will have to wait and see what the law will be. I have culled some of the thinking for inclusion in the papers for the subcommittee. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 23 10:57:52 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:57:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <004801c3690a$e4beba00$399868d5@default> Message-ID: <001201c36979$9b497df0$5d31e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > [Apologies to Nancy L. Dressing -- I meant my > reply for BLML] > > Following in Ed's footsteps, I have appended some > relevant laws and minutes below. I admit to being > pleasantly surprised. > > Laws 11 and 76 talk about what spectators *may/may > not* do; also TDs have limited jursidiction over > spectators, so they do not have anything like the > force of 816c which addresses the TD's *duties* > -- what he *must* do. > > The minutes may as well have stayed in Richard's > locked box in the room labelled "Beware of the > Tiger" -- they imply only vague intentions to look > into the law on this matter. > > Any TD who turns a blind eye to law-breaking or a > deaf ear to a kibitzer's report of an irregularity > [or even delays in the hope that the OS may have > time to cover up the offence] is in clear > dereliction of duty. > > Perhaps a responsible director should also make > it clear from the start that he is open to reports > of irregularities from kibitzers, so that they have > no inhibitions or need to wait for a request to > report transgressions to him. This should reduce > chat about irregularities among kibitzers that > could get back to the players. This is especially > important when players like Zia attract hoards of > partisan kibitzers. > > Are there any sanctions for TDs who deliberately > flout the law in this or other matters? > > [TFLB 1997 L11] > The right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited > if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a > spectator for whose presence at the table [either] > side is responsible. > > [TFLB 1997 L76 B] > A spectator may not call attention to any > irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any > question of fact or law except by request > of the Director. > > [TFLB 1997 L76 B] > [Director's duties and powers normally > include the following...] > ...to rectify an error or irregularity of > which he becomes aware in any manner, > within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C. > > [28-Oct-1901 WBFLC Minutes Paris 11] > The Chairman felt that a spectator was only > a spectator when observing the play and > that he ceased to be a spectator when he > was no longer doing so. Other members of > the committee were of the opinion that a > spectator had responsibilities that continued > after he was no longer observing the play. > (The Secretary had drawn attention to > the regulation in force at the current > Championships.) It was suggested "spectators > should not count" - i.e. that they should not > be involved actively in a tournament. Mr. > Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a > spectator draws attention to an irregularity > there should be an adjustment for one side > only so that a score may be reduced but no > trick awarded to a side in a manner to > increase its score. The subject was remitted > for the consideration of the Laws Review > Subcommittee. > +=+ To the above the following may be added: [Current WBF General Conditions of Contest] "An individual who observes an irregularity when a spectator is subject to the inhibition in Law 76B until a ruling on the board may no longer be sought. 'Representatives' are spectators, as also are other non-participants observing the play." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 23 16:23:00 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:23:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <004801c3690a$e4beba00$399868d5@default> Message-ID: <003301c3698a$7bc95020$1c9468d5@default> [Sorry this is a repeat of an earlier email correcting typos -- Apologies to Nancy T. Dressing] Following in Ed's footsteps, I have appended some relevant laws and minutes below. I admit to being pleasantly surprised. TDs have limited jursidiction over spectators; Laws 11 and 76 talk about what spectators *may/may not* do; so the do not have anything like the force of 816c which addresses the TD's *duties* -- what he *must* do. The minutes may as well have stayed in Richard's locked box in the room labelled "Beware of the Tiger" -- they imply only vague intentions to look into the law on this matter. Any TD who turns a blind eye to law-breaking or a deaf ear to a kibitzer's report of an irregularity [or even delays in the hope that the OS may have time to cover up the offence] is in clear dereliction of duty. Perhaps a conscientious and responsible director should also make it clear from the start that he is open to reports of irregularities from kibitzers, so that they have no inhibitions or need to wait for a request to report transgressions to him. This should reduce chat about irregularities among kibitzers that could get back to the players. This is especially important when players like Zia attract hoards of partisan kibitzers. Are there any sanctions for TDs who deliberately flout the law in this or other matters? [TFLB 1997 L11] The right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table [either] side is responsible. [TFLB 1997 L76 B] A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. [TFLB 1997 L816 C] [Director's duties and powers normally include the following...] ...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [28-Oct-2001 WBFLC Minutes Paris 11] The Chairman felt that a spectator was only a spectator when observing the play and that he ceased to be a spectator when he was no longer doing so. Other members of the committee were of the opinion that a spectator had responsibilities that continued after he was no longer observing the play. (The Secretary had drawn attention to the regulation in force at the current Championships.) It was suggested "spectators should not count" - i.e. that they should not be involved actively in a tournament. Mr. Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a spectator draws attention to an irregularity there should be an adjustment for one side only so that a score may be reduced but no trick awarded to a side in a manner to increase its score. The subject was remitted for the consideration of the Laws Review Subcommittee. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 23 17:02:25 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:02:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <004801c3690a$e4beba00$399868d5@default> <001201c36979$9b497df0$5d31e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003d01c3698f$fa301200$1c9468d5@default> [Grattan] +=+ To the above the following may be added: [Current WBF General Conditions of Contest] "An individual who observes an irregularity when a spectator is subject to the inhibition in Law 76B until a ruling on the board may no longer be sought. 'Representatives' are spectators, as also are other non-participants observing the play." [Nigel] Law 816c says that reports of irregularities from spectators [whether solicited or not] must be investigated. As this WBF minute underlines, spectators are likely to be partisan, so the conscientious TD should investigate such reports urgently to try to establish the facts for himself, rather than attempt to reconstruct the incident from the unreliable memories of players and kibitzers. Law 76b says spectators may report irregularities to the TD, if he so requests. I presume that a conscientious TD would issue a blanket invitation for reports of irregularity from any source, before a competition starts. I suppose that this should be part of the published rules and conditions. IMO, the law is also right to prevent partisan spectators from telling players about infractions. Is there already some law to the effect that players should not to listen to spectators or be influenced by what they say? Admittedly spectator reports are haphazard but the alternative to 816c is more victims of law- breaking. Protecting offenders should be low in the list of priorities for law-makers. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Aug 23 17:54:37 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:54:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <001001c36979$9967c5a0$5d31e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001301c36997$3e95f8e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" >The drafting > subcommittee will not issue anything in isolation > on a subject referred to it; it is compiling a fresh > Code of laws for 2005/06/07 and, apart from > consulting bodies affiliated to the WBF, it will not > be publishing anything until it presents its proposals > to the WBF Executive. > Having referred the subject to the review body > the WBFLC itself will not be issuing any further > thoughts, and has not done so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The only solictation in ACBL-land that I know of for suggestions in regard to changing the Laws was issued to ACBLLC members, informally, by Ralph Cohen, at a meeting I attended. There was no mechanism established for gathering, documenting, evaluating, and voting on changes to be submitted to the WBF by the ACBL. The ACBLLC evidently feels that there is no need for considering the opinions of others. Perhaps some BoD members not on the LCs may have had an input, but I doubt it. So "consulting bodies" are the only ones privy to the proposed changes. So much for the principle of open discussion. What are these people afraid of, that everything must be done in secret? Ah well, maybe something good will come out of it. At least there are some capable people involved in the process. I hope that includes a bridge-savvy wordsmith who can write plain English. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nancy@dressing.org Sat Aug 23 19:27:10 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:27:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <004801c3690a$e4beba00$399868d5@default> <003301c3698a$7bc95020$1c9468d5@default> Message-ID: <001c01c369a4$2af506c0$6501a8c0@hare> Law 81 C6 refers to Law 79 which relates to scoring errors and the time frame related to time allowed for scoring errors. Has there been any discussion as to the time frame which is allowed for making these corrections when the director is notified perhaps one or two rounds after the occurrence? Am I incorrect in thinking that a revoke cannot be corrected after the hands are out of the boards for the next board or is it the beginning of the next round? Should I, as the caller of the Viewgraph and spotted a revoke, have notified the director when even the narrators of the show did not mention it???? We will allow a spectator to point out an irregularity to a director but we will not allow the dummy to do the same thing unless some other *player* notices it when the dummy is a player in the game!! If dummy calls, the penalty can be suspended. Something is wrong here. I believe that a spectator who suspects intentional irregularities (or cheating) is obligated to point this out discreetly to a director and the director should follow this up but I do not believe that a spectator should be allowed to point out problems to the director. The director can ask a spectator for information if needed but play matters should be left to the players. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > [Sorry this is a repeat of an earlier email > correcting typos -- Apologies to Nancy T. Dressing] > > Following in Ed's footsteps, I have appended some > relevant laws and minutes below. I admit to being > pleasantly surprised. > > TDs have limited jursidiction over spectators; > Laws 11 and 76 talk about what spectators *may/may > not* do; so the do not have anything like the > force of 816c which addresses the TD's *duties* > -- what he *must* do. > > The minutes may as well have stayed in Richard's > locked box in the room labelled "Beware of the > Tiger" -- they imply only vague intentions to look > into the law on this matter. > > Any TD who turns a blind eye to law-breaking or a > deaf ear to a kibitzer's report of an irregularity > [or even delays in the hope that the OS may have > time to cover up the offence] is in clear > dereliction of duty. > > Perhaps a conscientious and responsible director > should also make it clear from the start that he > is open to reports of irregularities from kibitzers, > so that they have no inhibitions or need to wait > for a request to report transgressions to him. > This should reduce chat about irregularities among > kibitzers that could get back to the players. This > is especially important when players like Zia attract > hoards of partisan kibitzers. > > Are there any sanctions for TDs who deliberately > flout the law in this or other matters? > > [TFLB 1997 L11] > The right to correct an irregularity may be > forfeited if attention is first drawn to the > irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at > the table [either] side is responsible. > > [TFLB 1997 L76 B] > A spectator may not call attention to any > irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any > question of fact or law except by request > of the Director. > > [TFLB 1997 L816 C] > [Director's duties and powers normally > include the following...] > ...to rectify an error or irregularity of > which he becomes aware in any manner, > within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C. > > [28-Oct-2001 WBFLC Minutes Paris 11] > The Chairman felt that a spectator was only > a spectator when observing the play and > that he ceased to be a spectator when he > was no longer doing so. Other members of > the committee were of the opinion that a > spectator had responsibilities that continued > after he was no longer observing the play. > (The Secretary had drawn attention to > the regulation in force at the current > Championships.) It was suggested "spectators > should not count" - i.e. that they should not > be involved actively in a tournament. Mr. > Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a > spectator draws attention to an irregularity > there should be an adjustment for one side > only so that a score may be reduced but no > trick awarded to a side in a manner to > increase its score. The subject was remitted > for the consideration of the Laws Review > Subcommittee. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Aug 23 21:26:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:26:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001201c36979$9b497df0$5d31e150@endicott> Message-ID: <1DEE8036-D5A8-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 05:57 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ To the above the following may be added: > > [Current WBF General Conditions of Contest] [snip] Aha! I should have thought to look there, and did not. But then a regulation made by an SO doesn't have the same force (to me, anyway) as a pronouncement from the WBFLC, where the meaning of the laws is concerned. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 24 00:11:34 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:11:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <008901c369cb$eb3e1da0$1c9468d5@default> Ed, Thank you for indicating what the relevant law really is. Until your email I had got it completely wrong. My misunderstanding was that the law enjoined the TD to *ignore* the evidence of his own eyes and reports from public- spirited kibitzers. I am delighted I was wrong! [Ed] Why would you presume that... [a conscientious TD would issue a blanket invitation for reports of irregularity from any source, before a competition starts as part of the published rules and conditions] ... "I am only an egg," as the Martian said, but I've never heard of such a thing being done. [Nigel] Nor I. More's the pity. There are two arguments against encouraging specatators to report irregularities... (i) Protecting the field. If you break a law, you may feel aggrieved when a kibitzer notices it, because at other kilbitzerless tables the same transgression may go unnoticed without restitution. This is an argument from equity [in the dictionary sense] and it should be an important consideration; [although in all other cases where a player has raised the issue of protecting the field, the suggestion has been derided by TDs and law-makers]. Unfortunately, protecting the field must be secondary to the enjoyment of all and to the protection the victims of law-breaking] (ii) It makes more work for the busy TD. Thanks again for opening my eyes, Ed! From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 24 00:26:13 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:26:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a101c369cd$f68f3b60$1c9468d5@default> [Ed] As I suspect [that protecting offenders] is [low in the list of priorities for law-makers], has been, and shall continue to be. [Nigel] I am sure that you are right, as far as most law-makers are concerned, becuse they ought to have given the matter some thought; but I fear from reading other contributions to this topic that some BLMLers advocate a *three wise monkeys* approach to irregularities. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 24 01:24:39 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:24:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> When I asked "Is there already some law to the effect that players should not to listen to spectators or be influenced by what they say? Ed Reppert replied "Law 16B, I should think" Thank you Ed: I have appended 16B below; but it prompts a further question... A specatator "may not" inform a player that "LHO revoked to the last trick" but if he does then the infraction is the kibitzer's not the player's. Is it really unauthorised information for the player, according to law 16B? and if so, why? Presumably, the player could arrive at the kibitzer's conclusion about the revoke, independently. Had the player drawn attention to the revoke, before the kibitzer spoke, the penalty would have been two tricks (say). After the unsolicited warning about the revoke, the player should call the TD. IMO the TD should rule as if the information were authorized. How would you rule? [TFLB 1997 16B] When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information... From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 24 04:56:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:56:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> Message-ID: On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 20:24 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Thank you Ed: I have appended 16B below; but it > prompts a further question... > > A specatator "may not" inform a player that "LHO revoked > to the last trick" but if he does then the infraction > is the kibitzer's not the player's. Is it really > unauthorised information for the player, according to > law 16B? and if so, why? At the top of Law 16 are these two sentences: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." The information that an opponent revoked did not come from a legal call or play or from a mannerism of an opponent - it came from a kibitzer. So it's not authorized. > Presumably, the player could arrive at the kibitzer's > conclusion about the revoke, independently. Certainly, but that's not relevant. > Had the player drawn attention to the revoke, before the > kibitzer spoke, the penalty would have been two > tricks (say). After the unsolicited warning about the > revoke, the player should call the TD. IMO the TD > should rule as if the information were authorized. > How would you rule? The kibitzer's infraction is independent of the revoker's infraction. I would rule on the revoke IAW laws 62-64. As for the kibitzer, as I understand the law, there's not much I can do other than ban him from the playing area. However, ISTR seeing Conditions of Contest somewhere that address kibitzers for whom one side or the other is "responsible". Such regulations might, I suppose, allow for procedural penalties against the "responsible" side. Although I wonder if such a regulation would be "in accordance with these laws". From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 23 23:41:14 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:41:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000701c3670e$ec412040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001701c3674c$5051a810$6f47e150@endicott> <001601c367da$33b5f4c0$17053dd4@m1q9j9> <006d01c36823$e7b70060$9c54e150@endicott> <009e01c368a8$308c4780$4e053dd4@m1q9j9> <004a01c368f8$fc95f510$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000c01c36a03$a9973110$8e17e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > As a > director, I feel that when I sit down to watch > play at a table, I wear my spectator hat. If that > is not the case, and I can rule on irregularities > that I see and the players don't, I have two > problems. < +=+ Where I have had involvement in Director training it has been specifically advised that Directors should not watch at a table because of the problems it can create for the Director who does so. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 24 07:28:20 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:28:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <000501c369ab$13dbc580$e110e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002001c36a0c$3ce50660$625787d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > Grattan has indicated his sentiment that > > spectators should not be involved in "type 4" > > situations, but I don't see how it is possible > > to prevent it. < +=+ 1. The sentiment is not personal to me; it is a WBF stance. 2. Knowing their responsibilities spectators may be expected to restrain themselves from breaking the law. We don't have to 'prevent' it, but only to take action when a spectator is found to have broken the law. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 24 07:33:23 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:33:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <1DEE8036-D5A8-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002101c36a0c$3e5deac0$625787d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 05:57 US/Eastern, > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ To the above the following may be added: > > > > [Current WBF General Conditions of Contest] > > [snip] > > Aha! I should have thought to look there, and > did not. But then a regulation made by an SO > doesn't have the same force (to me, anyway) as > a pronouncement from the WBFLC, where the > meaning of the laws is concerned. > +=+ I did not intend the quote as interpretation of law but rather as illustration of WBF attitude.+=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 24 07:50:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:50:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> Message-ID: <002201c36a0c$3f82e2c0$625787d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > A specatator "may not" inform a player that > "LHO revoked to the last trick" but if he does > then the infraction is the kibitzer's not the > player's. Is it really unauthorised information > for the player, according to law 16B? and if so, > why? > +=+ Much of what Nigel has written on this thread , and he has written much, seems to betray a basic misunderstanding of the status of any spectators. They are 'not present'; their existence is external to the game; they have no standing (except as witnesses if and when the Director in his discretion asks them to speak), because they are not participants in the tournament. The game is for the players, not for the spectators. Any information received by a player from a spectator comes from an extraneous source. If a spectator gives information about an irregularity he breaks the law; the player who receives the information is in receipt of Extraneous Information to which Law 16B applies (or Law 11 if one side is responsible for the presence of the spectator). ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 24 08:20:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:20:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <002101c36a0c$3e5deac0$625787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <764E1B12-D603-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 02:33 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > [Ed Reppert wrote] >> Aha! I should have thought to look there, and >> did not. But then a regulation made by an SO >> doesn't have the same force (to me, anyway) as >> a pronouncement from the WBFLC, where the >> meaning of the laws is concerned. >> > +=+ I did not intend the quote as interpretation > of law but rather as illustration of WBF attitude.+=+ Sorry, Grattan. I guess the above is unclear. I was trying to say that I did not look there *because* I was looking for interpretation of law. I understood that you did not intend the quote as such. From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 24 08:50:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:50:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <002201c36a0c$3f82e2c0$625787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000001c36a14$5e475850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval ......... > Any information received by a player from a > spectator comes from an extraneous source. If > a spectator gives information about an irregularity > he breaks the law; the player who receives the > information is in receipt of Extraneous Information > to which Law 16B applies (or Law 11 if one side > is responsible for the presence of the spectator). > ~ G ~ +=3D+ I might add that in Norway we have specific interpretations on what it = takes to be "responsible". If the spectator should be assumed to have more interest in one rather = than the other pair at the table and this interest is caused for instance = from living in the same area we consider such responsibility to exist.=20 In an international competition we would probably consider a Norwegian = pair playing against a non-Norwegian pair to be "responsible" for any = Norwegian spectator watching the table. Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Aug 24 09:11:52 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:11:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <000501c369ab$13dbc580$e110e150@endicott> <002001c36a0c$3ce50660$625787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002501c36a17$723bf570$e1ebf1c3@LNV> > > > Grattan has indicated his sentiment that > > > spectators should not be involved in "type 4" > > > situations, but I don't see how it is possible > > > to prevent it. > < > +=+ 1. The sentiment is not personal to me; it is > a WBF stance. > 2. Knowing their responsibilities spectators > may be expected to restrain themselves from > breaking the law. We don't have to 'prevent' it, > but only to take action when a spectator is found > to have broken the law. > ~ G ~ +=+ Which law? It might be better to use 'regulations' here. My definition of spectator, consonant with my interpretation of L11 and L76, is such that a person is only qualifying for it when watching play at a table. The way L76 is written seems to support that view. It describes his demanded conduct at the bridge table. It seems also clear that people watching a table in the vu graph including the commentators are not deemed to be spectators, otherwise they would offend the laws continuously. ton From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Aug 24 10:50:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:50:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: <002101c368ab$e5a380e0$739868d5@default> References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> <3F45B6F4.70100@hdw.be> <002101c368ab$e5a380e0$739868d5@default> Message-ID: <3F488A76.5040607@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, just a few small remarks. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman] > Sorry Nigel, that was absolutely NOT > the case I thought you were talking of. > > [Nigel] > In earlier posts, I didn't refer to such > cases specifically; but unfortunately they > are part of the underlying scenario. > I know they are - but we were talking of something else "the I don't know issue". > I was delighted when you said that my views > accorded with DWS because I hoped that would > increase the pressure for more sensible laws. > I fail to see why you should equate DWS with "sensible". Sometimes even DWS may be wrong. When I disagree with DWS, you can be certain of just one thing - the issue is not easy. > My euphoria subsided as I recalled earlier > discussions and was further diminished by > your latest email confirming our differences. > > At least we agree that the law on disclosure > should be simpler and clearer and that you > should guess rather than claim "Don't Know". > Well, my point of view is that "don't know" is MI. "no agreement" can be correct information, although in general incomplete. > Where we differ is that you would guess what > partner *intends* whereas I would guess "what > *I* would mean by the bid". > Well, we can never know what partner intends. In the sense that we are supposed to be playing the same system, my guess as to what partner intended and my guess as to what I would take it to mean should give the same outcome. > [Herman] > I assume that your answer, Nigel, is to alert > 3Di and explain it as transfer. Next you will > bid 3He, your partner will retreat to 3NT, the > TD will assume this is based on UI, and adjust > your +600 to -500 for 3He undoubled -5. > > [Nigel] > Something like that except that presumably > partner will alert 3H as a cuebid agreeing > diamonds; so he probably won't pass. I > suppose we may end up in a red suit grand > redoubled and four or five down. Our best > chance of escape is impatient opponents who > start doubling prematurely. > No, partner will not alert 3He as a cuebid, since he will take it as the completion of a transfer. In the simple case where he intended 3Di as a transfer, of course. > [Herman] > At my table, I won't alert, my partner will > assume 2NT was 19-21, explain that to the TD, > correct 3He to 3NT and I will score +600. The > TD will check for MI, find that the opponents > are not damaged and leave the score. (or find > that they are damaged and change the score > to 4SpX-2, still +500 to me). > > [Nigel] > Good luck, Herman. Although as TD, I'd impose > a PP for failing to alert 3D (at least). > Why would you give me a PP for correctly explaining partner's intentions? > [Herman] > Which is my point: I have broken no more or > fewer laws than you (although I have broken > other ones, as sadly we are not in any > position to leave not a single law unbroken) > and I have ended up, after the TD intervention, > with +500, you with -500. > > But as we already said, it is unlikely that the > whole world shall ever agree with this one. > > [Nigel] > As I argued before one problem with your > interpretation is when partner's alert was a > mistake -- he hasn't really forgotten the > system at all. Now your deliberate mis- > explanations of *his* calls not only deceive > opponents but also pose unnecessary ethical > problems for partner. > Don't go clouding the issue, Nigel. When partner alerts, he has explained it as non-natural. No-one is going to ask me what the replly means without first asking for the first call. If partner then explains my call correctly, so can I. > "Oh! what a tangled web..." > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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@hdw.be Sun Aug 24 10:57:39 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:57:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F488C13.3030903@hdw.be> Karel wrote: > > Just on alerting undiscussed sequences. Take this one form Menton > > Pd RHO Me LHO > P(1) 1NT 2C(2) P > 2D(3) P 2H(4) 2S > 3C(5) P ?? > > (1) We open any 11 count and various 5/4 hands etc so we can "normally" > depending on vul etc preclude these hand types. > (2) Diamonds or M/m 5/4+ > (3) Relay > (4) H's & a minor > (5) Undiscussed. > > I alerted the 3C bid (as I felt it could be conventional and unlikely to be > natural) and when asked said it was undiscussed. Why hadn't pd bid 2NT to > say pick a minor?? 2NT was hardly natural or was it ?? Could 3C's be > natural?? I was very unlikely as with a 6 card club suit we may have > pre-empted. I went into my box and concluded that pd was 4/4 in the minors > with 2/3 hearts. I passed. LHO again asked for the meaning of 3C's and I > said no agreement but my best guess and I stressed guess was 4/4 minors 2/3 > hearts. As it turned out this was exactly what pd had. > > Now we were using screens so there was very little UI etc ... but assuming > no screens I don't see the problem with saying no agreement or undiscussed > and IF an opp wants my best guess then fair enough. At least (1) the opps > know there is an element of doubt in our auction and are not under the > illusion that we definitely know what we are doing which we don't (2) they > have my best guess (if they want it) as to what the bid means and can act > accordingly I would have added that 2NT ought to have been "tell me the minor". (3) pd hearing my explanation (maybe I should have asked him to > leave and explain my guess to the opps) or at the least knowing I'm in doubt > to the meaning of the bid will have to do his best to bid on without using > this UI. At least the opps on this scenario are undamaged. > > > Alerting the bid giving a guessed meaning to that bid hurts everyone. Pd is > either happy and smug you guessed correctly (and in receipt of UI) or > tearful as the wheels seem to be comming off (once agin has UI). But on top > of that the Opps are now damaged. They are ignorant that their bidding is > now based on a guess. The only advantage to this approach is if you guess > right. > Well, I don't agree. Your opponents have no idea about the backgrounds of your system. They need that. You have to tell them what 2NT would have meant, what a direct 3Cl would have meant, and everything else that you use in order to guess at the meaning of partner's bid. They have that right. If you do this correctly, then the logical conclusion is the one that you gave. So why not give them that straight away? Anyway, if it turns out not to be this, then all your extra info is only helpful in convincing the TD that you did your best and that partner's bid may have been mistaken. But as far as the MI is concerned, it's just the same case as if you had simple answered "pass or correct". > K. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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@hdw.be Sun Aug 24 11:02:43 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:02:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Gierle pub drive. Message-ID: <3F488D43.2090800@hdw.be> Don't try to pronounce Gierle if you are not from that particular area, even I cannot. In Pub drives, you meet all sorts of things. I was holding KQ94 of spades against 4Spades, behind dummy with Jxxx. I had decided not to double, but any way declarer played a small trump to her 8, winning an unlikely finesse. Next board that same LHO leads a heart against my partner's 4He, out of turn. Partner elects to demand a heart lead. "I don't have any" says RHO. Two tricks later my partner leads a heart to her seven. "If you can finesse an eight, I can finesse a seven", she says. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Aug 24 14:54:54 2003 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:54:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030812171010.0246c320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c36a47$4cf08800$294726cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Sorry this reply is so late.... And in Aus, if you did that, you would lose the hand to the opponents... [I didn't say I liked the rules here...] regards, Noel and/or Pamela -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:13 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Double alertable or not ?? At 23:38 12/08/2003 +1000, Noel and Pamela wrote: >Then you say in Aus, when you sit down, as a pre-alert, "most of our >doubles are not standard, we cannot alert them, but you should ask". AG : and when there is some standard or semi-standard double, they ask, I reply, and might transmit UI. The whole idea behind not alerting doubles goes away. Not good. I'll stick to my idea of alerting very special doubles, thank you. BTW, one of my partners has a habit of alerting very special doubles, apologizing for doing it, and saying "this is very uncommon, so I feel compelled". Nobody has objected up to now. Best regards, Alain. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sun Aug 24 14:41:46 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:41:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <010d01c36a51$aba1aaa0$5a053dd4@m1q9j9> > > Please do not mention that speed-control and football has no relation > > with > > bridge; that kills the discussion. > > For you, perhaps. For me, the discussion is about bridge, and invalid > analogies to other things add nothing to it. > Having said that: > > I understand your point, but I mentioned it as an exemple. In other circumstances, also in football, people are frequently treated unequally. If it is common in the society why could it not be accepted in bridge? Is bridge so special? The best contestant should win the contest; not the pair that made an unwanted and undetected irregularity. Is not it what we wanted? Ben From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sun Aug 24 16:06:36 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:06:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: Message-ID: <010e01c36a51$ac405ba0$5a053dd4@m1q9j9> > > > Otherwise it is conflicting? Is not it one or other? > > I'm not sure I understand these questions, but I'll take a stab: yes, > it appears to be the intent of Law 76 that the TD not become aware of > an irregularity via a spectator. Nonetheless, Law 81C6 (nor any other > law, as far as I can see) provides exception when this happens to the > requirement for the TD to rectify the irregularity. > > > If the information received is legal, the TD acts. If the information > > received is illegal, he does not act. > > And by not acting, violates Law 81C6. I do not think this can be right. > > It is one or other; I hope I express myself correctly. Legal information leads into acting, Illegal information cannot lead into acting. My problem is: The spectator noticed an irregularity: that is legal, the spectator informs the TD privately: that is illegal, (It can be another source: TD himself, monitor, vuegraphe, intercom, etc.) the TD should not know and thus act because it is an unequal treatment to the players, (he should only be informed by the players and then act) Law81C6 says the TD MUST act. In my view it is inconsequent to follow an illegal information and besides that it is un unequal treatment. Do we believe that players, or non-bridgers, will understand that? The consequence of "in any manner" is that there is never a bit of illegal information. In the above I take it that the spectator has informed the TD privately and not acted publicly as maybe is meant in Laws 11B and 76B. If I understand Grattan correctly it is not getting time that the Laws Review Subcommitte (28 october 2001) takes a clear stand on this issue: we have to wait until 2005/2006/2007. For the time being it is obvious that a TD has to use his own interpretation supported by the discussion on BLML So be it. Ben From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 24 16:45:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:45:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <010e01c36a51$ac405ba0$5a053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000401c36a56$c80ad270$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen .......... > My problem is: > The spectator noticed an irregularity: that is legal, > the spectator informs the TD privately: that is illegal,=20 This is where I drop off: Whatever kind of information is passed = privately to the Director can never be illegal information; and the Director must always be allowed, and in certain cases required to act upon such information as he feels appropriate. > (It can be another source: TD himself, monitor, vuegraphe, intercom, = etc.) > the TD should not know and thus act because it is an unequal treatment = to > the players, > (he should only be informed by the players and then act) > Law81C6 says the TD MUST act.=20 But the action by the Director shall in many cases be subject to the provisions in for instance Laws 11B and/or 76. >=20 > In my view it is inconsequent to follow an illegal information and = besides > that it is un unequal treatment. > Do we believe that players, or non-bridgers, will understand that? >=20 > The consequence of "in any manner" is that there is never a bit of = illegal > information. >=20 > In the above I take it that the spectator has informed the TD = privately > and > not acted publicly as maybe > is meant in Laws 11B and 76B. >=20 > If I understand Grattan correctly it is not getting time that the Laws > Review Subcommitte (28 october 2001) takes > a clear stand on this issue: we have to wait until 2005/2006/2007. > For the time being it is obvious that a TD has to use his own > interpretation > supported by the discussion on BLML > So be it. Frankly I see no problem when we stop twisting the laws for whatever interpretation we desire and start using our intelligence.=20 Let me just take one example: In a recent championship a spectator = privately informed me that he believed there must be something wrong with the = boards; he had noticed that is seemed as if the supposedly same board were = played in different shape at two separate tables. A quick and quiet investigation revealed that indeed at one of the = tables they were playing boards destined for a later round (well, errors do happen!) and because of the alert from that spectator we were able to quickly make new deals, duplicate and replace the boards that had been compromised with new boards across the whole room so that no damage was caused for those next rounds. (It "only" meant replacing some 400 = boards. We managed without delaying the event! But true, we became a bit sweat)=20 Does anybody seriously suggest that because of Law 76 we acted illegally upon the notification by that spectator? Sven=20 From nancy@dressing.org Sun Aug 24 19:59:44 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:59:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000401c36a56$c80ad270$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001f01c36a71$e19e9120$6501a8c0@hare> Of course not. That was a mechanical error and should have been quickly pointed out by who ever discovered it!!! I think this thread is about play and player errors, spectators, and directors obligations. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > Ben Schelen > .......... > > My problem is: > > The spectator noticed an irregularity: that is legal, > > the spectator informs the TD privately: that is illegal, > > This is where I drop off: Whatever kind of information is passed privately > to the Director can never be illegal information; and the Director must > always be allowed, and in certain cases required to act upon such > information as he feels appropriate. > > > (It can be another source: TD himself, monitor, vuegraphe, intercom, etc.) > > the TD should not know and thus act because it is an unequal treatment to > > the players, > > (he should only be informed by the players and then act) > > Law81C6 says the TD MUST act. > > But the action by the Director shall in many cases be subject to the > provisions in for instance Laws 11B and/or 76. > > > > > In my view it is inconsequent to follow an illegal information and besides > > that it is un unequal treatment. > > Do we believe that players, or non-bridgers, will understand that? > > > > The consequence of "in any manner" is that there is never a bit of illegal > > information. > > > > In the above I take it that the spectator has informed the TD privately > > and > > not acted publicly as maybe > > is meant in Laws 11B and 76B. > > > > If I understand Grattan correctly it is not getting time that the Laws > > Review Subcommitte (28 october 2001) takes > > a clear stand on this issue: we have to wait until 2005/2006/2007. > > For the time being it is obvious that a TD has to use his own > > interpretation > > supported by the discussion on BLML > > So be it. > > Frankly I see no problem when we stop twisting the laws for whatever > interpretation we desire and start using our intelligence. > > Let me just take one example: In a recent championship a spectator privately > informed me that he believed there must be something wrong with the boards; > he had noticed that is seemed as if the supposedly same board were played in > different shape at two separate tables. > > A quick and quiet investigation revealed that indeed at one of the tables > they were playing boards destined for a later round (well, errors do > happen!) and because of the alert from that spectator we were able to > quickly make new deals, duplicate and replace the boards that had been > compromised with new boards across the whole room so that no damage was > caused for those next rounds. (It "only" meant replacing some 400 boards. We > managed without delaying the event! But true, we became a bit sweat) > > Does anybody seriously suggest that because of Law 76 we acted illegally > upon the notification by that spectator? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 24 20:17:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:17:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001f01c36a71$e19e9120$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000501c36a74$4ffd8070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry Nancy, not so fast. It was a regular violation of Law 15. And note that the spectator correctly did not in any way indicate to the players = that something seemed to be wrong; he left that for the Directors. But for the question of whether the spectator might tell a Director or = not: How should any spectator be able to know whether there was an error to = which his alarm would be welcome or would be a violation of Law 11 and/or Law = 76? Do you for instance believe that a spectator noticing that the players = are about to take cards from the wrong pockets (i.e. North from East, East = from South and so on round the table) is allowed to make any alarm to prevent that error? He is not, that would be a direct violation of law 76. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy T Dressing [mailto:nancy@dressing.org] > Sent: 24. august 2003 21:00 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal >=20 > Of course not. That was a mechanical error and should have been = quickly > pointed out by who ever discovered it!!! I think this thread is about > play > and player errors, spectators, and directors obligations. >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 11:45 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal >=20 >=20 > > Ben Schelen > > .......... > > > My problem is: > > > The spectator noticed an irregularity: that is legal, > > > the spectator informs the TD privately: that is illegal, > > > > This is where I drop off: Whatever kind of information is passed > privately > > to the Director can never be illegal information; and the Director = must > > always be allowed, and in certain cases required to act upon such > > information as he feels appropriate. > > > > > (It can be another source: TD himself, monitor, vuegraphe, = intercom, > etc.) > > > the TD should not know and thus act because it is an unequal = treatment > to > > > the players, > > > (he should only be informed by the players and then act) > > > Law81C6 says the TD MUST act. > > > > But the action by the Director shall in many cases be subject to the > > provisions in for instance Laws 11B and/or 76. > > > > > > > > In my view it is inconsequent to follow an illegal information and > besides > > > that it is un unequal treatment. > > > Do we believe that players, or non-bridgers, will understand that? > > > > > > The consequence of "in any manner" is that there is never a bit of > illegal > > > information. > > > > > > In the above I take it that the spectator has informed the TD > privately > > > and > > > not acted publicly as maybe > > > is meant in Laws 11B and 76B. > > > > > > If I understand Grattan correctly it is not getting time that the = Laws > > > Review Subcommitte (28 october 2001) takes > > > a clear stand on this issue: we have to wait until 2005/2006/2007. > > > For the time being it is obvious that a TD has to use his own > > > interpretation > > > supported by the discussion on BLML > > > So be it. > > > > Frankly I see no problem when we stop twisting the laws for whatever > > interpretation we desire and start using our intelligence. > > > > Let me just take one example: In a recent championship a spectator > privately > > informed me that he believed there must be something wrong with the > boards; > > he had noticed that is seemed as if the supposedly same board were > played > in > > different shape at two separate tables. > > > > A quick and quiet investigation revealed that indeed at one of the > tables > > they were playing boards destined for a later round (well, errors do > > happen!) and because of the alert from that spectator we were able = to > > quickly make new deals, duplicate and replace the boards that had = been > > compromised with new boards across the whole room so that no damage = was > > caused for those next rounds. (It "only" meant replacing some 400 > boards. > We > > managed without delaying the event! But true, we became a bit sweat) > > > > Does anybody seriously suggest that because of Law 76 we acted = illegally > > upon the notification by that spectator? > > > > Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 From nancy@dressing.org Sun Aug 24 21:12:10 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:12:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000501c36a74$4ffd8070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c36a7b$fff27fb0$6501a8c0@hare> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > Sorry Nancy, not so fast. It was a regular violation of Law 15. And note > that the spectator correctly did not in any way indicate to the players that > something seemed to be wrong; he left that for the Directors. Which I think he should! > But for the question of whether the spectator might tell a Director or not: > How should any spectator be able to know whether there was an error to which > his alarm would be welcome or would be a violation of Law 11 and/or Law 76? An average player probably would not be aware of the violation. But I can completely understand why he approached the director discreetly.. But what are you as director going to say to this person, who if watching the play closely could easily notice this error. The law 15 says"....the director discovers a contestant is playing a board not designated for him......". It does not address how the director obtains this information. I cannot believe that a director would ignore this info. > Do you for instance believe that a spectator noticing that the players are > about to take cards from the wrong pockets (i.e. North from East, East from > South and so on round the table) is allowed to make any alarm to prevent > that error? He is not, that would be a direct violation of law 76. Of course, he should not say a word and in this instance, it would be interesting to find out how everyone handles the situation 'cause we now have a fouled board and the after session corrections should be wild!!! (if it is noticed in the prescribed time re law 79 C) ;)) It all gets so complicated, sometimes it is hard just to enjoy the game!!! > Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nancy T Dressing [mailto:nancy@dressing.org] > > Sent: 24. august 2003 21:00 > > To: Sven Pran; blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > > > > Of course not. That was a mechanical error and should have been quickly > > pointed out by who ever discovered it!!! I think this thread is about > > play > > and player errors, spectators, and directors obligations. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 11:45 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > > > > > > > Ben Schelen > > > .......... > > > > My problem is: > > > > The spectator noticed an irregularity: that is legal, > > > > the spectator informs the TD privately: that is illegal, > > > > > > This is where I drop off: Whatever kind of information is passed > > privately > > > to the Director can never be illegal information; and the Director must > > > always be allowed, and in certain cases required to act upon such > > > information as he feels appropriate. > > > > > > > (It can be another source: TD himself, monitor, vuegraphe, intercom, > > etc.) > > > > the TD should not know and thus act because it is an unequal treatment > > to > > > > the players, > > > > (he should only be informed by the players and then act) > > > > Law81C6 says the TD MUST act. > > > > > > But the action by the Director shall in many cases be subject to the > > > provisions in for instance Laws 11B and/or 76. > > > > > > > > > > > In my view it is inconsequent to follow an illegal information and > > besides > > > > that it is un unequal treatment. > > > > Do we believe that players, or non-bridgers, will understand that? > > > > > > > > The consequence of "in any manner" is that there is never a bit of > > illegal > > > > information. > > > > > > > > In the above I take it that the spectator has informed the TD > > privately > > > > and > > > > not acted publicly as maybe > > > > is meant in Laws 11B and 76B. > > > > > > > > If I understand Grattan correctly it is not getting time that the Laws > > > > Review Subcommitte (28 october 2001) takes > > > > a clear stand on this issue: we have to wait until 2005/2006/2007. > > > > For the time being it is obvious that a TD has to use his own > > > > interpretation > > > > supported by the discussion on BLML > > > > So be it. > > > > > > Frankly I see no problem when we stop twisting the laws for whatever > > > interpretation we desire and start using our intelligence. > > > > > > Let me just take one example: In a recent championship a spectator > > privately > > > informed me that he believed there must be something wrong with the > > boards; > > > he had noticed that is seemed as if the supposedly same board were > > played > > in > > > different shape at two separate tables. > > > > > > A quick and quiet investigation revealed that indeed at one of the > > tables > > > they were playing boards destined for a later round (well, errors do > > > happen!) and because of the alert from that spectator we were able to > > > quickly make new deals, duplicate and replace the boards that had been > > > compromised with new boards across the whole room so that no damage was > > > caused for those next rounds. (It "only" meant replacing some 400 > > boards. > > We > > > managed without delaying the event! But true, we became a bit sweat) > > > > > > Does anybody seriously suggest that because of Law 76 we acted illegally > > > upon the notification by that spectator? > > > > > > 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 24 21:20:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:20:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal Message-ID: <006201c36a7d$41fa8820$349868d5@default> [Grattan] +=+ Much of what Nigel has written on this thread, and he has written much, seems to betray a basic misunderstanding of the status of any spectators. They are 'not present'; their existence is external to the game; they have no standing (except as witnesses if and when the Director in his discretion asks them to speak), because they are not participants in the tournament. The game is for the players, not for the spectators. [Nigel] I am told I misunderstand this law. Now that Ed has revealed it to me, I don't see where or how. In this case, the law is clear enough to speak for itself. I was just drawing some conclusions. It seems peculiar that the law 816c mandates the TD to act on information from somebody who, according to Grattan is not even present at the incident he claims to have seen. IMHO, if a spectator 'is present' then he 'is present'. Is Gratton anticipating the decision of the group delegated to consider this kind of question in Paris in 2001? [Grattan] ...If a spectator gives information about an irregularity he breaks the law;... [Nigel] Are you sure it is I who misunderstand the law below, Grattan? [TFLB 1997 L76 B] A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law *except by request of the Director*. [Nigel] In particular, I was talking about when the TD invites reports of infractions from kibitzers (An option, which the law specifically allows him) Final points, there are many questions about what the laws do or should say and they attract lots of replies but participants rarely seem to reach concensus, let alone a conclusion. Usually about half the relevant questions raised in the course of a topic receive no answer at all; especially the difficult ones. }: I suppose that is only to be expected :( From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 24 21:53:05 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:53:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Don't know References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> <3F45B6F4.70100@hdw.be> <002101c368ab$e5a380e0$739868d5@default> <3F488A76.5040607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <009201c36a81$eb5a6080$349868d5@default> [Herman] but we were talking of something else "the I don't know issue". [Nigel] IMO, DWS is a subset [Herman] I fail to see why you should equate DWS with "sensible". Sometimes even DWS may be wrong. When I disagree with DWS, you can be certain of just one thing - the issue is not easy. [Nigel] I did not say DWS is sensible. I am guilty of no such libel. I was just drawing attention to the similarities between our suggestions. I have drawn attention to the differences. [Herman] Well, my point of view is that "don't know" is MI. "no agreement" can be correct information, although in general incomplete. [Nigel] That is what the current law says. I was arguing for a change to "always guess". [Herman] Well, we can never know what partner intends. In the sense that we are supposed to be playing the same system, my guess as to what partner intended and my guess as to what I would take it to mean should give the same outcome. [Nigel] Yes this is where we differ -- I advocate guessing what our understanding is rather than what partner mistakenly intends his bid to mean. [Herman] No, partner will not alert 3He as a cuebid, since he will take it as the completion of a transfer. In the simple case where he intended 3Di as a transfer, of course. [Nigel] In my example, partner thought 2N was unusual. [Herman] Why would you give me a PP for correctly explaining partner's intentions? [Nigel] Luckily I'm not a TD so I'm probably wrong. But you failed to alert 3D although you knew it was conventional and then failed to explain its meaning according to your discussed agreements. You did all this deliberately, in the hope of excaping other penalties prescribed by the law. Assuming that what I say is true, how should a TD rule? [Herman] Don't go clouding the issue, Nigel. When partner alerts, he has explained it as non-natural. No-one is going to ask me what the replly means without first asking for the first call. If partner then explains my call correctly, so can I. [Nigel] Sorry Herman, you may be right. Anyway, you specifically asked me not to re-open that bag of worms. Sorry. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 24 21:48:55 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:48:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000c01c36a81$23ffd4c0$4de77f50@Default> Grattan: > +=+ I would be fiercely angry if partner failed to > pass smoothly over 1D. What kind of bridge do you play. You expect partner to bid smootly over whatever bidding situation comes up. If not you are 'fiercly angry'. Your partner must be superhuman. Anyway I wouldn't want to play with such a short tempered madman. Even at the highest level people sometimes need some time to make up their mind. In the end there is no law against thinking. Ok, at my level we play with screens so we don't have this particular problem. So the game is easier for the champions than for the average guy in the street. Great. > I would not consider 1S; but if he groped > for his pass I would feel obliged to select the > revolting Spade bid. Big words. Can you give me one argument why 1S is revolting ? I guess you don't take my word for it but 1S is the normal bid with this hand. By the way, although I think it is silly (there is a lot of downside and little upside), I can understand double, see my previous email, but the way you present it here makes me wonder if you really understand something about competitive bidding. That's ok in itself. You play your game, I play mine. But it is a problem since you serve on high level (international) AC's. And players like me like to judged by people in whose bridge level we have some confidence. This kind of statements don't help (well you don't have that much of a reputation to destroy). Unles you were joking of course. And Grattan, don't take it personal. I enjoy your contributions, and I respect you very much when it comes to law and explaining the workings of the WBFLC and that kind of stuff. But I have to be honest, I doubt if you have the bridge skills to serve on high level AC's when the idea is to judge players by their peers. But maybe I should ask some of your compatriots about an opinion. Anyway I might as well ask you yourself. What is your bridge level ? Do you have a serious change of winning a major event in Britain ? Or did you some years ago ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 1:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott =============================== > "The knowledge of man is as the waters, > some descending from above, and some > springing from beneath; the one informed > by the light of nature, the other inspired > by divine revelation." > [Francis Bacon] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David J. Grabiner" > To: "Steve Wright" ; > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > In any case, the hesitation suggests double over 1S, > > since partner has apparently passed a big hand > > and might leave in the double. Thus double is an > > infraction whether it is a logical alternative or not. > > > +=+ I would be fiercely angry if partner failed to > pass smoothly over 1D. Partner should not allow > himself to be caught out. My style would be to > double; I would not consider 1S; but if he groped > for his pass I would feel obliged to select the > revolting Spade bid. Pass is never an option here. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 24 22:20:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:20:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001501c36a7b$fff27fb0$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000601c36a85$7c502e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nancy T Dressing > > Sorry Nancy, not so fast. It was a regular violation of Law 15.=20 > > And note that the spectator correctly did not in any way=20 > > indicate to the players that something seemed to be wrong; he > > left that for the Directors. >=20 > Which I think he should! Exactly! > > But for the question of whether the spectator might tell a=20 > > Director or not: How should any spectator be able to know=20 > > whether there was an error to which his alarm would be=20 > > welcome or would be a violation of Law 11 and/or Law 76? >=20 > An average player probably would not be aware of the violation. Player? We are talking about a spectator (true he does know bridge). > > But I can completely understand why he approached the director > > discreetly.. But what are you as director going to say to this > > person, who if watching the play closely could easily notice=20 > > this error. =20 I did in fact tell him "thank you, I'm much obliged and I shall = investigate immediately" which I did. The law 15 says"....the director discovers a contestant is playing > > a board not designated for him......". The players didn't really notice until I interfered. They had noticed = that the board numbers were 17 upwards rather than 1 upwards as they expected = but as you know these boards have the same configurations so they didn't = react.=20 > It > does not address how the director obtains this information. I cannot > believe that a director would ignore this info. Nor do I; and I suppose you understand why I shall never complain to any spectator who quietly addresses me as a director when he suspects that something is strange? Law 79 or not - I don't care. > > Do you for instance believe that a spectator noticing that=20 > > the players are about to take cards from the wrong pockets=20 > > (i.e. North from East, East from South and so on round the > > table) is allowed to make any alarm to prevent that error? > > He is not, that would be a direct violation of law 76. >=20 > Of course, he should not say a word and in this instance, it=20 > would be interesting to find out how everyone handles the=20 > situation 'cause we now have a fouled board and the after > session corrections should be wild!!! I'm glad you don't drop into that trap, but the work for the director in such cases should be simple routine. I cannot imagine any decent = director's training course which doesn't tell the pupils how to handle the common irregularities like for instance a board that has been played in the = wrong direction. Regards Sven From nancy@dressing.org Sun Aug 24 23:36:26 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:36:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000601c36a85$7c502e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c36a90$28211f00$6501a8c0@hare> Just a quick comment re the player (spectator) or vice versa. I cannot imagine a non-player ever becoming a spectator, which would be like me watching a cricket match! ;(( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > > Nancy T Dressing > > > Sorry Nancy, not so fast. It was a regular violation of Law 15. > > > And note that the spectator correctly did not in any way > > > indicate to the players that something seemed to be wrong; he > > > left that for the Directors. > > > > Which I think he should! > > Exactly! > > > > But for the question of whether the spectator might tell a > > > Director or not: How should any spectator be able to know > > > whether there was an error to which his alarm would be > > > welcome or would be a violation of Law 11 and/or Law 76? > > > > An average player probably would not be aware of the violation. > > Player? We are talking about a spectator (true he does know bridge). > > > > But I can completely understand why he approached the director > > > discreetly.. But what are you as director going to say to this > > > person, who if watching the play closely could easily notice > > > this error. > > I did in fact tell him "thank you, I'm much obliged and I shall investigate > immediately" which I did. > > The law 15 says"....the director discovers a contestant is playing > > > a board not designated for him......". > > The players didn't really notice until I interfered. They had noticed that > the board numbers were 17 upwards rather than 1 upwards as they expected but > as you know these boards have the same configurations so they didn't react. > > > It > > does not address how the director obtains this information. I cannot > > believe that a director would ignore this info. > > Nor do I; and I suppose you understand why I shall never complain to any > spectator who quietly addresses me as a director when he suspects that > something is strange? Law 79 or not - I don't care. > > > > Do you for instance believe that a spectator noticing that > > > the players are about to take cards from the wrong pockets > > > (i.e. North from East, East from South and so on round the > > > table) is allowed to make any alarm to prevent that error? > > > He is not, that would be a direct violation of law 76. > > > > Of course, he should not say a word and in this instance, it > > would be interesting to find out how everyone handles the > > situation 'cause we now have a fouled board and the after > > session corrections should be wild!!! > > I'm glad you don't drop into that trap, but the work for the director in > such cases should be simple routine. I cannot imagine any decent director's > training course which doesn't tell the pupils how to handle the common > irregularities like for instance a board that has been played in the wrong > direction. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 24 23:42:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:42:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <000801c36a90$28211f00$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000001c36a91$045e31b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Nancy T Dressing=20 > Just a quick comment re the player (spectator) or vice versa. I = cannot > imagine a non-player ever becoming a spectator, which would be like me > watching a cricket match! ;(( Well, I have enjoyed watching Cricket, American Football, Baseball and = Chess just to mention a few games of which I am certainly no "player" and = hardly know a fraction of their rules. Regards Sven=20 From bbickford@charter.net Sun Aug 24 23:49:40 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:49:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000601c36a85$7c502e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000801c36a90$28211f00$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <044c01c36a92$00c0ca30$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> But Nancy, as an American I know very little about cricket, but I thoroughly enjoyed the John Player League on BBC(I think, it might have been ITV) and also my trips to Old Trafford for the Test Matches. I didn't understand all the nuances, but I loved trying to figure it out!!! Cheers............................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > Just a quick comment re the player (spectator) or vice versa. I cannot > imagine a non-player ever becoming a spectator, which would be like me > watching a cricket match! ;(( > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 5:20 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > > > > > Nancy T Dressing > > > > Sorry Nancy, not so fast. It was a regular violation of Law 15. > > > > And note that the spectator correctly did not in any way > > > > indicate to the players that something seemed to be wrong; he > > > > left that for the Directors. > > > > > > Which I think he should! > > > > Exactly! > > > > > > But for the question of whether the spectator might tell a > > > > Director or not: How should any spectator be able to know > > > > whether there was an error to which his alarm would be > > > > welcome or would be a violation of Law 11 and/or Law 76? > > > > > > An average player probably would not be aware of the violation. > > > > Player? We are talking about a spectator (true he does know bridge). > > > > > > But I can completely understand why he approached the director > > > > discreetly.. But what are you as director going to say to this > > > > person, who if watching the play closely could easily notice > > > > this error. > > > > I did in fact tell him "thank you, I'm much obliged and I shall > investigate > > immediately" which I did. > > > > The law 15 says"....the director discovers a contestant is playing > > > > a board not designated for him......". > > > > The players didn't really notice until I interfered. They had noticed that > > the board numbers were 17 upwards rather than 1 upwards as they expected > but > > as you know these boards have the same configurations so they didn't > react. > > > > > It > > > does not address how the director obtains this information. I cannot > > > believe that a director would ignore this info. > > > > Nor do I; and I suppose you understand why I shall never complain to any > > spectator who quietly addresses me as a director when he suspects that > > something is strange? Law 79 or not - I don't care. > > > > > > Do you for instance believe that a spectator noticing that > > > > the players are about to take cards from the wrong pockets > > > > (i.e. North from East, East from South and so on round the > > > > table) is allowed to make any alarm to prevent that error? > > > > He is not, that would be a direct violation of law 76. > > > > > > Of course, he should not say a word and in this instance, it > > > would be interesting to find out how everyone handles the > > > situation 'cause we now have a fouled board and the after > > > session corrections should be wild!!! > > > > I'm glad you don't drop into that trap, but the work for the director in > > such cases should be simple routine. I cannot imagine any decent > director's > > training course which doesn't tell the pupils how to handle the common > > irregularities like for instance a board that has been played in the wrong > > direction. > > > > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 25 00:23:10 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:23:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000001c36a91$045e31b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c36a96$af9ac3e0$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >Well, I have enjoyed watching Cricket This alone would be sufficient to provide the cast-iron inference that you are not an Englishman. Mind you, Bill Bickford has given the lie to the notion that no American could hope to understand a game that lasts for five days, at the end of which nobody wins. Not that this is true at present, of course - Test match cricket is a game that lasts for three days, at the end of which we lose. David Burn London, and (regrettably) England From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 25 00:24:03 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:24:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <000501c369ab$13dbc580$e110e150@endicott> <002001c36a0c$3ce50660$625787d9@4nrw70j> <002501c36a17$723bf570$e1ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003801c36a97$64292590$c82be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] (no subject) > > Which law? It might be better to use 'regulations' here. > My definition of spectator, consonant with my > interpretation of L11 and L76, is such that a person is > only qualifying for it when watching play at a table. The > way L76 is written seems to support that view. It > describes his demanded conduct at the bridge table. > It seems also clear that people watching a table in the > vu graph including the commentators are not deemed > to be spectators, otherwise they would offend the laws > continuously. > > ton > +=+ Yes, ton..... I did quote not only the regulation but also the WBFLC minute which makes it clear that other members of the committee did not share your view - I do not recall that anyone at all voiced support for your position. I think it is a violation of Law if one acts contrary to regulation - and the WBF regulation appears to embrace persons watching vuegraph..General regulations for the conduct of 'spectators' apply whether they are watching at a table or not. My understanding of the preponderant view in the WBFLC is that "spectators should not count" (the quoted remark of one of its members that gained murmurs of assent). Law 76C sets no time limit on the restriction. ~ G ~ +=+ Repeated for convenience: [28-Oct-1901 WBFLC Minutes item 11] The Chairman felt that a spectator was only a spectator when observing the play and that he ceased to be a spectator when he was no longer doing so. Other members of the committee were of the opinion that a spectator had responsibilities that continued after he was no longer observing the play. (The Secretary had drawn attention to the regulation in force at the current Championships.) It was suggested "spectators should not count" - i.e. that they should not be involved actively in a tournament. Mr. Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a spectator draws attention to an irregularity there should be an adjustment for one side only so that a score may be reduced but no trick awarded to a side in a manner to increase its score. The subject was remitted for the consideration of the Laws Review Subcommittee. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 25 00:58:33 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:58:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> <002201c36a0c$3f82e2c0$625787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00b801c36a9b$d1276180$349868d5@default> I realise that compared with Grattan, I know little of Bridge Law. I participate in BLML to discover what the law is and to put forward what I think are improvements. The laws about spectators seem equitable -- and clearer than most Bridge laws. Hence, I am sad that Grattan writes that I "betray a basic misunderstanding of the status of any spectators". Can anyone help me to understand by answering any of my basic questions? I am sure I am not the only person who is starting to feel confused. Grattan went on to say "They [spectators] are 'not present'; their existence is external to the game; they have no standing (except as witnesses if and when the Director in his discretion asks them to speak), because they are not participants in the tournament. The game is for the players, not for the spectators". I understand that this topic is only about the standing of spectators as witnesses. I accept and agree most of what Grattan says; except the central tenet about spectators not being present [I confess not to understand that statement in the context of laws about eye-witnesses, even as a figure of speech]. Is this explained somewhere in TFLB? What about the status of other people like TDs, assistant TDs, scorers, helpers, board- movers, viewgraph commentators and audience? Are they *participants in the tournament*? May we assume that any of them are *present* [in Grattan's sense]? {: Surely some are at least half there :) If such spectators aren't *present* except when the TD asks them to speak, how can the law assume jurisdiction over them, in other contexts? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Aug 25 00:56:03 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:56:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> <000c01c36a81$23ffd4c0$4de77f50@Default> Message-ID: <006d01c36a9b$65945180$62c2193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > Big words. Can you give me one argument why 1S is revolting ? +=+ Probability. +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 25 01:24:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 02:24:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001501c36a96$af9ac3e0$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000101c36a9f$43979de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > >Well, I have enjoyed watching Cricket >=20 > This alone would be sufficient to provide the cast-iron inference that > you are not an Englishman. Mind you, Bill Bickford has given the lie = to > the notion that no American could hope to understand a game that lasts > for five days, at the end of which nobody wins. Nor am I an American if that is to be inferred from your Bickford quote? But we have a Norwegian writer who spent many years as a correspondent = for the Norwegian broadcasting in England. He has written several books on = the English from medieval history to current days. In one of his books he = has a chapter on cricket titled: "Cricket - about playing for draw". I cannot help quoting from the beginning of that chapter: "One may = accuse a Brit. of murder and be excused. But if one accuses him of lacking the = spirit of sports the police had better be called immediately. ......... Cricket, however, is more a lifestyle than sport. Every foreign correspondent in London walks around with a secret dream of being able = to understand and describe the Britain's so-called national sport." OK, enough digression Regards Sven Not that this is true at > present, of course - Test match cricket is a game that lasts for three > days, at the end of which we lose. >=20 > David Burn >=20 > London, and (regrettably) England >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Aug 25 02:01:40 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 02:01:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000101c36a9f$43979de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003901c36aa4$71c4a780$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >But we have a Norwegian writer who spent many years as a correspondent for the Norwegian broadcasting in England. He has written several books on the English from medieval history to current days. In one of his books he has a chapter on cricket titled: "Cricket - about playing for draw". Prince - royal Haakon! (Did you know I spoke Norwegian?) Er de syg af det? Jeg er. You may be happy, though I doubt it, Haak, But Norway has a soul of sheer despair. G K Chesterton, Ballade of Souls (to save Nigel looking it up) David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 25 07:58:42 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:58:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Don't know In-Reply-To: <009201c36a81$eb5a6080$349868d5@default> References: <000d01c36610$01558e80$089c68d5@default> <3F41D95C.5030806@hdw.be> <004f01c3678b$c5411e00$1b9868d5@default> <3F454561.9050904@hdw.be> <001201c36845$170bfe80$189468d5@default> <3F45B6F4.70100@hdw.be> <002101c368ab$e5a380e0$739868d5@default> <3F488A76.5040607@hdw.be> <009201c36a81$eb5a6080$349868d5@default> Message-ID: <3F49B3A2.1070801@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman] > but we were talking of something else "the I don't > know issue". > > [Nigel] > IMO, DWS is a subset > Indeed - but a contentious one. I thought we were talking about the larger issue, which is far less contentious and about which we have a hope of agreeing. > [Herman] > Well, my point of view is that "don't know" > is MI. "no agreement" can be correct information, > although in general incomplete. > > [Nigel] > That is what the current law says. I was arguing > for a change to "always guess". > It is NOT what the law says - it is what is arrived at, after application of the law, by a majority of TD decisions. If you don't guess, you are quite likely to be found guilty of MI. If you guess, and by chance you guess correctly, there is no ruling. Saying nothing is likely to get you into TD trouble, so you'd better say something. > [Herman] > Well, we can never know what partner intends. > In the sense that we are supposed to be playing > the same system, my guess as to what partner > intended and my guess as to what I would take > it to mean should give the same outcome. > > [Nigel] > Yes this is where we differ -- I advocate > guessing what our understanding is rather than > what partner mistakenly intends his bid to mean. > OK, I agree with you. My point is that the answer to the two guesses must be the same, since you can never guess what partner's mistake is. You must just hope that partner's guess about what the system says is the same as yours. Now of course in those cases where written system notes are available, and you just don't remember what's in them, it is better to try to guess at what the system says, and not at what partner is thinking. But then again, even if you have guessed correctly, and you can prove it with the system notes, you are possibly coming up against a TD who says, "I don't accept these notes and I'm going with the apparent meaning of your partner's bid". So you see, Nigel, although you are in theory correct, in practice we are both correct. > [Herman] > No, partner will not alert 3He as a cuebid, > since he will take it as the completion of > a transfer. In the simple case where he > intended 3Di as a transfer, of course. > > [Nigel] > In my example, partner thought 2N was unusual. > Yes, and now I bid 3He over 3Di. Two things can happen: partner was so certain 2NT was unusual that he believes 3He is a cue, and we end up in 7HeXX. Or partner was uncertain, he is awakened by my call, corrects his explanation and retreats to 3NT. In the second case, there is nothing the TD will change. You, OTOH, have alerted 3Di and explained it as transfer. You bid 3He. Now also two things can happen. Either your partner is a highly ethical player who bids 7HeXX, or he retreats to 3NT and the TD whistles you back to 7HeXX. Either way, you end up with a bad score. (just simplifying matters here, of course - but I believe you get my drift). There is no way in which you can be rescued, since the TD will not only not believe your partner would have realized just from the call, he should also lambast you for breaking L75D2 by explaining 3Di in such a manner as to "indicate that a mistake has been made". > [Herman] > Why would you give me a PP for correctly > explaining partner's intentions? > > [Nigel] > Luckily I'm not a TD so I'm probably wrong. > But you failed to alert 3D although you knew > it was conventional and then failed to explain > its meaning according to your discussed > agreements. You did all this deliberately, > in the hope of excaping other penalties > prescribed by the law. Assuming that what I > say is true, how should a TD rule? > The TD should realize that I am bound by two laws that say exactly opposite things. I should not be blamed for choosing one way rather than another out of a clear dilemma that the lawmakers have not yet resolved. > [Herman] > Don't go clouding the issue, Nigel. > When partner alerts, he has explained it as > non-natural. No-one is going to ask me what > the replly means without first asking for > the first call. If partner then explains > my call correctly, so can I. > > [Nigel] > Sorry Herman, you may be right. Anyway, > you specifically asked me not to re-open > that bag of worms. Sorry. > No apologies needed. I am never tired of this discussion. In the end, people will see the light. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Mon Aug 25 08:00:29 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:00:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal Message-ID: Sven wrote: >Well, I have enjoyed watching Cricket This alone would be sufficient to provide the cast-iron inference that you are not an Englishman. Mind you, Bill Bickford has given the lie to the notion that no American could hope to understand a game that lasts for five days, at the end of which nobody wins. Not that this is true at present, of course - Test match cricket is a game that lasts for three days, at the end of which we lose. ***not only at the end ton *** David Burn London, and (regrettably) England From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Aug 25 08:22:49 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:22:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001501c36a96$af9ac3e0$b5f08051@pbncomputer> References: <000001c36a91$045e31b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001501c36a96$af9ac3e0$b5f08051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3F49B949.6000204@hdw.be> What are the odds on an England victory today? Or even on the draw? David Burn wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >>Well, I have enjoyed watching Cricket > > > This alone would be sufficient to provide the cast-iron inference that > you are not an Englishman. Mind you, Bill Bickford has given the lie to > the notion that no American could hope to understand a game that lasts > for five days, at the end of which nobody wins. Not that this is true at > present, of course - Test match cricket is a game that lasts for three > days, at the end of which we lose. > > David Burn > > London, and (regrettably) 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 a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Mon Aug 25 08:27:05 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:27:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: *** I had to leave Paris before the minutes came out and probably didn't want to remember the strong position my committee had taken on this issue. It apparently did not answer the question how to apply such view in the bad bad world, since you did not answer the question how to avoid spectators to inform players about irregularities after the match but within appeal time. Nor did you answer my 'joke' about vu graph people who are offending law 76 continuously. I don't like laws that can't be applied. Do you see it (?): a spectator approaching the TD to report a revoke and the TD telling him that he is not allowed to do so. After which the TD takes action, throwing the spectator out of the venue, firstly asking him whether he is Norwegian, and then adjusting the score. ton *** > Which law? It might be better to use 'regulations' here. > My definition of spectator, consonant with my > interpretation of L11 and L76, is such that a person is > only qualifying for it when watching play at a table. The > way L76 is written seems to support that view. It > describes his demanded conduct at the bridge table. > It seems also clear that people watching a table in the > vu graph including the commentators are not deemed > to be spectators, otherwise they would offend the laws > continuously. > > ton > +=+ Yes, ton..... I did quote not only the regulation but also the WBFLC minute which makes it clear that other members of the committee did not share your view - I do not recall that anyone at all voiced support for your position. I think it is a violation of Law if one acts contrary to regulation - and the WBF regulation appears to embrace persons watching vuegraph..General regulations for the conduct of 'spectators' apply whether they are watching at a table or not. My understanding of the preponderant view in the WBFLC is that "spectators should not count" (the quoted remark of one of its members that gained murmurs of assent). Law 76C sets no time limit on the restriction. ~ G ~ +=+ Repeated for convenience: [28-Oct-1901 WBFLC Minutes item 11] The Chairman felt that a spectator was only a spectator when observing the play and that he ceased to be a spectator when he was no longer doing so. Other members of the committee were of the opinion that a spectator had responsibilities that continued after he was no longer observing the play. (The Secretary had drawn attention to the regulation in force at the current Championships.) It was suggested "spectators should not count" - i.e. that they should not be involved actively in a tournament. Mr. Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a spectator draws attention to an irregularity there should be an adjustment for one side only so that a score may be reduced but no trick awarded to a side in a manner to increase its score. The subject was remitted for the consideration of the Laws Review Subcommittee. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 25 10:47:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:47:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <006d01c36a9b$65945180$62c2193e@4nrw70j> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> <000c01c36a81$23ffd4c0$4de77f50@Default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030825114333.00a59400@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:56 25/08/2003 +0100, grandeval wrote: >Grattan Endicott[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] >=============================== >"A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labour > of an infinity of experiences. " > { Jacques Maritain } >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jaap van der Neut" >To: "grandeval" ; > >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:48 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > Big words. Can you give me one argument why > 1S is revolting ? >+=+ Probability. +=+ AG : IBTD. When partner passes over 1D, and is known to have some cards (not from the tempo, but from #3's pass), he shouldn't have a 5-card heart suit. So, the probabilities favor either spades or clubs, but certainly not hearts. This means a double isn't as appealing as some pretend. 1S has the big advantage to engineer the sequence : 1D p p 1S p 1NT p 2C while double loses the clubs when it's most important to find them, eg when partner holds 1444 or 1435. And if his pattern is something else, then it will usually contain 3 spades. (okay, there is one bad case for bidding 1S : 2443, but we were speaking of probabilities, weren't we ?) Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Aug 25 13:14:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:14:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <000501c36a74$4ffd8070$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c36a71$e19e9120$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030825080645.00a75930@pop.starpower.net> At 03:17 PM 8/24/03, Sven wrote: >Sorry Nancy, not so fast. It was a regular violation of Law 15. And note >that the spectator correctly did not in any way indicate to the >players that >something seemed to be wrong; he left that for the Directors. > >But for the question of whether the spectator might tell a Director or >not: >How should any spectator be able to know whether there was an error to >which >his alarm would be welcome or would be a violation of Law 11 and/or >Law 76? > >Do you for instance believe that a spectator noticing that the players are >about to take cards from the wrong pockets (i.e. North from East, East >from >South and so on round the table) is allowed to make any alarm to prevent >that error? He is not, that would be a direct violation of law 76. Unfortunately, Sven appears to be correct about what TFLB requires. As a working TD, I do not want spectators to intervene in matters that might affect the outcome of a hand being played, but I certainly *do* want a spectator to tell me if he sees someone doing something to screw up my movement. Perhaps we ought to consider modifying L76B along the lines of, "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake in the auction or play of a hand..." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 25 14:22:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:22:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030825080645.00a75930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c36b0b$f0dfffd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > Unfortunately, Sven appears to be correct about what TFLB requires. As > a working TD, I do not want spectators to intervene in matters that > might affect the outcome of a hand being played, but I certainly *do* > want a spectator to tell me if he sees someone doing something to screw > up my movement. Perhaps we ought to consider modifying L76B along the > lines of, "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > mistake in the auction or play of a hand..." If we do think that a revision is desirable I shall prefer something along the lines: Law76B: A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake except directly to the Director in a manner that can not be noticed by any player. Nor may a spectator speak on any question or fact of law except by request of the Director. Regards Sven From nancy@dressing.org Mon Aug 25 14:39:37 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:39:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <000001c36b0b$f0dfffd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c36b0e$53f25350$6501a8c0@hare> Does this mean that a spectator can point out the board mix-up where the players took the wrong hands around the table..... (Does Norway have a national sport other than skiing?) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal > Eric Landau > > Unfortunately, Sven appears to be correct about what TFLB requires. As > > a working TD, I do not want spectators to intervene in matters that > > might affect the outcome of a hand being played, but I certainly *do* > > want a spectator to tell me if he sees someone doing something to screw > > up my movement. Perhaps we ought to consider modifying L76B along the > > lines of, "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > > mistake in the auction or play of a hand..." > > If we do think that a revision is desirable I shall prefer something along > the lines: > > Law76B: A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake > except directly to the Director in a manner that can not be noticed by any > player. Nor may a spectator speak on any question or fact of law except by > request of the Director. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 25 14:55:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:55:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001101c36b0e$53f25350$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000001c36b10$8ed30a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> In my opinion any person, player or spectator may address the Director directly on any matter. I understand Laws 11B and 76B to be applicable = as far as a spectator's action can be noticed by any player (including a non-playing captain) participating in the tournament. I see no reason why a spectator should not be permitted to communicate = his observation to another spectator. Note that there is a need for a = precise definition on when a player, participant, director etc. can appear with = the status of a spectator rather than in their official capacity. Regards Sven=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy T Dressing [mailto:nancy@dressing.org] > Sent: 25. august 2003 15:40 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal >=20 > Does this mean that a spectator can point out the board mix-up where = the > players took the wrong hands around the table..... (Does Norway have = a > national sport other than skiing?) >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:22 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Redeal >=20 >=20 > > Eric Landau > > > Unfortunately, Sven appears to be correct about what TFLB = requires. > As > > > a working TD, I do not want spectators to intervene in matters = that > > > might affect the outcome of a hand being played, but I certainly = *do* > > > want a spectator to tell me if he sees someone doing something to > screw > > > up my movement. Perhaps we ought to consider modifying L76B along = the > > > lines of, "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity = or > > > mistake in the auction or play of a hand..." > > > > If we do think that a revision is desirable I shall prefer something > along > > the lines: > > > > Law76B: A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > mistake > > except directly to the Director in a manner that can not be noticed = by > any > > player. Nor may a spectator speak on any question or fact of law = except > by > > request of the Director. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Aug 25 15:42:10 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:42:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001101c36b0e$53f25350$6501a8c0@hare> References: <000001c36b0b$f0dfffd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030825102330.00a73560@pop.starpower.net> At 09:39 AM 8/25/03, Nancy wrote: >Does this mean that a spectator can point out the board mix-up where the >players took the wrong hands around the table..... (Does Norway have a >national sport other than skiing?) > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" > > > Eric Landau > > > Unfortunately, Sven appears to be correct about what TFLB > requires. As > > > a working TD, I do not want spectators to intervene in matters that > > > might affect the outcome of a hand being played, but I certainly > *do* > > > want a spectator to tell me if he sees someone doing something to > screw > > > up my movement. Perhaps we ought to consider modifying L76B > along the > > > lines of, "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > > > mistake in the auction or play of a hand..." > > > > If we do think that a revision is desirable I shall prefer > something along > > the lines: > > > > Law76B: A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > mistake > > except directly to the Director in a manner that can not be noticed > by any > > player. Nor may a spectator speak on any question or fact of law > except by > > request of the Director. My proposal would allow -- indeed, encourage -- this. I would hope to distinguish between irregularities in bidding and play and errors in the movement. Placing the boards in the wrong orientation is exactly equivalent to the players sitting in the wrong seats, and clearly belongs in the category of movement errors. The TD is responsible for the orderly progress of the game. When the movement gets fouled up, it may be due to a player's mistake, but ultimately it is still the director's responsibility. Spectators have no business "helping" one side or the other at the table they happen to be watching, but spectators' helping the TD to maintain the orderly progress of the game is welcome. I'm having a hard time pinning down the distinction exactly, but ISTM there are irregularities where, if corrected, one side gains and one side loses, and irregularities where, if corrected (in time), everybody gains and nobody loses. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 25 16:24:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:24:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <001101c36b0e$53f25350$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000801c36b1d$082ff490$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nancy T Dressing > Does this mean that a spectator can point out the board mix-up=20 > where the players took the wrong hands around the table.....=20 Yes, but no in a manner so that the affected players notice. The = spectator must in case inform the Director (only) and leave it to him what he = would do next. Timing probably will be so that he could as well let that be. However in matches between teams of four if a spectator notices that the players in the open room are seated the wrong way when they are about to play 16 boards a notification to the Director would obviously be = welcome. (Again, nothing must be said by him to the players at the table!) > (Does Norway have a national sport other than skiing?) That is a matter of opinion, I believe it is generally accepted that = skiing is THE Norwegian winter sport. Small boats sailing might be considered a national summer sport but that never included the "masses" like skiing = has done. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 25 19:07:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:07:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> <000c01c36a81$23ffd4c0$4de77f50@Default> <5.1.0.14.0.20030825114333.00a59400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c36b34$54befce0$de11e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > At 00:56 25/08/2003 +0100, grandeval wrote: > > >Grattan Endicott >[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > >=============================== > >"A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labour > > of an infinity of experiences. " > > { Jacques Maritain } > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jaap van der Neut" > >To: "grandeval" ; > > > >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:48 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > > Big words. Can you give me one argument why > > 1S is revolting ? > >+=+ Probability. +=+ > > AG : IBTD. When partner passes over 1D, and is > known to have some cards (not from the tempo, > but from #3's pass), he shouldn't have a 5-card heart > suit. So, the probabilities favor either spades or clubs, < +=+ or diamonds +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Aug 25 19:09:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:09:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: Message-ID: <000901c36b34$58b90de0$de11e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'bridge laws mailing list '" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:27 AM Subject: RE: [blml] (no subject) > *** > I had to leave Paris before the minutes came > out and probably didn't want to remember the > strong position my committee had taken on > this issue. It apparently did not answer the > question how to apply such view in the bad >bad world, since you did not answer the > question how to avoid spectators to inform > players about irregularities after the match > but within appeal time. < +=+ I understand and respect your independent view on the subject. My own position is in the vicinity of the one Antonio was searching for. I do not share your opinion that considers a law has no value if it cannot be enforced consistently. I do think there is merit in establishing the principle and giving it teeth for the occasion when a violation is uncovered. Most people tend to do what is laid down even when there is no gun at their heads. On one thing your memory has skipped; the minutes of 28th Oct 01 were agreed at a meeting two days later, with T. Kooijman in the chair. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Aug 25 08:59:11 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:59:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> <002201c36a0c$3f82e2c0$625787d9@4nrw70j> <00b801c36a9b$d1276180$349868d5@default> Message-ID: <002401c36b39$40762ba0$364d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Redeal > I realise that compared with Grattan, I know > little of Bridge Law. > > I participate in BLML to discover what the law is > and to put forward what I think are improvements. > +=+ I do not intend to demean. What I am trying to establish is that spectators are invited guests - invited to observe but not to participate unless approached by the Director. By 'not present' I have in mind a wall of glass isolating them from the play. Under current thinking they have no part to play in the outcome of the tournament, they are not there to supervise the players or to ensure players' compliance with the rules of the game. ~ G ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Aug 25 21:01:58 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:01:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] (no subject)(Comment on "Spectator") In-Reply-To: <000901c36b34$58b90de0$de11e150@endicott> References: <000901c36b34$58b90de0$de11e150@endicott> Message-ID: 1. The US version of the lawbook has an index entry under "Spectator" that refers to Law 11 and no other. There is no cross-reference to Law 76 in Law 11. 2. The US version of the lawbook has no Law 76C. It does have 76A and 76B. The English version, posted at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/node9.html has no Law 76C, either. Nor does the WBF versio, posted at http://www.bridge.gr/Dept/laws/OnlineLaws.pdf They all agree in wording of 76A and 76B. -- 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 Mon Aug 25 22:53:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:53:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject)(Comment on "Spectator") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c36b53$60f01430$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robert E. Harris > 1. The US version of the lawbook has an index entry under > "Spectator" that refers to Law 11 and no other. There is no > cross-reference to Law 76 in Law 11. > 2. The US version of the lawbook has no Law 76C. It does have 76A and > 76B. Whatever reference you may have seen to Law 76C on the matter of spectators is most likely a misprint for Law 76B. Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Aug 25 23:01:56 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:01:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> <000c01c36a81$23ffd4c0$4de77f50@Default> <5.1.0.14.0.20030825114333.00a59400@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c36b34$54befce0$de11e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000b01c36b54$819bc480$e7f67f50@Default> Grattan, You are caught on a rather stupid remark. I don't like your defence this time. Normally you are full of words and intelligent language. But now just of sudden you start given one word replies. Anyway your 'probability' is probably an even more stupid remark than your original statement. Maybe it is better if you leave the bridge stuff to the real players (the champions or whatever you prefer to call them) and concentrate yourself on the laws and WBFLC vagueries. On those subjects you are the expert. But once more, do you consider your bridge skills sufficient to serve on EBL AC's if the idea is that players are going to be judged by their peers. Once more, don't take it too personal. You didn't appoint yourself I guess and Herman is another example of a 'rather dubious' EBL AC member. It is about time to launch some serious critisism of the people responsible for that kind of appointments. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " There is no prejudice so strong as that > which arises from a fancied exemption from > all prejudice, " [Wm. Hazlitt] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "grandeval" ; > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > At 00:56 25/08/2003 +0100, grandeval wrote: > > > > >Grattan Endicott > >[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > > >=============================== > > >"A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labour > > > of an infinity of experiences. " > > > { Jacques Maritain } > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > >To: "grandeval" ; > > > > > >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:48 PM > > >Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > > > > > Big words. Can you give me one argument why > > > 1S is revolting ? > > >+=+ Probability. +=+ > > > > AG : IBTD. When partner passes over 1D, and is > > known to have some cards (not from the tempo, > > but from #3's pass), he shouldn't have a 5-card heart > > suit. So, the probabilities favor either spades or clubs, > < > +=+ or diamonds +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Aug 26 02:39:18 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:39:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <3f4aba46.61c8.0@esatclear.ie> > >AG : IBTD. When partner passes over 1D, and is known to have some cards (not from the tempo, but from #3's pass), he shouldn't have a 5-card heart suit. So, the probabilities favor either spades or clubs, but certainly not hearts. This means a double isn't as appealing as some pretend. 1S has the big advantage to engineer the sequence : > >1D p p 1S p 1NT p 2C > >while double loses the clubs when it's most important to find them, eg when partner holds 1444 or 1435. And if his pattern is something else, then it will usually contain 3 spades. (okay, there is one bad case for bidding 1S : 2443, but we were speaking of probabilities, weren't we ?) +++ Again we're splitting hairs here but I disagree. Double is a far more robust and accurate bid than 1S. If pd bids hearts (with 4 of em as likely) I bid 1S. Partner now has my exact hand. I wouldn't double without a 2nd suit which is not hearts in this case (i'd bid 2H's or 2D's after 1H) so pd knows I have clubs and can bid 1NT or 2C's freely. Pd can also bid 2H's on a 4/3 fit or bad 5/3 fit which could well be the top spot. 1S just does not do this hand justice. If you held S KJTxx H Qxx D x C xxxx or any millions of equivalent weaker hands than the one given, you'd still bid 1S. Double also puts pd in a way better position if opener competes further with 2D's or whatever. Do you seriously expect pd to bid 3C's on a 4/5 card club suit or even 2H with 4?? So IMO double, pause or no pause, is the clear cut choice. As to Jaap's comments on some of the EBL committe's bridge level and it's consequence on rulings : I've only ever met a few of the contibutors on BLM and never played against any of them so I can't comment on their level. There is of course the negative inference that if they're not playing at a particular level that they aren't good enough to do so. Then again I've yet to see anyone attempt to play and TD simultaneously. In any event - I would expect that they are wise enough (one hopes) to realise that now or in the future their bridge level will fall to an insufficient standard, in which case polling known experts (normal practice I believe) will slove this problem (at least theorectically). K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Aug 26 03:22:24 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 03:22:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: <3f4ac460.61fc.0@esatclear.ie> >As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement >as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to >declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has >the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. +++ again I had to raise an eyebrow at L46. I've been using "play anything" with abandon not realising it is expressly covered in L46B5 and what a minefield I'm threading. >Herman De Wael: > >>Before deciding on this, I would like to know from this declarer what was going on in his mind. If he knew the diamonds were high, then why did he not claim? If he knew spades were trumps, why did he not simply say "a heart"? He did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. And he did not say "a heart", so if there is the slightest chance that he had forgotten that spades were trumps, we cannot use the heading of L46B, as his intention is not incontrovertible. +++ Now while I like Herman's humane efforts to diagnose Declarer's state of mind - surely this is not the time. Any who claims or calls for a card from dummy should start to realise that they better do it correctly or the laws may be applied to their disadvantage. It's another day's work to decide wether L46B5 is a good one or not - but for now it is there. Declarer's intentions were not incontrovertible infact no where close. We weren't given dummy - but it appears dummy had some heart losers and presumably a club to get back to the winning clubs should LHO ruff the winning diamonds. If the opps were able to cash winning hearts plural then it would appear declarer has only 1 or 2 trumps maximum (I got the impression 1). It seems to me that either way he is NEVER going to make all the tricks. I for one can't figure out precisely what he was thinking. Was the D7 a winner ?? The DT was, so why didn't he play it (maybe he was trying to test Lho's memory)?? Why not just be more accurate in his card designation or claim ?? The rest are mine with an outstanding trump is just asking for it. All in all I'd say this declarer either didn't know where he was or did and should have claimed better ... either way L46B5 : "If a declarer indicates .... (as by saying "play anything") ... is pretty clear cut. The defence can force declarer to ruff (anything implies it shouldn't matter) and then the defence take the rest of the tricks (which is my ruling). The lesson to this declarer is either wake up and/or make better claims. Btw I'd be amazed if the vast majority of players know about L46B5 - I definitely didn't and again just goes to prove that knowledge of the laws DOES give a player an edge and are not objective. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From schuster@eduhi.at Tue Aug 26 06:46:14 2003 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:46:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Redeal In-Reply-To: <002401c36b39$40762ba0$364d87d9@4nrw70j> References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> <002201c36a0c$3f82e2c0$625787d9@4nrw70j> <00b801c36a9b$d1276180$349868d5@default> <002401c36b39$40762ba0$364d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:59:11 +0100, grandeval wrote: > +=+ I do not intend to demean. What I am trying > to establish is that spectators are invited guests - > invited to observe but not to participate unless > approached by the Director. By 'not present' I have in mind a wall of > glass isolating them from the play. Under current thinking they have no > part to play in the outcome of the tournament, > they are not there to supervise the players or to > ensure players' compliance with the rules of the game. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Just to remind everybody that it has not always been interpreted like that: At the 1975 Bermuda Bowl (when the Laws concerning spectators were the same in substance), attention had been drawn by a spectator to a presumed irregularity committed by an Italian pair, and the WBF executive not only did not throw out the spectator(s) involved but took action on the report. -- Regards, Petrus From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 26 07:20:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:20:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject)(Comment on "Spectator") References: <000901c36b34$58b90de0$de11e150@endicott> Message-ID: <006401c36b9e$cb101720$ce41e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] (no subject)(Comment on "Spectator") > 1. The US version of the lawbook has an index entry under > "Spectator" that refers to Law 11 and no other. There is no > cross-reference to Law 76 in Law 11. > 2. The US version of the lawbook has no Law 76C. It does have 76A and 76B. > > The English version, posted at > http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/node9.html > has no Law 76C, either. Nor does the WBF versio, posted at > http://www.bridge.gr/Dept/laws/OnlineLaws.pdf > > They all agree in wording of 76A and 76B. > -- +=+ Apologies. Slip of the mind when referring to 76B. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Aug 26 07:52:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:52:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <3f4aba46.61c8.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <006501c36b9e$cbd84920$ce41e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > As to Jaap's comments on some of the EBL > committe's bridge level and it's consequence > on rulings : > > I've only ever met a few of the contibutors on > BLM and never played against any of them so > I can't comment on their level. +=+ The theory is that if you do not share Jaap's opinion then you must be a different quality of judge in the game than he is. Any player who sees himself as supreme in the art must, of course, look upon others from above - regardless of what he knows about them - and will airily discount their opinions. My experience of Herman in committee is that he contributes well. I have but one experience of Jaap, insufficient to comment. Of course in matters of bridge judgement the more respected players on a committee are expected to lead. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 26 07:50:41 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:50:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <3f4aba46.61c8.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000d01c36b9e$5f06ecc0$5be87f50@Default> Karel: ...Double is a far more robust and accurate bid than 1S. If pd bids hearts (with 4 of em as likely) I bid 1S. Partner now has my exact hand.... This is true. I also said so in a previous mail. But this is thinking in a perfect world. You assume the opponents to shut up. Sometimes they do, very often they don't. Your choice of bid in a competitive sequence also depends on that. There are roughly two possibilities. One, partner has points (but no bid). Double and then spades might be marginally better but I can hardly see the upside (other then the very unlikely penalty, if the penalty is enough, and if they have nowhere to go, besides if partner passes I am far from sure from a good score). Two, the 1D opener has a nice hand and will bid something. Now I don't get to bid 1S anymore if I start with double, maybe not even 2S, they might be in 3D at my next turn. Then you have to guess. A guess you can easily avoid by starting with 1S. Another issue is the lead. If partner is on lead (he is against D) I prefer to have bid S. And there are more reasons as well. Not bidding 1S is just looking for trouble. But one thing, bridge is a game of probabilities. Both double or pass might be the right thing to do in any given case. Karel: > In any event - I would expect that they are wise enough (one hopes) to realise > that now or in the future their bridge level will fall to an insufficient standard, > in which case polling known experts (normal practice I believe) will slove this > problem (at least theorectically). It would solve the problem to a certain extend. But I know reality. I have played these events, I have been in those AC's. Most AC members have to much of an ego (ask TD's off the record). The like to decide themselves (human, I know the feeling). In a way it is obvious, they are on the AC and if they have to consult all the time they would admit that they are no good. Because in that case they hardly contribute anything anymore. Anyway people like Herman and Grattan are only to blame for being to vain to refuse the appointment. The real guilty party here is the EBL that appoints (very) poor players on its AC's. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 3:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > >AG : IBTD. When partner passes over 1D, and is known to have some cards (not > from the tempo, but from #3's pass), he shouldn't have a 5-card heart suit. > So, the probabilities favor either spades or clubs, but certainly not hearts. > This means a double isn't as appealing as some pretend. 1S has the big advantage > to engineer the sequence : > > > >1D p p 1S p 1NT p 2C > > > >while double loses the clubs when it's most important to find them, eg when > partner holds 1444 or 1435. And if his pattern is something else, then it will > usually contain 3 spades. (okay, there is one bad case for bidding 1S : 2443, > but we were speaking of probabilities, weren't we ?) > > +++ Again we're splitting hairs here but I disagree. Double is a far more > robust and accurate bid than 1S. If pd bids hearts (with 4 of em as likely) > I bid 1S. Partner now has my exact hand. I wouldn't double without a 2nd suit > which is not hearts in this case (i'd bid 2H's or 2D's after 1H) so pd knows > I have clubs and can bid 1NT or 2C's freely. Pd can also bid 2H's on a 4/3 > fit or bad 5/3 fit which could well be the top spot. 1S just does not do this > hand justice. If you held S KJTxx H Qxx D x C xxxx or any millions of equivalent > weaker hands than the one given, you'd still bid 1S. > > Double also puts pd in a way better position if opener competes further with > 2D's or whatever. Do you seriously expect pd to bid 3C's on a 4/5 card club > suit or even 2H with 4?? So IMO double, pause or no pause, is the clear cut > choice. > > > As to Jaap's comments on some of the EBL committe's bridge level and it's consequence > on rulings : > > I've only ever met a few of the contibutors on BLM and never played against > any of them so I can't comment on their level. There is of course the negative > inference that if they're not playing at a particular level that they aren't > good enough to do so. Then again I've yet to see anyone attempt to play and > TD simultaneously. > > In any event - I would expect that they are wise enough (one hopes) to realise > that now or in the future their bridge level will fall to an insufficient standard, > in which case polling known experts (normal practice I believe) will slove this > problem (at least theorectically). > > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Aug 26 08:16:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:16:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <3f4ac460.61fc.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3f4ac460.61fc.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3F4B0968.9070706@hdw.be> I'm very sad about it, Karel, but I have to say that you are wrong. Karel wrote: >>As director I would like to treat the "play anything" statement >>as a claim and then assuredly I will award all tricks to >>declarer. However, the FLB says that either defender has >>the right to force declarer to discard a trump on the diamond. > > > +++ again I had to raise an eyebrow at L46. I've been using "play anything" > with abandon not realising it is expressly covered in L46B5 and what a minefield > I'm threading. > > > >>Herman De Wael: >> >> >>>Before deciding on this, I would like to know from this declarer what was > > going on in his mind. If he knew the diamonds were high, then why did he not > claim? If he knew spades were trumps, why did he not simply say "a heart"? He > did not claim, so we cannot rule it as a claim. And he did not say "a heart", > so if there is the slightest chance that he had forgotten that spades were trumps, > we cannot use the heading of L46B, as his intention is not incontrovertible. > > > +++ Now while I like Herman's humane efforts to diagnose Declarer's state of > mind - surely this is not the time. Any who claims or calls for a card from > dummy should start to realise that they better do it correctly or the laws may > be applied to their disadvantage. It's another day's work to decide wether > L46B5 is a good one or not - but for now it is there. > Of course this is the time to diagnose declarer's state of mind. How else are we going to rule the first part of L46B "except when declarer's different intent is incontrovertible". It seemed to me (at the time, I don't really remember everything about this case) that it would be very strange to ruff this trick, so basically, the intent is clear. Only if we can decide that declarer had momentarily sight of the fact that he was playing a trump contract, can we rule that his intentions were NOT incontrovertible. We must strive (for opponent's sake) to determine this, and so we need very much to look into declarer's mind. It would be unfair to ask a declarer (in full position of his senses) to ruff a trick he has declared to be high. > Declarer's intentions were not incontrovertible infact no where close. We weren't > given dummy - but it appears dummy had some heart losers and presumably a club > to get back to the winning clubs should LHO ruff the winning diamonds. If the > opps were able to cash winning hearts plural then it would appear declarer has > only 1 or 2 trumps maximum (I got the impression 1). It seems to me that either > way he is NEVER going to make all the tricks. > > I for one can't figure out precisely what he was thinking. Was the D7 a winner > ?? The DT was, so why didn't he play it (maybe he was trying to test Lho's > memory)?? Why not just be more accurate in his card designation or claim ?? > The rest are mine with an outstanding trump is just asking for it. All in > all I'd say this declarer either didn't know where he was or did and should > have claimed better ... either way > > L46B5 : "If a declarer indicates .... (as by saying "play anything") ... > > is pretty clear cut. The defence can force declarer to ruff (anything implies > it shouldn't matter) and then the defence take the rest of the tricks (which > is my ruling). The lesson to this declarer is either wake up and/or make better > claims. > > Btw I'd be amazed if the vast majority of players know about L46B5 - I definitely > didn't and again just goes to prove that knowledge of the laws DOES give a player > an edge and are not objective. > > K. > > > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Aug 26 08:35:23 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:35:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <3f4aba46.61c8.0@esatclear.ie> <006501c36b9e$cbd84920$ce41e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001401c36ba4$bccbfe80$5be87f50@Default> > +=+ The theory is that if you do not share Jaap's > opinion then you must be a different quality of > judge in the game than he is. Any player who > sees himself as supreme in the art must, of > course, look upon others from above - regardless > of what he knows about them - and will airily > discount their opinions. > My experience of Herman in committee is > that he contributes well. I have but one > experience of Jaap, insufficient to comment. Of > course in matters of bridge judgement the more > respected players on a committee are expected > to lead. > ~ G ~ +=+ Dear Grattan, Even in Holland we have some non champions on our committees. But for top level decisions the majority is good players. In a recent EC mixed (oostende) we had a three member committee including two non players (Herman and you). The third member was OK as a player but not really active anymore (lets forget about certain rumours about him I want not put in public print). This of course is preposterous. The TD's take serious decisions consulting top players and then you can appeal it before this silly committe. This AC made some ridiculous even awful rulings. Stupid enough to make even Ton Kooijman so mad that he started to complain in public. And at a certain moment the word was out in Oostende that the AC was bananas and that you could appeal pretty much anything because the appeal handling had turned into a lottery. They lodged a crazy appeal against me (we survived that one) and in the end I tried an dubious appeal myself I would have never tried under normal circumstances. Anyway running things like this makes no sense if you want the players or anybody to take procedings seriously. And if you or anybody doesn't take my word for the above 'facts', you can check them by participants and TD's in Oostende. I would suggest Cristian Mari for a particular colorful opinion, he suffered the (probably) worst idiotic decision of this AC. I would be close to 'personal abuse' if I write down what he has said about the subject. And Mari is one of the most respected and most polite of players, who has won multiple EC and WC titles by the way. Grattan: > +=+ The theory is that if you do not share Jaap's > opinion then you must be a different quality of > judge in the game than he is. Any player who > sees himself as supreme in the art must, of > course, look upon others from above - regardless > of what he knows about them - and will airily > discount their opinions. Come on Grattan, you are dodging the issue. I only said that IF the idea is that players are to be judged by their peers THEN the bridge level of the AC members is an issue. In Holland it is explicitly mentioned in the article about appointing AC members. The next thing I said is that you (I am not sure but I have strong doubts) and Herman (I am sure) might score too low on bridge skills to be acceptable as a high level AC member. This has nothing to do with discounting opinions. I never discount your opinion. But so far you haven't given your opinion on the subject at hand. Grattan: > My experience of Herman in committee is > that he contributes well. Herman ontributes a lot and he contributes well. On blml and on AC's. But he understands next to nothing about real competition bridge. So his contributions are worthless deciding (high level) judgement cases. Anyway all this has nothing to do with my personal opinion. I am just a guy who dares to say so. Players don't like to be judged but if it cannot be avoided they like te be judged by their peers and or judges they trust. Big suprise there. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " There is no prejudice so strong as that > which arises from a fancied exemption from > all prejudice, " [Wm. Hazlitt] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karel" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > As to Jaap's comments on some of the EBL > > committe's bridge level and it's consequence > > on rulings : > > > > I've only ever met a few of the contibutors on > > BLM and never played against any of them so > > I can't comment on their level. > > +=+ The theory is that if you do not share Jaap's > opinion then you must be a different quality of > judge in the game than he is. Any player who > sees himself as supreme in the art must, of > course, look upon others from above - regardless > of what he knows about them - and will airily > discount their opinions. > My experience of Herman in committee is > that he contributes well. I have but one > experience of Jaap, insufficient to comment. Of > course in matters of bridge judgement the more > respected players on a committee are expected > to lead. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 26 10:22:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:22:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <3f4aba46.61c8.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030826111057.01d4dcc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:39 26/08/2003 +0100, Karel wrote: >+++ Again we're splitting hairs here but I disagree. Double is a far more >robust and accurate bid than 1S. If pd bids hearts (with 4 of em as likely) >I bid 1S. AG : what if partner bids 2H ? You expect him to have quite a good hand (else, you'd rather pass before they find their NT contract). Now you don't know whether to introduce your spades or not. (and, of course, the problem could have been given without the initial pass) >Partner now has my exact hand. I wouldn't double without a 2nd suit >which is not hearts in this case (i'd bid 2H's or 2D's after 1H) so pd knows >I have clubs and can bid 1NT or 2C's freely. Pd can also bid 2H's on a 4/3 >fit or bad 5/3 fit which could well be the top spot. 1S just does not do this >hand justice. If you held S KJTxx H Qxx D x C xxxx or any millions of >equivalent >weaker hands than the one given, you'd still bid 1S. AG : matter of style. I wouldn't dream of reopening that hand, especially against standardamericanites who could hold a 23-count. Well, let's admit you might have a fair 6-count for reopening. Does that preclude making the same bid on a 9-count ? >Double also puts pd in a way better position if opener competes further with >2D's or whatever. Do you seriously expect pd to bid 3C's on a 4/5 card club >suit or even 2H with 4?? So IMO double, pause or no pause, is the clear cut >choice. AG : if partner's pattern is 3433, I expect double to work poorly when LHO bids 2D. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 26 11:04:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Redeal References: <59390FD0-D5A9-11D7-986B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <00ad01c369d6$281839e0$1c9468d5@default> <002201c36a0c$3f82e2c0$625787d9@4nrw70j> <00b801c36a9b$d1276180$349868d5@default> <002401c36b39$40762ba0$364d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <005e01c36bb9$8e495c00$199c68d5@default> [Petrus Schuster OSB] Just to remind everybody that it has not always been interpreted like that: At the 1975 Bermuda Bowl (when the Laws concerning spectators were the same in substance), attention had been drawn by a spectator to a presumed irregularity committed by an Italian pair, and the WBF executive not only did not throw out the spectator(s) involved but took action on the report. {Nigel] Surely it would be the same now? I believe Grattan Endicott is discussing what he'd like the law to be. Ton Kooijman et al have pointed out it actually *is*... -- law 81c6 still mandates action on an irregularity reported by a specator. -- law 76b still allows the TD to invite reports from spectators. For cheating-investigation and movement-rescue such laws are obviously essential. There are also many minor acts of law-breaking that could never otherwise be exposed. What is the objection to these current laws? I appreciate that, when busy, a director may want to suppress reports from spectators but surely, normally, he should invite them. IMO, a specator no more 'participates' in the game than does a scorer, viewgraph operator or television camera; nobody claims that he has a defined purpose, as far as the game is concerned; TFLB wisely doesn't claim much jurisdiction over him and no current bridge law obliges him to proffer his observations. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Aug 26 13:08:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <000e01c36899$3a92f3a0$39f57f50@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > Unfortunatly in bridge it is necessary to be as good as the players, > preferably even better, to make most types of judgement calls. In bridge, unlike many games, directors can consult in depth before making any sort of judgement call. They don't need to be good at bridge - they need to be good at bridge law and at consulting people. More problems arise from TDs who *think* they are good players and fail to consult than from TDs who acknowledge the weakness of their game and consult widely. This is less of a problem at club level where TDs tend to be amongst the more experienced players. BTW while bridge is seriously competitive we should never pretend it is a sport. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Aug 26 13:08:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <001401c3689c$08b878c0$39f57f50@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > I think at least 95% of all players of all levels would bid 1S without > giving it a second thought. So pass and double are hardly a LA. > Actually if you start thinking deeper it is possible to double. You are > limited by your initial pass, and you can stand any bid by partner. > Still I don't see much of an advantage in doubling over 1S. My initial thinking went along similar lines. Then I started thinking that the *lower* partner is in his possible range the more likely double is to be the better call (it's teams so we are happy being in 3C when 3C/3S might both make but 3C is a sounder contract). Once you know pard is towards top weight (from the UI) 1S, being more descriptive, seems an even clearer choice. Mind you it just feels wrong to disallow a 1S bid so I guess I too will accept X and 1S. 2S may also be an LA in some partnerships, depending on opening style and agreements. Tim From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Tue Aug 26 15:34:52 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:34:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: Jaap van der Neut's message of Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:35:23 +0200 Message-ID: [Jaap] > Dear Grattan, > > Even in Holland we have some non champions on our committees. But for top > level decisions the majority is good players. In a recent EC mixed > (oostende) we had a three member committee including two non players (Herman > and you). The third member was OK as a player but not really active anymore > (lets forget about certain rumours about him I want not put in public > print). This of course is preposterous. The TD's take serious decisions > consulting top players and then you can appeal it before this silly > committe. This AC made some ridiculous even awful rulings. Stupid enough to > make even Ton Kooijman so mad that he started to complain in public. And at > a certain moment the word was out in Oostende that the AC was bananas and > that you could appeal pretty much anything because the appeal handling had > turned into a lottery. They lodged a crazy appeal against me (we survived > that one) and in the end I tried an dubious appeal myself I would have never > tried under normal circumstances. Anyway running things like this makes no > sense if you want the players or anybody to take procedings seriously. And > if you or anybody doesn't take my word for the above 'facts', you can check > them by participants and TD's in Oostende. I would suggest Cristian Mari for > a particular colorful opinion, he suffered the (probably) worst idiotic > decision of this AC. I would be close to 'personal abuse' if I write down > what he has said about the subject. And Mari is one of the most respected > and most polite of players, who has won multiple EC and WC titles by the > way. In much the same way that Appeals Committees benefit from having some good players on them, a point with which I agree, public fora like BLML are enhanced by having contributors who are tolerant, polite, succinct and entertaining. Even the worst British tabloid journalist might baulk before writing one of the sentences above (I cannot bring myself to quote it). I will pick out a selection however: "preposterous", "silly", "ridiculous", "awful", "Stupid", "bananas", "idiotic". I'm glad you weren't "close to 'personal abuse'" Jaap, for if this is you at your most restrained, I'd hate to have to read an email where you let yourself go. --- 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 26 08:22:17 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:22:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030821205105.00b607c8@mail.vzavenue.net> <000901c36941$9a836940$39f7193e@4nrw70j> <000c01c36a81$23ffd4c0$4de77f50@Default> <5.1.0.14.0.20030825114333.00a59400@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c36b34$54befce0$de11e150@endicott> <000b01c36b54$819bc480$e7f67f50@Default> Message-ID: <000801c36c0b$693002a0$94bf193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > You are caught on a rather stupid remark. I don't like > your defence this time. Normally you are full of words > and intelligent language. But now just of sudden you > start given one word replies. < +=+ I do not consider it necessary to defend. One word is sufficient to convey to a knowledgeable correspondent where the basis of my opinion lies. And, over time, you have not encouraged a high enough esteem of your opinions, especially opinions of persons, for their intemperate judgements to matter to me. But you knew that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Aug 26 21:13:41 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:13:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <3f4bbf75.bda.0@esatclear.ie> >AG : what if partner bids 2H ? You expect him to have quite a good hand (else, you'd rather pass before they find their NT contract). Now you don't know whether to introduce your spades or not. (and, of course, the problem could have been given without the initial pass) +++ Why would pd bid 2H's ?? This is get to a part score auction. What kind of a hand has Pd to push the boat over a passed hand when he couldn't act before ?? .... Anyway assuming he does bid 2H's, I'll be happy to bid 2S's and happy to go to the 3 level even in a 4/3 heart fit. If pd pushes with 2H's I just can't imagine not being safe at the 3 level with my hand. >AG : matter of style. I wouldn't dream of reopening that hand, especially >against standardamericanites who could hold a 23-count. >Well, let's admit you might have a fair 6-count for reopening. Does that >preclude making the same bid on a 9-count ? +++ no it doesn't .... but the flip side is there are loads of 1S bids with which you wouldn't double, due either to shape and/or points. By doubling these hands are excluded. Double will tend to be stronger and/or have the appropriate distribution to deal with opps/Pd's further continuations. 1S promises nothing. It says spades thats it. This hand is not in that bracket. >AG : if partner's pattern is 3433, I expect double to work poorly when LHO bids 2D. +++ Hardly. Pass from pd. pass from RHO. 2S's or a 2nd double back to pd. If either opp pushes to 3D's, cool they're 2 levels higher than they were. I can't think of a sequence I can't handle after a double where as I will feel sooo underbid with 1S. Anyway this is all a matter of style and this isn't a bidding forum. I was just illustrating that dbl is 200% LA which some contributors seem to have excluded due to the pause. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Aug 26 21:37:51 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:37:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: <3f4bc51f.ca6.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ..] Two, the 1D opener has a nice hand and will bid something. Now I don't get to bid 1S anymore if I start with double, maybe not even 2S, they might be in 3D at my next turn. Then you have to guess. A guess you can easily avoid by starting with 1S. +++ erhh I think ya lost sight of the goal post Jaap. If the opps go to 3D's or even 2D's you don't have to bid !! You just pushed them up 1 or 2 more levels at no expense, cool. Certainly "guessing" over 3D is not recommended you've done the damage. But 1S initially is sooo 1 track. We have clubs are are not unhappy with hearts and yet we send the message to pd .. spades pd thats it. [snip ...] If partner is on lead (he is against D) I prefer to have bid S. And there are more reasons as well. Not bidding 1S is just looking for trouble. +++ why ?? A club or even a heart could be right. Infact a spade if pd has xxx or equivalent is brutal. I have to reason to suspect a spade is best. In any event a double does not preclude spades. [snip ...] But one thing, bridge is a game of probabilities. Both double or pass might be the right thing to do in any given case. +++ Agree :>> bridge would be boring if every sequence had a correct bid. Most AC members have to much of an ego (ask TD's off the record). The like to decide themselves (human, I know the feeling). In a way it is obvious, they are on the AC and if they have to consult all the time they would admit that they are no good. +++ have to agree this is a fair comment on human behaviour which is sooo evident in some of the competitions I've been unfortunate enough to attempt an appeal in. [snip ...] Anyway people like Herman and Grattan are only to blame for being to vain to refuse the appointment. The real guilty party here is the EBL that appoints (very) poor players on its AC's. +++ This seems to be an appeals makeup issue. Personally I thing an expert on the laws (eg) Grattan/Herman is essential on an AC which should allow themselves to be led to the final ruling by those experts ... AFTER ... the other "player" AC members decide the bidding/play issues. I think finding an expert in both fields is unreasonable and unrealistic. IMO an AC of 2/3 people is insufficient. You should have at least 4, 2 in each field. It's no reflection on the Td's that their "bridge" skills are not up to par nor any reflection on the players that their "law" skills are not up to par. All that is required is that they recognise their limits and pass judgement in the area they are qualified to judge in. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 26 22:40:23 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:40:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <004d01c36c1a$fe546880$94bf193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > In much the same way that Appeals Committees > benefit from having some good players on them, > a point with which I agree, public fora like BLML > are enhanced by having contributors who are > tolerant, polite, succinct and entertaining. > > Even the worst British tabloid journalist might > baulk before writing one of the sentences above > (I cannot bring myself to quote it). I will pick out > a selection however: "preposterous", "silly", > "ridiculous", "awful", "Stupid", "bananas", "idiotic". > I'm glad you weren't "close to 'personal abuse'" Jaap, > for if this is you at your most restrained, I'd hate to > have to read an email where you let yourself go. > +=+ Having survived in the past as a soccer referee for many years, and having served on appeals committees 'at the top' for some twenty-seven years, I am unlikely to be greatly fazed by the kind of uninformed vituperation that Jaap throws around. More seriously, I confess myself concerned for him: his erratic, intemperate stridency, his recourse to language close to that of the gutter, and his stochastic abuse of persons, are reminiscent of symptoms I have observed in those suffering cerebral degenaration. I do hope we are not observing in him the early stages of mental distress. Whatever, I think we should react gently to his unfortunate excesses in case they are what they look like. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Tue Aug 26 18:30:16 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:30:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Archive help - IBLF Message-ID: IBLF is a forum for answering bridge laws queries, totally different from BLML because it is not for laws-discussion, but to help people who want to know about rulings. It has about 900 articles in about 200 threads [and a few more in an earlier location]. The problem is that it appears we are going to have to move because the current location is not going to continue working properly. I know nothing about the details - I deal with an intermediary who runs a group of forums called Bridgetalk. My problem is that I do not want to lose the 200 threads and 900 articles. Presumably they would not take up too much room put in a zip file so people could download them from my Lawspage. The problem is that I have no idea how to copy them from their current location - apart from individual cut+paste and days and weeks of work. Can anyone help? You will find the forum if you go to http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm Incidentally, if anyone does just want a simple answer to a ruling problem, this URL will remain unchanged after the move. -- 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 27 01:38:40 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:38:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] RB030826 Message-ID: <000901c36c33$b53531c0$139c68d5@default> Reading Bridge Club Tue 26-Aug-03 Our worst boards, we welocme comments... 1. LA N (0) West AK54 985 Q83 K94 Bids (1C)3S(X*)4S; (5H)P(P)? Nigel bid 5S - a bad bid. 9. EW N (4) North Q KT962 AKJT3 K7 South JT853 J4 764 J64 Bids 1H(X)P(2C); X(2N)3S(P); 4D Over 2C give marks to P X 2D 2N 3D The concensus was that Nigel should bid 2D rather than double 2C and David should pass 2N rather than bid 3S 12. NS W (14) South 6 JT965 AQT752 Q (1C)P(P)1D; (1S)1N(P)2D IMO a 1D reopening is suicidal. David should re-open with 2C or 2N not 2D I should X not bid 1N. Over 1N David should bid 2H Not 2D. 13. GA N (1) A AKT854 JT1 JT4 1H(1S)2H(3S); P(4S)P(P); 5H(P)P(X) Nigel should pass 4S 20. GA W (6) South misplayed 4S but fluked an overtrick. 21. NS N (6) East KQ864 54 KQ965 J P(2C = 4+C & 4+H/S) IMO 2S = S&D is the right bid (If we'd discussed it) I've changed my mind about the correct defence to our 2H/S bids. Now I think, over 2S, say X = T/O 3 suiter short in bid major 2N = 15-18 Nat 3C/D = bid minor + other major (S). 3OM (here 3H) = Nat 6+suit 3S = Ask for stop for NT. 25. GA N (4) West AK6 A754 KT974 K 3C(P)? Nigel passed for +130 and a bottom equal. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 27 02:17:29 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:17:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] RB030826 References: <000901c36c33$b53531c0$139c68d5@default> Message-ID: <003201c36c39$016a8680$139c68d5@default> Sorry Henk I addressed this topic to the wrong list. Please treat it as spam. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: 27 August 2003 01:38 Subject: [blml] RB030826 Reading Bridge Club Tue 26-Aug-03 Our worst boards, we welocme comments... 1. LA N (0) West AK54 985 Q83 K94 Bids (1C)3S(X*)4S; (5H)P(P)? Nigel bid 5S - a bad bid. 9. EW N (4) North Q KT962 AKJT3 K7 South JT853 J4 764 J64 Bids 1H(X)P(2C); X(2N)3S(P); 4D Over 2C give marks to P X 2D 2N 3D The concensus was that Nigel should bid 2D rather than double 2C and David should pass 2N rather than bid 3S 12. NS W (14) South 6 JT965 AQT752 Q (1C)P(P)1D; (1S)1N(P)2D IMO a 1D reopening is suicidal. David should re-open with 2C or 2N not 2D I should X not bid 1N. Over 1N David should bid 2H Not 2D. 13. GA N (1) A AKT854 JT1 JT4 1H(1S)2H(3S); P(4S)P(P); 5H(P)P(X) Nigel should pass 4S 20. GA W (6) South misplayed 4S but fluked an overtrick. 21. NS N (6) East KQ864 54 KQ965 J P(2C = 4+C & 4+H/S) IMO 2S = S&D is the right bid (If we'd discussed it) I've changed my mind about the correct defence to our 2H/S bids. Now I think, over 2S, say X = T/O 3 suiter short in bid major 2N = 15-18 Nat 3C/D = bid minor + other major (H). 3OM (here 3H) = Nat 6+suit 3S = Ask for stop for NT. 25. GA N (4) West AK6 A754 KT974 K (P)3C(P)? Nigel passed for +130 and a bottom equal. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 27 16:32:38 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:32:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> Ian, Sorry about my choice of words. For me it is colorful language and at least you don't accuse me of personal attacks. > Even the worst British tabloid journalist might baulk before writing > one of the sentences above ( In Holland we don't suffer from your 'silly' Tabloid culture. I might be wrong but those Tabloids have a reputation for twisting the truth (or how should I put it). And they have a reputation to attack and kill personalities. I can assure you that all what I wrote about Oostende is true and it can easily be verified with anybody present who at least had some involvement with / interest in the appeals. And I would be surprised if such a person would call my text an exaggeration. Anyway, if you are upset by the way I presented the story, sorry about that. But what about being upset about the EBL handling appeals like that. Don't kill the messenger. I didn't quote a French Champion on the apeal committee (my text would compare as a Sunday School essay). I didn't quote a senior Belgian TD on the appeal committee (it was worse than an insult). I didn't quote Ton Kooijman (ok I said he aired some thoughts in public). I just tried to give an accurate impression of the atmosphere, which given the reality made me use wors like 'silly', 'idiotic', 'bananas' etc because that was what it was. I know you English guys can say those things not using those words but hey come on. Whatever your objections I feel free to call it a scandal. And a structural one at that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian D Crorie" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > [Jaap] > > Dear Grattan, > > > > Even in Holland we have some non champions on our committees. But for top > > level decisions the majority is good players. In a recent EC mixed > > (oostende) we had a three member committee including two non players (Herman > > and you). The third member was OK as a player but not really active anymore > > (lets forget about certain rumours about him I want not put in public > > print). This of course is preposterous. The TD's take serious decisions > > consulting top players and then you can appeal it before this silly > > committe. This AC made some ridiculous even awful rulings. Stupid enough to > > make even Ton Kooijman so mad that he started to complain in public. And at > > a certain moment the word was out in Oostende that the AC was bananas and > > that you could appeal pretty much anything because the appeal handling had > > turned into a lottery. They lodged a crazy appeal against me (we survived > > that one) and in the end I tried an dubious appeal myself I would have never > > tried under normal circumstances. Anyway running things like this makes no > > sense if you want the players or anybody to take procedings seriously. And > > if you or anybody doesn't take my word for the above 'facts', you can check > > them by participants and TD's in Oostende. I would suggest Cristian Mari for > > a particular colorful opinion, he suffered the (probably) worst idiotic > > decision of this AC. I would be close to 'personal abuse' if I write down > > what he has said about the subject. And Mari is one of the most respected > > and most polite of players, who has won multiple EC and WC titles by the > > way. > > > In much the same way that Appeals Committees benefit from having some > good players on them, a point with which I agree, public fora like BLML > are enhanced by having contributors who are tolerant, polite, succinct > and entertaining. > > Even the worst British tabloid journalist might baulk before writing > one of the sentences above (I cannot bring myself to quote it). > I will pick out a selection however: "preposterous", "silly", > "ridiculous", "awful", "Stupid", "bananas", "idiotic". I'm glad > you weren't "close to 'personal abuse'" Jaap, for if this is you > at your most restrained, I'd hate to have to read an email where you > let yourself go. > > > > > --- > Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, > one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even > vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 27 16:33:15 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:33:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <004d01c36c1a$fe546880$94bf193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <004d01c36cb1$214b4ca0$31e87f50@Default> Well, well, I guess I have given you some excuse to dodge the real issue again. Sorry for my choice of words. But if my choice of words is more or less the only thing you can criticize what about yourself. I don't mind the language you throw at me in this email and in some previous ones. But your criticism of my choice of words makes little sense given your own offenses in this department. When compensated for your superior command of the English language it is a close call whose language is more offensive, yours or mine. But then Grattan, what about answering the real issue for a change. What is a person with your bridge skills doing in a high level AC, IF the idea is that players are to be judged by their peers. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > "A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labour > of an infinity of experiences. " > { Jacques Maritain } > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian D Crorie" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > In much the same way that Appeals Committees > > benefit from having some good players on them, > > a point with which I agree, public fora like BLML > > are enhanced by having contributors who are > > tolerant, polite, succinct and entertaining. > > > > Even the worst British tabloid journalist might > > baulk before writing one of the sentences above > > (I cannot bring myself to quote it). I will pick out > > a selection however: "preposterous", "silly", > > "ridiculous", "awful", "Stupid", "bananas", "idiotic". > > I'm glad you weren't "close to 'personal abuse'" Jaap, > > for if this is you at your most restrained, I'd hate to > > have to read an email where you let yourself go. > > > +=+ Having survived in the past as a soccer referee > for many years, and having served on appeals > committees 'at the top' for some twenty-seven years, > I am unlikely to be greatly fazed by the kind of > uninformed vituperation that Jaap throws around. > More seriously, I confess myself concerned for him: > his erratic, intemperate stridency, his recourse to > language close to that of the gutter, and his stochastic > abuse of persons, are reminiscent of symptoms I have > observed in those suffering cerebral degenaration. > I do hope we are not observing in him the early > stages of mental distress. Whatever, I think we > should react gently to his unfortunate excesses in > case they are what they look like. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Aug 27 16:37:25 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:37:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity References: Message-ID: <004e01c36cb1$221ddee0$31e87f50@Default> Tim: > In bridge, unlike many games, directors can consult in depth before making > any sort of judgement call. They don't need to be good at bridge - they > need to be good at bridge law and at consulting people. More problems > arise from TDs who *think* they are good players and fail to consult than > from TDs who acknowledge the weakness of their game and consult widely. Absolutely right. You can be a perfect TD without being a (very) good player. Of course you need some skill to understand those consultants but that is an art in itself. My main point is that when it comes to AC members bridge skills is a major issue. In the end the AC is about judgement, not about being good in law. If there is a law problem you can always consult the chief TD. Although I know from experience that quite some AC members consider themselves above the law anyway, they cannot be overruled, so who cares about what others think about the law. To protect myself (among other reasons) I tend to keep the TD at committee discussions (unles there is a good reason for him not to be present). Tim: > BTW while bridge is seriously competitive we should never pretend it is a > sport. I guess I go along although I hardly can because I pretend myself to play bridge in a serious way (although I don't care about the word 'sport'). Anyway it is exactly what the EBL/WBF does. Not so long ago they tried to sell bridge as an Olympic Sport. And yes, as the only card game played with universel rules all over the planet. It is a pity that at that moment Damiani and Rona didn't instruct the law committees to try to approach that concept a little bit. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > Jaap wrote: > > > Unfortunatly in bridge it is necessary to be as good as the players, > > preferably even better, to make most types of judgement calls. > > In bridge, unlike many games, directors can consult in depth before making > any sort of judgement call. They don't need to be good at bridge - they > need to be good at bridge law and at consulting people. More problems > arise from TDs who *think* they are good players and fail to consult than > from TDs who acknowledge the weakness of their game and consult widely. > > This is less of a problem at club level where TDs tend to be amongst the > more experienced players. > > BTW while bridge is seriously competitive we should never pretend it is a > sport. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 27 22:28:21 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:28:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <004d01c36c1a$fe546880$94bf193e@4nrw70j> <004d01c36cb1$214b4ca0$31e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <00b701c36ce3$3edc3220$def1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > When compensated for your superior command > of the English language it is a close call whose > language is more offensive, yours or mine. > +=+ You are welcome to your opinion. If anyone chooses to respond to that it will not be I. +=+ < > a person with your bridge skills < +=+ I do not comment on my own standards. I leave that to people who know something of my history, which I acknowledge goes back quite a long way before your time, and those who can speak as to my current mental condition. If I have given the impression that I think yours lacks balance, in the extreme, so I do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From toddz@att.net Thu Aug 28 02:18:57 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:18:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <00b701c36ce3$3edc3220$def1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: "'I am the King of the Jungle,' says the King of the Jungle." - Jack Spicer (my apologies if that's not exactly correct) > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > When compensated for your superior command > > of the English language it is a close call whose > > language is more offensive, yours or mine. > > > +=+ You are welcome to your opinion. If anyone > chooses to respond to that it will not be I. +=+ Fine. It was patronizing to refer to Jaap as a budding mental degenerate. And you're being far too kind. But it wasn't a close call. Despite lacking the sophistication that makes invective oh so poignant, Jaap wins this dubious contest. Chest beating at its best from the both of you. Can we get back to our regularly-scheduled intellectual browbeating? -Todd, not used to playing the role of playground lady. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 28 07:20:40 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:20:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:18 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > It was patronizing > +=+ But be in no doubt, expressing an anxiety that is wholly sincere +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 28 09:21:26 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:21:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> References: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F4DBB86.8070008@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > personalities. I can assure you that all what I wrote about Oostende is true > and it can easily be verified with anybody present who at least had some > involvement with / interest in the appeals. And I would be surprised if such > a person would call my text an exaggeration. > I have since re-read the appeals Jaap is referring to and they are of some intrest. However, the Oostende and Salos appeals have not yet been released by our chairman (nor the Menton ones, I should add). I will write to him again and ask that I may put them on the Swiss site. Then we can all read how idiotic our rulings were. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 28 11:14:13 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:14:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> <3F4DBB86.8070008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003701c36d4d$457dfd60$eeef7f50@Default> Herman: > However, the Oostende and Salos appeals have not yet been released by > our chairman (nor the Menton ones, I should add). One might wonder why the chairman chooses to withhold this kind of info at all, let alone for some years. One might think you have something to hide. Anyway it would be a good idea to publish them. Once more, everybody involved in Oostende was quite mad at the appeal committee (this can be verified easily) and yes words like idiotic (and far worse) were used by quite some people (who normally don't use that kind of language, well everybody uses that kind of language, I am just guilty of writing in the spoken language style). Now it is always posiblen that the critic was too harsh. But by now I would like some comments on the real issue. What do we think about the fact that the EBL chooses to have a three man committee at an official EBL championship (ok I know quite some people think mixed is a joke) where two out of three cannot be considered as peers. At least not for the top of the field where you expect to critical appeals. So what is up. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > personalities. I can assure you that all what I wrote about Oostende is true > > and it can easily be verified with anybody present who at least had some > > involvement with / interest in the appeals. And I would be surprised if such > > a person would call my text an exaggeration. > > > > I have since re-read the appeals Jaap is referring to and they are of > some intrest. > > However, the Oostende and Salos appeals have not yet been released by > our chairman (nor the Menton ones, I should add). > I will write to him again and ask that I may put them on the Swiss > site. Then we can all read how idiotic our rulings were. > > > > > -- > 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 28 11:15:10 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:15:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> > > It was patronizing > > > +=+ But be in no doubt, expressing > an anxiety that is wholly sincere +=+ Dear Grattan, always trying to have the last word. Well thanks for being anxious about my mental health. Anyway please realise that in the latest email exchange, whatever ugly language I might have used (I don't think it was that bad), it was you calling me names, not me you. Anyway if you were really anxious you have a rather peculiar way of showing it (IMO opinion you were looking for maximum insult without crossing a certain line). Still I like your skill in playing with words. Besides what did I really do wrong. I choose to discuss your bridge skills after a rather dubious Grattan statement about bidding technique. Now normally I wouldn't do such a thing. But the moment you (or anybody) choose to be member of high level international AC's I do think your (or anybody) bridge skills are open to discussion (and other relevant skills necessary to be a good AC member) . Try to give me a good argument I am wrong about that one. Well I have a good one. I should not do it in public. But then Grattan please refrain from teaching bridge in public. It is too provocative. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " There is no prejudice so strong as that > which arises from a fancied exemption from > all prejudice, " [Wm. Hazlitt] > ================================ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:18 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > It was patronizing > > > +=+ But be in no doubt, expressing > an anxiety that is wholly sincere +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 28 13:05:00 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:05:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> <3F4DBB86.8070008@hdw.be> <003701c36d4d$457dfd60$eeef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <004401c36d5c$a6d1ec20$2c9868d5@default> Jaap, IMO, sitting on an AC is an onerous duty not a privilege. Sometimes I wonder about the correctness of TD and AC decisions but I never under-rate the difficulty of their deliberations. Even I have sat on ACs. Luckily, the other two members have been legal experts and top players. Each time, after analysis of advice from TDs and conscientious consideration, our ruling has been unanimous. Nevertheless, I'm not confident that we made the right rulings. For example, in retrospect, I'm sure we got one case wrong. In others, I feel we might as well have tossed a coin. From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 28 14:55:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:55:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? Message-ID: <000201c36d6c$182ffec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine (it is the same spam filter = that is used on the blml server), and now it seems as if every post to blml = from Jaap is trapped as suspected spam? I have not yet developed sufficient experience to tell whether these messages are trapped both by blml and = by me or just by either me or blml. And I do wonder what it can be that causes just Jaap's messages (and of course those messages that are "genuine" spam) to be trapped? Do others also receive Jaap's messages with the text "**SPAM**" inserted = in the subject line? Sven From henk@ripe.net Thu Aug 28 15:11:30 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:11:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <000201c36d6c$182ffec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine (it is the same spam filter that > is used on the blml server), and now it seems as if every post to blml from > Jaap is trapped as suspected spam? I have not yet developed sufficient > experience to tell whether these messages are trapped both by blml and by me > or just by either me or blml. You, not BLML. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 28 15:07:10 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:07:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <7B9EC584-D8B4-11D7-88F1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002601c36d6d$ae6abf00$dcf17f50@Default> Ed: > Law 93C - although I understand some places get around this by claiming > the appeals committee at (some?) major tournaments *is* the National > Authority. Seems a bit irregular to me. Well known problem. In Holland we have 'rolling' competitions. They are spread over a rather long period of time. So here it is possible that local AC rulings get appealed to the NA. Being on the NA I don't like those appeals. Quite some of them are only about personal matters. And if not ruling weeks if not months after the fact doesn't make a lot of sense. By that time nobody cares anymore (unles it matters for the competition result). But at tournaments is is impractical to let the AC be appealed. When the tournament is over you want to have a result without a pending appeal. Every sensible organizer wants to avoid this but the law insists on there being an appeal possibility at the NA. Promoting the local AC to the NA is a well known fix. One might wonder what is more silly, this solution or the law provoking this solution. The normal procedure at Dutch tournaments is that they put in the COC 'the local AC's decision is final for the final ranking and the prizes' (I guess they do that almost everywhere). So you can appeal but the NA decision has no practical effect anymore. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity > > On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 11:37 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut > wrote: > > > Although I know > > from experience that quite some AC members consider themselves above > > the law > > anyway, they cannot be overruled, so who cares about what others think > > about > > the law. > > Law 93C - although I understand some places get around this by claiming > the appeals committee at (some?) major tournaments *is* the National > Authority. Seems a bit irregular to me. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Aug 28 14:49:27 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:49:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> <3F4DBB86.8070008@hdw.be> <003701c36d4d$457dfd60$eeef7f50@Default> <004401c36d5c$a6d1ec20$2c9868d5@default> Message-ID: <002501c36d6d$ad99b360$dcf17f50@Default> Nigel, > Nevertheless, I'm not confident that we made the > right rulings. For example, in retrospect, I'm > sure we got one case wrong. In others, I feel we > might as well have tossed a coin. I have made rulings that one day later I considered completely ridiculous. The only thing left is to learn from it, what made you decide so. And yes it often happens that is close to tossing a coin. Although you always try to convince yourself your decision is smarter than that coin. Nigel > Jaap, IMO, sitting on an AC is an onerous duty > not a privilege. True. Still some enjoy it, so how much of a duty and how much of a privilege is a personal matter. Anyway this is hardly an argument pro or contra my main point. We might as well pick some people for the AC who are good at it or in other words meet some sensible appointment criteria (poor TD's have to take exams and the like to advance). IMO the most important is bridge skills appropriate for the event at hand. Because the primary, if not only task (yes I know there are some others) of the AC is taking bridge judgement decisions. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > Jaap, IMO, sitting on an AC is an onerous duty > not a privilege. Sometimes I wonder about the > correctness of TD and AC decisions but I never > under-rate the difficulty of their deliberations. > > Even I have sat on ACs. Luckily, the other two > members have been legal experts and top players. > Each time, after analysis of advice from TDs and > conscientious consideration, our ruling has > been unanimous. > > Nevertheless, I'm not confident that we made the > right rulings. For example, in retrospect, I'm > sure we got one case wrong. In others, I feel we > might as well have tossed a coin. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 28 15:27:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:27:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c36d70$7cd3dcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) [mailto:henk@ripe.net] > Sent: 28. august 2003 16:12 > To: Sven Pran > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? >=20 > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine (it is the same spam = filter > that > > is used on the blml server), and now it seems as if every post to = blml > from > > Jaap is trapped as suspected spam? I have not yet developed = sufficient > > experience to tell whether these messages are trapped both by blml = and > by me > > or just by either me or blml. >=20 > You, not BLML. >=20 > Henk Thanks, that leaves just one question: WHY??? I installed SPAMPAL as default as possible with "medium" level filtering = and I have not noticed anything that explains to me any reason for the = trapping. Any suggestion what to look for? AHA! Here came two messages from Jaap that were not trapped. I shall spend = maybe one minute to see if I can find the essential difference. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 28 15:30:48 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:30:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <000201c36d6c$182ffec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c36d6c$182ffec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F4E1218.902@hdw.be> Why are you complaining ? Sorry Jaap, could not resist. ;-) Sven Pran wrote: > I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine (it is the same spam filter that > is used on the blml server), and now it seems as if every post to blml from > Jaap is trapped as suspected spam? I have not yet developed sufficient > experience to tell whether these messages are trapped both by blml and by me > or just by either me or blml. > > And I do wonder what it can be that causes just Jaap's messages (and of > course those messages that are "genuine" spam) to be trapped? > > Do others also receive Jaap's messages with the text "**SPAM**" inserted in > the subject line? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 28 15:50:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:50:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <000301c36d70$7cd3dcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c36d73$aa43e9f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > > I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine > > > (it is the same spam filter that is used on > > > the blml server), and now it seems as if every > > > post to blml from Jaap is trapped as suspected > > > spam? I have not yet developed sufficient > > > experience to tell whether these messages are > > > trapped both by blml and by me or just by > > > either me or blml. > > > > You, not BLML. > > > > Henk > > Thanks, that leaves just one question: WHY??? ........ > Any suggestion what to look for? > > AHA! > > Here came two messages from Jaap that were not trapped. I shall spend > maybe > one minute to see if I can find the essential difference. Found it! Notice these two header differences Trapped: Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]) by toybox.amsterdamned.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19sK0t-0006JA-00 for blml@rtflb.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:28:23 +0200 ......... X-SpamPal: SPAM OSIRU 194.109.127.138 Passed: Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) by toybox.amsterdamned.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19sNdt-0006jH-00 for blml@rtflb.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:20:53 +0200 ......... X-SpamPal: PASS OSIRU "blacklists" smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]) but not smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) Problem solved as far as I am concerned, maybe somebody in the Netherlands wants to use this information for any further action? (It seems to me that OSIRU must be relays.osirusoft.com) Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 28 16:02:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:02:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <3F4E1218.902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c36d75$6e09e7d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 28. august 2003 16:31 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? >=20 > Why are you complaining ? > Sorry Jaap, could not resist. > ;-) Mainly because when dealing with computing in any way I am of a very suspicious nature when encountering symptoms of anything unexpected. Until this was explained to my satisfaction I could not ignore the possibility that it was the first noticeable symptom of some intrusion = on any of the machines (or servers) involved in this message traffic. The outcome of my suspicion in this particular case has resulted in the pin-down of a particular IP address that is blacklisted probably due to = some unacceptable activity at some time in the past. If anybody wants to pursue this symptom any further then be my guest, = that is the reason why I made my suspicion and findings known. I am = satisfied. (Incidentally this suspicious nature of mine was the direct reason when = I was responsible for all operations on a computing centre some 20 years = ago; this centre eventually became known as a "zero problems" installation. = We ran our machines fully automated for months with no need for restarts). Regards Sven From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Aug 28 17:07:35 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:07:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <000401c36d73$aa43e9f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c36d70$7cd3dcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000401c36d73$aa43e9f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:50:03 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >X-SpamPal: SPAM OSIRU 194.109.127.138 > >Passed: >Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) > by toybox.amsterdamned.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 19sNdt-0006jH-00 > for blml@rtflb.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:20:53 +0200 >......... >X-SpamPal: PASS > > >OSIRU "blacklists" smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]) >but not smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) The relays.osirusoft.com blackhole lists are dead and should not be used. Unfortunately, in order to ensure that they everybody will notice the problem, the administrator of relays.osirusoft.com has listed *all* IP addresses in those black lists. This means that *all* mail will be blacklisted - unless you are so lucky that the osirusoft lookup fails, which it quite often does because of the attacks from spammers that is the original cause of the osirusoft shutdown. This is a terrible way to shut down a service, and I am afraid that it will give such blacklists a bad name - which is a pity, since they are normally very useful. In short: anybody using a tool like SPAMPAL that looks up IP addresses in the relays.osirusoft.com blacklists should immediately reconfigure their tool to not use those lists. See for instance http://groups.google.com/groups?q=3Dg:thl181160605d&dq=3D&hl=3Den&lr=3D&i= e=3DUTF-8&safe=3Doff&as_drrb=3Db&as_mind=3D29&as_minm=3D3&as_miny=3D1995&= as_maxd=3D26&as_maxm=3D8&as_maxy=3D2003&selm=3Dvkngbu58hn2f6b%40corp.supe= rnews.com (those who are really interested may also like to read the currently 271 follow-up messages to that one). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 28 17:39:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:39:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c36d82$f141c020$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Jesper Dybdal ....... > >X-SpamPal: SPAM OSIRU 194.109.127.138 ......... > The relays.osirusoft.com blackhole lists are dead and should not be > used. >=20 > Unfortunately, in order to ensure that they everybody will notice the > problem, the administrator of relays.osirusoft.com has listed *all* IP > addresses in those black lists. This means that *all* mail will be > blacklisted - unless you are so lucky that the osirusoft lookup fails, > which it quite often does because of the attacks from spammers that is > the original cause of the osirusoft shutdown. This is a terrible way > to shut down a service, and I am afraid that it will give such > blacklists a bad name - which is a pity, since they are normally very > useful. >=20 > In short: anybody using a tool like SPAMPAL that looks up IP addresses > in the relays.osirusoft.com blacklists should immediately reconfigure > their tool to not use those lists. >=20 > See for instance > = http://groups.google.com/groups?q=3Dg:thl181160605d&dq=3D&hl=3Den&lr=3D&i= e=3DUTF- > = 8&safe=3Doff&as_drrb=3Db&as_mind=3D29&as_minm=3D3&as_miny=3D1995&as_maxd=3D= 26&as_maxm=3D > 8&as_maxy=3D2003&selm=3Dvkngbu58hn2f6b%40corp.supernews.com > (those who are really interested may also like to read the currently > 271 follow-up messages to that one). Thanks for what appears to be very valuable information and I have = removed OSIRUS from my (default) list of DNSBL sites. The only detail that = doesn't seem convincing is that those few messages from Jaap are the only = trapped non-convincing SPAMs that I have received. According to the reference = ALL my inbox messages ought to be trapped. Much depends upon my further experience on arriving messages trapped and = not trapped. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 28 19:31:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:31:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <000201c36d6c$182ffec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 09:55 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Do others also receive Jaap's messages with the text "**SPAM**" > inserted in > the subject line? Nope. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 28 21:17:55 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:17:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <3f4ac460.61fc.0@esatclear.ie> <3F4B0968.9070706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c36da1$b63a1d50$ec23e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > I'm very sad about it, Karel, but I have to say that > you are wrong. > > Karel wrote: > >>As director I would like to treat the "play anything" > >>statement as a claim and then assuredly I will award > >>all tricks to declarer. However, the FLB says that > >>either defender has the right to force declarer to > >>discard a trump on the diamond. > > +=+ One is sometimes surprised to be in agreement with Herman, but I think Herman is in pursuit of the truth here. The law says that either defender may require the declarer to play a given card, if his designation of the card has specified neither suit nor rank - but subject to an overriding exception when "declarer's intention is incontrovertibly otherwise". Diagnosis of the intention is not restricted solely to the content of his incomplete nomination; the Director may deduce it from the rationality of the play involved or from the context of the play of the hand generally. If, for example, by ruffing his own winner declarer would lock himself into dummy and lose the remaining tricks in consequence, with winners in the closed hand, the sheer lunacy of the play would tend to deny that it could be the intention - and the Director would not gift-wrap such a morsel for salivating opponents. +=+ < > > Declarer's intentions were not incontrovertible > > in fact nowhere close. < +=+ I do not think we have been given an example, but this question is to be resolved by what is apparent to the Director of declarer's intentions, from *all* of the evidence. Blinkered exclusion of what is not overtly present in declarer's words involves the same kind of flawed thinking as an assertion that a player who expresses his opinion that a given choice of call is "revolting" is thereby saying that such a call is not a normal or a common choice, or is not to be considered a 'logical alternative' - none of which ensues from the player's description of it. All the player has done is to distance his own preferences and experience from what may well be a more frequent usage. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Aug 28 21:55:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:55:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Besides what did I really do wrong. I choose to discuss > your bridge skills after a rather dubious Grattan statement > about bidding technique. > +=+ Dear Jaap, I use words as tools. In this thread the use has aimed to open your eyes to the level of offence that you achieve all too often. You really do need to think again about your readiness to drift into linguistic violence that is insulting of one person or another. As for bridge skills - I write one word that you disagree with and all of a sudden you are in a position to discuss my bridge skills? I doubt that you know much more about them than that. As for my continued inclusion in appeals committees, and appointment in Britain as sole referee from time to time (at the English international teams trials next), it is not for me to comment - but am I not entitled to think that it may reflect a certain regard and respect held for my contributions by the personalities that I work with? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 28 22:28:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:28:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> <3F4DBB86.8070008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004901c36dab$5f820ea0$cab6193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > I have since re-read the appeals Jaap is referring > to and they are of some interest. > +=+ I wonder if it is too much to thuink that were the interest absent the appeal should not really have occurred? Well, rarely anyway. +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Aug 29 00:38:01 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ..] Diagnosis of the intention is not restricted solely to the content >of his incomplete nomination; the Director may >deduce it from the rationality of the play involved or >from the context of the play of the hand generally. If, >for example, by ruffing his own winner declarer >would lock himself into dummy and lose the >remaining tricks in consequence, with winners in >the closed hand, the sheer lunacy of the play would >tend to deny that it could be the intention - and the >Director would not gift-wrap such a morsel for >salivating opponents. +=+ +++ Well my 1st impressions on seeing the post were that it was ridiculous to allow the opps to force declarer to ruff a winner against common sense. Then I read L46B5 which specificly deals with the case in question. The only out from this Law is the clause "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". Incontrovertible is a very strong word and needs quite some proof. Herman (fair play) was attempting to get to the truth of this clause. I would love to see the full hand, bidding and play up to that point. This would no doubt make it easier to judge declarer's sanity. but we weren't given the full hand. We infact were given phenomenally little information. - We were told the opps "forced declarer to ruff the d7 and he then lost the remaining tricks". Logically this implies, declarer had one trump in dummy with which he was forced to ruff the diamond. With more than one trump he would not have lost the remaining tricks. - At some point in the original post "Declarer claimed the rest were his". We know LHO had a trump and dummy a higher one. To claim the rest declarer had to park his losing hearts on his own winners after drawing Lho's trump or over ruffing him. As LHO had a void in clubs there is no way to get to dummy to draw LHO's truump other than overruffing. But why would LHO overruff when all he has to do is wait till the 2nd last trick when a club must be played, ruff it and win or get overruffed and dummy loses the last trick. Simply put declarer's claim is definitely not incontrovertible. Now it is likely we are missing some vital information but on the information given, plus abit of analysis, declarer's case based on "incontrovertible" is as I've already said no where close. Once we dismiss the get out clause L46B5 is easy to apply. [snip ...] >+=+ I do not think we have been given an example, >but this question is to be resolved by what is apparent >to the Director of declarer's intentions, from *all* of >the evidence. > Blinkered exclusion of what is not overtly present >in declarer's words involves the same kind of flawed >thinking as an assertion that a player who expresses >his opinion that a given choice of call is "revolting" >is thereby saying that such a call is not a normal or a >common choice, or is not to be considered a 'logical >alternative' - none of which ensues from the player's >description of it. All the player has done is to >distance his own preferences and experience from >what may well be a more frequent usage. +++ well all that may be true but either give the full picture when posting or expect a slanted ruling on the information you supply. Still I think the whole point to the post was to demonstrate that there is a weakness in L46 which can be (has been) exploited and needs to be re-thought. With this I agree. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From john@asimere.com Fri Aug 29 02:40:46 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:40:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <002501c36d6d$ad99b360$dcf17f50@Default> References: <004c01c36cb1$207a4100$31e87f50@Default> <3F4DBB86.8070008@hdw.be> <003701c36d4d$457dfd60$eeef7f50@Default> <004401c36d5c$a6d1ec20$2c9868d5@default> <002501c36d6d$ad99b360$dcf17f50@Default> Message-ID: In article <002501c36d6d$ad99b360$dcf17f50@Default>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Nigel, >> Nevertheless, I'm not confident that we made the >> right rulings. For example, in retrospect, I'm >> sure we got one case wrong. In others, I feel we >> might as well have tossed a coin. > >I have made rulings that one day later I considered completely ridiculous. I made a ruling at Brighton that, by the time it reached the AC, I felt was wrong. However the appellants did not raise the issue I'd spotted, nor did the AC spot it, so my ruling was upheld. After sleeping on it for 3 days and consulting twice more, I decided that my ruling was actually correct, but for a number of wrong reasons. fwiw, the ruling was made at just about the time the CTD was wanting to announce the qualifiers for the finals (this at 11 pm), where the finals start 2 hours earlier (at 11 am!) than the continuation of the main event, and my ruling affected a qualifier. I'd had about 10 minutes to consider my ruling, during which I consulted with 3 other persons. >The only thing left is to learn from it, what made you decide so. And yes it >often happens that is close to tossing a coin. Although you always try to >convince yourself your decision is smarter than that coin. > >Nigel >> Jaap, IMO, sitting on an AC is an onerous duty >> not a privilege. -- 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 Fri Aug 29 02:44:35 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:44:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> Message-ID: In article <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " There is no prejudice so strong as that >which arises from a fancied exemption from >all prejudice, " [Wm. Hazlitt] >================================ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jaap van der Neut" >To: "Grattan Endicott" ; >"blml" >Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:15 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > >> >> Besides what did I really do wrong. I choose to discuss >> your bridge skills after a rather dubious Grattan statement >> about bidding technique. >> >+=+ Dear Jaap, > I use words as tools. In this thread the use has aimed >to open your eyes to the level of offence that you achieve >all too often. You really do need to think again about your >readiness to drift into linguistic violence that is insulting of >one person or another. > As for bridge skills - I write one word that you disagree >with and all of a sudden you are in a position to discuss my >bridge skills? I doubt that you know much more about >them than that. As for my continued inclusion in appeals >committees, and appointment in Britain as sole referee >from time to time (at the English international teams trials >next), it is not for me to comment - but am I not entitled to >think that it may reflect a certain regard and respect held >for my contributions by the personalities that I work with? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ much as it hurts , I have to confess Grattan is somewhat competent. I'm often the CTD at such events. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 29 10:15:04 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:15:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001701c36e0f$e64433a0$6ceb7f50@Default> Dear Grattan, > I use words as tools. In this thread the use has aimed > to open your eyes to the level of offence that you achieve > all too often. You really do need to think again about your > readiness to drift into linguistic violence that is insulting of > one person or another. I know I have a rather direct style. I really don't need you telling me this. For well over 10 years I write a multi page bidding panel in the Dutch magazine IMP using this style and it is the article everybody always reads first and 'verybody' likes (for some maybe hate) most. I understand by now you don't like the style. Some others on blml also don't like it, but I have the impression some do. And about opening eyes, do you realize you keep on complaining about my language as a tool to avoid the subject at hand. Anyway it is you who recently reffered to me as a 'budding mental degenerate' (Todd's brief of your words), probably provoked but not by me calling you names, so I guess you have lost all rights to lecture others about good manners for at least a year. > As for bridge skills - I write one word that you disagree > with and all of a sudden you are in a position to discuss my > bridge skills? First. It was not 'one word' it was also the arrogant way you expressed yourself, posing yourself as an expert which whatever your bridge skills, you definitly are not. As you well know dear Grattan, often it is not what you say but the way you say it. What you said made little sense (don't worry it happens to all of us), the way you said it made you look pathetic. Second. Your bridge skills have long been under discussion. I cannot really quote what has been said during many championships about you and Herman (and some others) being in and worse somethimes being the majority of an AC. If I would write down that language you start complaining again I have no manners. Actually I am quite a decent journalist. I check my facts, I never misquote people, and I avoid quoting people when that might hurt them, and I have many sources of info. So there is nothing sudden about discussing your bridge skills. The big majority of the players thinks the current EBL AC is a disgrace. Why ? Because there are few good players on it, still that AC judges champions on bridge decisions. Anyway, one of the reasons I have restrained myself about you is that I don't really know how good you are. Most remarks have been along the lines of 'that old guy should have gone by now'. Well I never liked that argument myself too much because old age in itself should not be an argument. > As for my continued inclusion in appeals > committees, and appointment in Britain as sole referee > from time to time (at the English international teams trials > next), it is not for me to comment - but am I not entitled to > think that it may reflect a certain regard and respect held > for my contributions by the personalities that I work with? So this proves the EBU thinks you are good enough. Anyway the real question is 'are the players happy with this setup'. If so I guess you are up to job. But if it is just the usual decision made by the 'old boys' it only means you are 'well connected'. By the way I don't like the concept of a sole referee. Jaap From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 29 10:28:18 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:28:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001801c36e0f$e74799e0$6ceb7f50@Default> John: > much as it hurts , I have to confess Grattan is > somewhat competent. I'm often the CTD at such events. I myself think Grattan is 'somewhat competent'. And that might well be an understatement. Still the real issue is, has he any business judging champions on bridge issues (MI UI cases). But the real bad player feelings about the EBL AC are not about a certain Grattan on the AC. Only players on a AC is also dangerous. It is about the big picture. And then everybody sees they are judged by a bunch of people who with some exceptions cannot dream of playing at that level. Then you get the criticism. And then Grattan gets maybe more of the flak than he deserves. Also because he is the most visible of them. Also because he is on blml actually defending himself and the EBL. However much I might disagree with him, I admire and respect him for that. Jaap From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Aug 29 10:35:53 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:35:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? References: <000201c36d6c$182ffec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c36e18$1777bf20$9c053dd4@m1q9j9> My provider applies a spamfilter, so I have not received Jaap's "spammail". Have I missed interesting information? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine (it is the same spam filter that is used on the blml server), and now it seems as if every post to blml from Jaap is trapped as suspected spam? I have not yet developed sufficient experience to tell whether these messages are trapped both by blml and by me or just by either me or blml. And I do wonder what it can be that causes just Jaap's messages (and of course those messages that are "genuine" spam) to be trapped? Do others also receive Jaap's messages with the text "**SPAM**" inserted in the subject line? Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 29 11:34:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:34:32 +0200 Subject: **SPAM** Re: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? In-Reply-To: <000201c36e18$1777bf20$9c053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000501c36e19$22a3be20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Ben Schelen [mailto:B.Schelen@IAE.NL] > Sent: 29. august 2003 11:36 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: **SPAM** Re: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? > > My provider applies a spamfilter, so I have not received Jaap's > "spammail". > Have I missed interesting information? > > Ben Probably not. It appears that my configuration for SPAMPAL (DSNBL selection list) results in too many cases of false traps. I am working on finding the best balance. Regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:55 PM > Subject: [blml] Jaap's messages trapped by SPAMPAL? > > > I recently installed SPAMPAL on my machine (it is the same spam filter > that > is used on the blml server), and now it seems as if every post to blml > from > Jaap is trapped as suspected spam? I have not yet developed sufficient > experience to tell whether these messages are trapped both by blml and by > me > or just by either me or blml. > > And I do wonder what it can be that causes just Jaap's messages (and of > course those messages that are "genuine" spam) to be trapped? > > Do others also receive Jaap's messages with the text "**SPAM**" inserted > in > the subject line? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 29 14:01:04 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:01:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Filter problems. References: <000501c36e19$22a3be20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c36e2d$c712fd40$7ced7f50@Default> Sven, As far as I know there is nothing wrong with my computer. Although I have a rather random service provider, last week I was using the SMTP of the best internet provider in Holland. The best in the sense that they actively combat spam and viruses. Maybe it is something they do that triggered your filter. Recently there were some real virus problems so it might well be that they temporarily had some active defenses on. Jaap From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Aug 29 14:18:34 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:18:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000601c36e30$0e2cabc0$7ced7f50@Default> Karel, It seems we are discussing without relevant info again. On the other hand we hardly need info. Herman (and Grattan and Ton ?) advocate a style where the rules become kind of fluid. The poor guy said 'play anything' ? Well that seems so stupid that I (Herman or ....) think he cannot possible have meant that, so I will rule that he will play something more sensible rather than to apply the law. The big mistake here is that the fact that it is stupid doesn't prove declarer didn't intend to play like that. We all make very stupid plays from time to time. I (and Burn and ..... and 99% of serious bridge players) just want to apply the law. If not why have a law in the first place. If the guy says 'play anything' then anything it is. Besides what is wrong with requiring declarers to mention rank and suit. If they don't, and use all kind of shorthand instead they have to pay the price when things go wrong. Why protect this nonsense. The above is a little bit black and white. There is also a communication problem (might be language and or culture as well). It is possible declarer said (or tried to say) something different from what the defense understood. This I consider another problem. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > [snip ..] > Diagnosis of the intention is not restricted solely to the content > >of his incomplete nomination; the Director may > >deduce it from the rationality of the play involved or > >from the context of the play of the hand generally. If, > >for example, by ruffing his own winner declarer > >would lock himself into dummy and lose the > >remaining tricks in consequence, with winners in > >the closed hand, the sheer lunacy of the play would > >tend to deny that it could be the intention - and the > >Director would not gift-wrap such a morsel for > >salivating opponents. +=+ > > +++ Well my 1st impressions on seeing the post were that it was ridiculous to > allow the opps to force declarer to ruff a winner against common sense. Then > I read L46B5 which specificly deals with the case in question. The only out > from this Law is the clause "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". > Incontrovertible is a very strong word and needs quite some proof. Herman > (fair play) was attempting to get to the truth of this clause. > > I would love to see the full hand, bidding and play up to that point. This > would no doubt make it easier to judge declarer's sanity. > > but we weren't given the full hand. We infact were given phenomenally little > information. > > - We were told the opps "forced declarer to ruff the d7 and he then lost the > remaining tricks". Logically this implies, declarer had one trump in dummy > with which he was forced to ruff the diamond. With more than one trump he would > not have lost the remaining tricks. > > - At some point in the original post "Declarer claimed the rest were his". > We know LHO had a trump and dummy a higher one. To claim the rest declarer > had to park his losing hearts on his own winners after drawing Lho's trump or > over ruffing him. As LHO had a void in clubs there is no way to get to dummy > to draw LHO's truump other than overruffing. But why would LHO overruff when > all he has to do is wait till the 2nd last trick when a club must be played, > ruff it and win or get overruffed and dummy loses the last trick. > > Simply put declarer's claim is definitely not incontrovertible. Now it is likely > we are missing some vital information but on the information given, plus abit > of analysis, declarer's case based on "incontrovertible" is as I've already > said no where close. Once we dismiss the get out clause L46B5 is easy to apply. > > > [snip ...] > >+=+ I do not think we have been given an example, > >but this question is to be resolved by what is apparent > >to the Director of declarer's intentions, from *all* of > >the evidence. > > Blinkered exclusion of what is not overtly present > >in declarer's words involves the same kind of flawed > >thinking as an assertion that a player who expresses > >his opinion that a given choice of call is "revolting" > >is thereby saying that such a call is not a normal or a > >common choice, or is not to be considered a 'logical > >alternative' - none of which ensues from the player's > >description of it. All the player has done is to > >distance his own preferences and experience from > >what may well be a more frequent usage. > > +++ well all that may be true but either give the full picture when posting > or expect a slanted ruling on the information you supply. > > Still I think the whole point to the post was to demonstrate that there is a > weakness in L46 which can be (has been) exploited and needs to be re-thought. > With this I agree. > > K. > > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 29 15:12:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:12:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Filter problems. In-Reply-To: <000001c36e2d$c712fd40$7ced7f50@Default> Message-ID: <000001c36e37$a0add7b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I finally found out that it was the address: smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]) which was flagged as an address having been used for sending SPAM sufficiently to be placed on a "black list". It would not surprise me if this is some afterwaves from the recent sobig (or similar) attacks.=20 The reason for my "alert" was a suspicion that there might be something = more sinister going on. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > Sent: 29. august 2003 15:01 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Filter problems. >=20 > Sven, >=20 > As far as I know there is nothing wrong with my computer. >=20 > Although I have a rather random service provider, last week I was = using > the > SMTP of the best internet provider in Holland. The best in the sense = that > they actively combat spam and viruses. Maybe it is something they do = that > triggered your filter. Recently there were some real virus problems so = it > might well be that they temporarily had some active defenses on. >=20 > Jaap From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Aug 29 16:41:53 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:41:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass Message-ID: I know Grattan doesn't need me to leap to his defence. However... Jaap van der Neut: >First. It was not 'one word' it was also the arrogant way you expressed >yourself, posing yourself as an expert which whatever your bridge skills, >you definitly are not. Grattan chooses his words very carefully. Occasionally his sentences may appear a little verbose, but not arrogant. >As you well know dear Grattan, often it is not what >you say but the way you say it. What you said made little sense (don't >worry >it happens to all of us), the way you said it made you look pathetic. An astonishing charge to level, in my opinion. >Second. Your bridge skills have long been under discussion...self-justifying twaddle cut> Anyway, one of the reasons I have restrained myself about you is that I don't really know how good you are. If you regard insult and innuendo as restraint, I wonder what happens when you let yourself go? >Most remarks have been along the lines of 'that old guy should have gone by >now'. Well I never liked that argument myself too much because old age in >itself should not be an argument. But you thought you'd mention it anyway. >So this proves the EBU thinks you are good enough. Anyway the real question >is 'are the players happy with this setup'. If so I guess you are up to >job. >But if it is just the usual decision made by the 'old boys' it only means >you are 'well connected'. The EBU doesn't specialize in 'Old Boy Network' type decisions, at least as far as I know. As in many spheres of life, the people who turn up get appointed, or make decisions. Grattan is clearly a top legislator and expert on the laws. He is also an experienced and competent player (possibly not a potential world champion, but then who is?). What, really, do you need other than this? Can only Meckstroth sit in judgement on Rodwell? An absurd notion. _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 29 18:49:31 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:49:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> <000601c36e30$0e2cabc0$7ced7f50@Default> Message-ID: <002501c36e55$e81e9620$9b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] The big mistake here is that the fact that it is stupid doesn't prove declarer didn't intend to play like that. We all make very stupid plays from time to time. I (and Burn and ..... and 99% of serious bridge players) just want to apply the law. [Nigel] IMO it is more often laziness than stupidity that prompts such vague statements. I have a partner who sometimes claims with "make your own arrangements". Even more irritating are those who return their hand to the board-slot. If challenged they can usually work out a fool-proof line of play but why should they bother against acquiescent and complacent opponents who let them get away with it? If opponents demur, then they may still be rescued by a TD who is keen to demonstrate his play skills. A few "Burn" rulings would eradicate this sloppiness. I agree that it should be illegal for TDs and ACs to encourage such sloth. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Aug 29 08:25:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:25:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000a01c36e61$7b8e43f0$8f51e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > > +++ Well my 1st impressions on seeing the post > were that it was ridiculous to allow the opps to > force declarer to ruff a winner against common > sense. Then I read L46B5 which specificly deals > with the case in question. The only out from this > Law is the clause "except when declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible". > Incontrovertible is a very strong word and needs > quite some proof. Herman (fair play) was > attempting to get to the truth of this clause. > +=+ What is 'incontrovertible' is decided by the Director (and the AC if appealed). 'Quite some proof'? It is a question whether the Director can look at the evidence and say to himself "it is wholly unbelievable that declarer intended that". It would be wholly unbelievable that Declarer would ruff his winner in dummy if that left him stranded there, knowingly cut off from winners in hand, to lose all the remaining tricks. The Director would not go along with that: irrationality would be evidence against intention. I would need to think through some more as to what circumstances there are, if any, in which declarer might ruff his own trick in dummy without specifying it. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Aug 29 08:59:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:59:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000b01c36e61$7c6988c0$8f51e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > much as it hurts , I have > to confess Grattan is somewhat competent. I'm > often the CTD at such events. > > +=+ Steady on, John..... a skill I have lost is the art of blushing :-) Or did I ever.....? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Aug 29 13:26:06 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:26:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000c01c36e61$7d9d26c0$8f51e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > > - At some point in the original post "Declarer > claimed the rest were his". We know LHO had > a trump and dummy a higher one. To claim > the rest declarer had to park his losing hearts > on his own winners after drawing Lho's trump > or over ruffing him. As LHO had a void in > clubs there is no way to get to dummy to draw > LHO's truump other than overruffing. But why > would LHO overruff when all he has to do is > wait till the 2nd last trick when a club must be > played, ruff it and win or get overruffed and > dummy loses the last trick. > +=+ Er, excuse me - if the Director refused to let opponent insist declarer ruff his own winner, would not the above be the outcome of the hand anyway? +=+ From john@asimere.com Sat Aug 30 04:16:00 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:16:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <001701c36e0f$e64433a0$6ceb7f50@Default> References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> <001701c36e0f$e64433a0$6ceb7f50@Default> Message-ID: In article <001701c36e0f$e64433a0$6ceb7f50@Default>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Dear Grattan, > snip > >> As for my continued inclusion in appeals >> committees, and appointment in Britain as sole referee >> from time to time (at the English international teams trials >> next), it is not for me to comment - but am I not entitled to >> think that it may reflect a certain regard and respect held >> for my contributions by the personalities that I work with? > >So this proves the EBU thinks you are good enough. Anyway the real question >is 'are the players happy with this setup'. If so I guess you are up to job. >But if it is just the usual decision made by the 'old boys' it only means >you are 'well connected'. By the way I don't like the concept of a sole >referee. > it works ok at trials - by the time the TD has phoned 3-5 people (he can't use players at the event, as there's too much self-interest) and the referee has communed with a few others (Grattan has a direct line to God given his advanced degree of senility), probably more thought goes into these sorts of appeals than in a major national. I think you have to accept, Jaap, that we mostly get it right in the UK. Certainly the degree of uniformity in ruling is very high, and the AC's seldom leave the TD's wide-eyed with shock. >Jaap > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 30 10:34:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:34:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <000401c36edc$402e6a30$9b28e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > The EBU doesn't specialize in 'Old Boy Network' type > decisions, at least as far as I know. As in many spheres > of life, the people who turn up get appointed, or make > decisions. Grattan is clearly a top legislator and expert > on the laws. He is also an experienced and competent > player (possibly not a potential world champion, but > then who is?). What, really, do you need other than this? > Can only Meckstroth sit in judgement on Rodwell? An > absurd notion. > +=+ Thanks Norman for weighing in. If I can say a word or two without attaching it to any personality at all, the chief element missing in Jaap is an understanding that, given a level of bridge competence, the most desirable attribute in an AC member is the capacity to listen to a player of whatever level, and follow his arguments. In appeals committees I have come across AC members, some of great reputation, who are so single minded about what is 'good' or 'bad' bridge that they do not have the flexibility to do this. These are the most useless kind of AC members. You may be able to think of one or two who are so self-opinionated as probably to fit this category. I have not responded to Jaap's opinions about me because I do not think it proper to do so. Also it is a subject of which I suspect he is ignorant. But, of course, I am aware that I have lost something these days in execution at the table - although as far as I can tell the mind is still clear when it comes to looking at cases..If I became desolate, I could turn to polishing the old silverware in the cupboard.(Which is what Jaap, with his outstanding charm, has suggested I might do.) ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sat Aug 30 08:45:58 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:45:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <000801c36d2c$965a6140$524ee150@endicott> <003801c36d4d$461cae60$eeef7f50@Default> <000401c36da7$500b7500$c013e150@endicott> <001701c36e0f$e64433a0$6ceb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <001b01c36ece$a765f0a0$ace17f50@Default> John > it works ok at trials - by the time the TD has phoned 3-5 people (he > can't use players at the event, as there's too much self-interest) and > the referee has communed with a few others (Grattan has a direct line to > God given his advanced degree of senility), probably more thought goes > into these sorts of appeals than in a major national. I think you have > to accept, Jaap, that we mostly get it right in the UK. Certainly the > degree of uniformity in ruling is very high, and the AC's seldom leave > the TD's wide-eyed with shock. > Happy to hear that at least in some jurisdictions they got it more or less right. You seem to do it more or less the way I advocate since ages. Apart from the fact that IMO you can do away with appeals altogether if a competent CTD consults a couple of 'relevant' players. A competent TD meaning he/she takes that consultation serious. Anyway I know little specifics about the EBU ands as far as I know I have not directly voiced an opinion on the EBU. My main focus was on EBL/WBF procedures. Jaap Jaap From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sat Aug 30 09:13:51 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:13:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <001c01c36ece$a7e49680$ace17f50@Default> > I know Grattan doesn't need me to leap to his defence. However... Ok this got a little out of hand. And nothing wrong defending Grattan. Anyway I didn't really attack Grattan, I attacked the EBL/WBF system of doing appeals and organizing AC's. Grattan is part of that and since he is the only one to defend it in public (as I said for this I admire him) he tends to get in the crossfire. I can be persistent. Specially because so far nobody has given me a good argument against my point of view. There are only complaints about the way I get along. Gives me a strong indication I am right, maybe (probably) not on all details but on the main picture. Jaap > >As you well know dear Grattan, often it is not what > >you say but the way you say it. What you said made little sense (don't > >worry > >it happens to all of us), the way you said it made you look pathetic. Norman: > An astonishing charge to level, in my opinion. Asthonishing charge? If somebody says '1S is revolting' in a serious way (given the context) where 1S is the normal bid at any level of play, you can challenge that somebody if he poses as or is an authority. And if that challenge meets a one word reply which makes little sense then what is wrong with my assesment that this is pathetic. And I don't like such a somebody deciding on what is a logical alternative and like decisions. Jaap > >Most remarks have been along the lines of 'that old guy should have gone by > >now'. Well I never liked that argument myself too much because old age in > >itself should not be an argument. Norman: > But you thought you'd mention it anyway. Well, if nobody ever communicates to the authorities what is frequently said about those authorities 'in the street' how do we ever get anywhere. Don't forget I am discussing EBL context. And the EBL got so many things wrong recently that nobody restrains himself anymore when it comes to complaining and gossiping about the EBL. I understand you hate the messenger, but the real guilty party is the one generating or causing the messages. Anyway I got the same type of reactions when I said some things about Menton but in the end some guys expressed they liked what I did. Norman: > Grattan is clearly a top legislator and expert > on the laws. He is also an experienced and competent player (possibly not a > potential world champion, but then who is?). What, really, do you need other > than this? Can only Meckstroth sit in judgement on Rodwell? An absurd > notion. Agree, this is an absurd notion. But a guy like Herman being on such an AC is even more absurd. The main point is that the EBL AC's have too few good players in them given the level of play they have to judge. I mentioned Oostende (which really was a scandal) but it is not always that bad. Still the system is rotten. AC's make bridge judgements. Of course you need some input of law expertise, but in the end it is only good players who can make high level bridge judgements. Or in other words, every serious AC needs one Grattan type of member (often the most obvious chair), but not more than one. In the end there is always the CTD when there is really a dispute about law. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Scorbie" To: Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Jaap van der Neut: > > >First. It was not 'one word' it was also the arrogant way you expressed > >yourself, posing yourself as an expert which whatever your bridge skills, > >you definitly are not. > > Grattan chooses his words very carefully. Occasionally his sentences may > appear a little verbose, but not arrogant. > > >As you well know dear Grattan, often it is not what > >you say but the way you say it. What you said made little sense (don't > >worry > >it happens to all of us), the way you said it made you look pathetic. > > An astonishing charge to level, in my opinion. > > >Second. Your bridge skills have long been under discussion... >self-justifying twaddle cut> > Anyway, one of the reasons I have restrained myself about you is that I > don't really know how good you are. > > If you regard insult and innuendo as restraint, I wonder what happens when > you let yourself go? > > >Most remarks have been along the lines of 'that old guy should have gone by > >now'. Well I never liked that argument myself too much because old age in > >itself should not be an argument. > > But you thought you'd mention it anyway. > > >So this proves the EBU thinks you are good enough. Anyway the real question > >is 'are the players happy with this setup'. If so I guess you are up to > >job. > >But if it is just the usual decision made by the 'old boys' it only means > >you are 'well connected'. > > The EBU doesn't specialize in 'Old Boy Network' type decisions, at least as > far as I know. As in many spheres of life, the people who turn up get > appointed, or make decisions. Grattan is clearly a top legislator and expert > on the laws. He is also an experienced and competent player (possibly not a > potential world champion, but then who is?). What, really, do you need other > than this? Can only Meckstroth sit in judgement on Rodwell? An absurd > notion. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Aug 30 21:47:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:47:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <001c01c36ece$a7e49680$ace17f50@Default> Message-ID: <004901c36f37$f44590b0$f324e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Norman Scorbie" ; Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > I attacked the EBL/WBF system of doing appeals > and organizing AC's. Grattan is part of that and > since he is the only one to defend it in public < +=+ I had not realized that I had defended the EBL/WBF system in public. It is true that in the period when I was Chair/Vice Chair of WBF TACs I did influence some changes - such as reduction in the numbers of members of ACs and style of conducting hearings. In this I was following my experience of the EBL/EBU style and practice for which people like Bill Pencharz and later, in the EBL's case also Jens Auken, were chiefly responsible. I did not get all I wanted. Things have moved on a bit since then and others have had their input. I would think it presumptuous of me to 'defend' the EBL/WBF bodies - the respective Executive Councils answer for them. I do not think, by the way, that anyone has been deliberately holding up the publication of records from Salso, Oostende, etc. Very likely a matter of poor communications and heavy personal work loads rather than malicious delay, I suggest. Away from the game the people concerned are prominent lawyers, are they not? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 31 03:34:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:34:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <001b01c36ece$a765f0a0$ace17f50@Default> Message-ID: On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 03:45 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > IMO you can do away with appeals altogether if a > competent CTD consults a couple of 'relevant' players. A competent TD > meaning he/she takes that consultation serious. Even a competent TD can make a mistake. Should there not be some recourse against this possibility? From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 31 08:10:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:10:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <001f01c36f8f$0a943f40$e140e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 03:45 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > IMO you can do away with appeals altogether if a > > competent CTD consults a couple of 'relevant' > > players. A competent TD meaning he/she takes > > that consultation serious. > > Even a competent TD can make a mistake. Should > there not be some recourse against this possibility? > +=+ Nor was the point taken that with TDs consulting players - often four or five - the demand on the bridge expertise within the committee has lessened. +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Aug 31 09:19:06 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:19:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <000a01c36e61$7b8e43f0$8f51e150@endicott> References: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> <000a01c36e61$7b8e43f0$8f51e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3F51AF7A.8080300@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ What is 'incontrovertible' is decided > by the Director (and the AC if appealed). > 'Quite some proof'? It is a question whether > the Director can look at the evidence and > say to himself "it is wholly unbelievable > that declarer intended that". > It would be wholly unbelievable that > Declarer would ruff his winner in dummy if > that left him stranded there, knowingly cut > off from winners in hand, to lose all the > remaining tricks. The Director would not > go along with that: irrationality would be > evidence against intention. I would need > to think through some more as to what > circumstances there are, if any, in which > declarer might ruff his own trick in dummy > without specifying it. > ~ G ~ +=+ > True, Grattan, on the face of it this is irrational beyond bounds. What is not irrational, however, is a declarer who forgets that diamonds are trumps. When cashing spades and saying, "throw anything" from a table containing only diamonds and hearts, it is not impossible that declarer thought he was playing no-trump. Why otherwise would he not simply say "heart"? That is what the TD needs to find out. Surely you agree that if it turns out that declarer really was mistaken in this manner, claimer's intent not the "throw a diamond" is not incontrovertible? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 31 10:35:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:35:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> I am usually very happy with both those terms the way they are used in = the laws when I as a player have made a silly mistake which I can demand = undone with reference to them. But when I take on my role as a director I am most unhappy with the way = the laws of duplicate contract bridge have evolved over the years in this respect. The situation became even worse (as we have seen in numerous complaints and appeals) when we got the added clause "for the class of player". My grandfather told me once of an episode at the first world = championship in 1937: Norway played against USA in the quarter finals in a very exiting match and it took two extra rounds after the scheduled 72 boards to = decide the winner. Then the Norwegian declarer straightened a card in dummy = without any intention of playing that card but just to tidy up dummy. Ely = Culbertson demanded the card played ("touched is played") after which the lay-down = slam went one down and Norway lost. My grandfather told me that the declarer should have said "just tidying up" or words to that effect before = touching any card in dummy and Ely would not have had any case. Today Ely would have been ruled against and if he had tried an appeal = that would obviously have been ruled as frivolous. As a Norwegian I should of course nod to this in view of the episode, but frankly I feel that Ely = was correct. Look at the game of chess which in comparable situations should not be = too different from bridge (I do hope they haven't changed the laws I am = about to cite):=20 If a player has touched one of his own pieces he must move that piece no matter of how irrational that move is, and without any question of = whether that move was incontrovertibly not his intention. If he has touched one = of opponent's pieces he must similarly take that piece with one of his own. = The only exception to these rules in chess is if there is no legal play in = which he can fulfill this duty. It is my firm opinion that our game of bridge would not suffer from the abolishment of all such "exceptions" to the basic rules where the laws = use the term "unless it was ...". Chess players know their rules and they = accept and live up to them (well, at least I believe they do).=20 Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they make an = imprecise claim then all unspecified details will be resolved according to = opponent's directives? (Once upon the time that was the law on claims). Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they as declarer = make an imprecise designation of a card to be played from dummy then = opponents decide which card among those available under the given designation is = to be played? I really see no advantage of our present "unless" rules except to = comfort sloppy players; I see a very big advantage in removing all the "unless = ..." stuff so that players know they have no recourse for sloppiness and so = that we shall have much less appeals which ought to be without merit in the = first place. The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would = probably be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting to a better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the table? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Aug 31 11:57:04 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:57:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> Yes Sven, you gave your own answer: Sven Pran wrote: > I am usually very happy with both those terms the way they are used in the > laws when I as a player have made a silly mistake which I can demand undone > with reference to them. > > But when I take on my role as a director I am most unhappy with the way the > laws of duplicate contract bridge have evolved over the years in this > respect. The situation became even worse (as we have seen in numerous > complaints and appeals) when we got the added clause "for the class of > player". > > My grandfather told me once of an episode at the first world championship in > 1937: Norway played against USA in the quarter finals in a very exiting > match and it took two extra rounds after the scheduled 72 boards to decide > the winner. Then the Norwegian declarer straightened a card in dummy without > any intention of playing that card but just to tidy up dummy. Ely Culbertson > demanded the card played ("touched is played") after which the lay-down slam > went one down and Norway lost. My grandfather told me that the declarer > should have said "just tidying up" or words to that effect before touching > any card in dummy and Ely would not have had any case. > > Today Ely would have been ruled against and if he had tried an appeal that > would obviously have been ruled as frivolous. As a Norwegian I should of > course nod to this in view of the episode, but frankly I feel that Ely was > correct. > > Look at the game of chess which in comparable situations should not be too > different from bridge (I do hope they haven't changed the laws I am about to > cite): > > If a player has touched one of his own pieces he must move that piece no > matter of how irrational that move is, and without any question of whether > that move was incontrovertibly not his intention. If he has touched one of > opponent's pieces he must similarly take that piece with one of his own. The > only exception to these rules in chess is if there is no legal play in which > he can fulfill this duty. > > It is my firm opinion that our game of bridge would not suffer from the > abolishment of all such "exceptions" to the basic rules where the laws use > the term "unless it was ...". Chess players know their rules and they accept > and live up to them (well, at least I believe they do). > > Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they make an imprecise > claim then all unspecified details will be resolved according to opponent's > directives? (Once upon the time that was the law on claims). > > Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they as declarer make > an imprecise designation of a card to be played from dummy then opponents > decide which card among those available under the given designation is to be > played? > > I really see no advantage of our present "unless" rules except to comfort > sloppy players; I see a very big advantage in removing all the "unless ..." > stuff so that players know they have no recourse for sloppiness and so that > we shall have much less appeals which ought to be without merit in the first > place. > This one: > The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would probably > be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting to a > better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the table? > Bridge players are notoriously negligent. Chess players OTOH are tought from an early age to behave correctly. If you have any experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change in an alert procedure, imagine the enormous difficulty you will face with the simple change you propose. Yes, the end result would be a little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we really prepared to wait fifty years for that? And spend those fifty years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split between recreational and sporting bridge? > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 31 12:38:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:38:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c36fb4$648a7da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Yes Sven, you gave your own answer: >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > This one: >=20 > > The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would > probably > > be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting = to a > > better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the = table? > > >=20 > Bridge players are notoriously negligent. Chess players OTOH are > tought from an early age to behave correctly. If you have any > experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change > in an alert procedure, imagine the enormous difficulty you will face > with the simple change you propose. Yes, the end result would be a > little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we > really prepared to wait fifty years for that? And spend those fifty > years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split > between recreational and sporting bridge? >=20 Seriously: I am not convinced that is the answer, or rather that that = answer stands up to reason. For one thing the bridge laws have evolved away from such principles = that I suggest, I have never really understood why. And even when I first learned bridge (well, whether I learned it is a = matter of discussion) I was told and trained to pay respect to the game and act = so that my intentions were clear. (Ref. the tale I had from my grandpa) You say that chess players are told from an early stage to behave = correctly; I agree and have great problems in understanding why bridge players = could not be told the same. Now, if we begin reversing the bridge laws by removing those awkward "unless" clauses and start telling players that from now on they will be ruled against if they do not obey the principal rules for claims and for designating cards to be played from dummy I suspect that after a rather brief introduction period most players will salute the change. They may not always be happy about the outcome, but at least they will appreciate that they no longer shall feel being subject to different = rulings just because of who they happen to be. And the directors will have to establish the plain facts (like today) but then he will in 99% of the = cases have a straight forward ruling with no need for any personal judgment. Fair? Yes - you have a set of precise rules; you know the consequences. = And these rules in themselves are at least as "fair" as anything. They apply with the same force to everybody.=20 Will such strict rules destroy the game? In my opinion definitely not. Finally I strongly suspect that those players who cannot adapt to such changes are the same players who already today exhibit a very relaxed attitude to the present laws.=20 Regards Sven From schuster@eduhi.at Sun Aug 31 12:53:36 2003 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:53:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:57:04 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Bridge players are notoriously negligent. Chess players OTOH are tought > from an early age to behave correctly. If you have any experience with > trying to have bridge players cope with a small change in an alert > procedure, imagine the enormous difficulty you will face with the simple > change you propose. Yes, the end result would be a little less > discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we really prepared > to wait fifty years for that? And spend those fifty years in purgatory, > not to mention the risk of a definite split between recreational and > sporting bridge? > Not always: IMO, Bridge players tend not to care for rules changes as long as they suffer no disadvantage. A change as proposed by Sven would carry an automatic disadvantage for those who disregard it, and would probably be internalised as fast as the - 300 for the fourth doubled undertrick N/V. -- Regards Petrus From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 31 14:28:13 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:28:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> Herman > Bridge players are notoriously negligent. So what, if you are negligent you pay the price Herman: > If you have any > experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change > in an alert procedure, This is ridiculous comparison. The alert rule is a very complicated thing, full of contradictions, which has been changed dozens of time and differs by now from country to country and from year to year. Even I, after decades of top level bridge and top level AC-ing, have no idea what to alert and what not (excluding the simple obvious cases). The only advice is to alert everything when playing against lawyer types. Herman: > imagine the enormous difficulty you will face > with the simple change you propose. I can imagine very well. Difficulty? There won't be any difficulty because this is a simple to understand rule. When playing from dummy you have to state suit and rank (ok, 'spade' means 'small spade' and 'ace' means the 'ace of the suit played' or the 'only ace' in dummy. If not you have a problem. To which difficulty are you refering for god's sake ? > Yes, the end result would be a > little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we > really prepared to wait fifty years for that? Fifty years ? For an ill conceived monstriosity as the allert rule maybe.But what about a couple of weeks for a good simple rule. > And spend those fifty > years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split > between recreational and sporting bridge? What is recreational bridge ? If it is a passtime where the four players decide not to apply the rules then the rules don't matter in the first place. And it is always possible to waive an infraction you know. But if people want to play a game according to the rules, which can be done very recreational, then rules we need. Simple ones. Straight ones. Easy to understand ones. And so without dozens of silly exceptions. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > Yes Sven, you gave your own answer: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > I am usually very happy with both those terms the way they are used in the > > laws when I as a player have made a silly mistake which I can demand undone > > with reference to them. > > > > But when I take on my role as a director I am most unhappy with the way the > > laws of duplicate contract bridge have evolved over the years in this > > respect. The situation became even worse (as we have seen in numerous > > complaints and appeals) when we got the added clause "for the class of > > player". > > > > My grandfather told me once of an episode at the first world championship in > > 1937: Norway played against USA in the quarter finals in a very exiting > > match and it took two extra rounds after the scheduled 72 boards to decide > > the winner. Then the Norwegian declarer straightened a card in dummy without > > any intention of playing that card but just to tidy up dummy. Ely Culbertson > > demanded the card played ("touched is played") after which the lay-down slam > > went one down and Norway lost. My grandfather told me that the declarer > > should have said "just tidying up" or words to that effect before touching > > any card in dummy and Ely would not have had any case. > > > > Today Ely would have been ruled against and if he had tried an appeal that > > would obviously have been ruled as frivolous. As a Norwegian I should of > > course nod to this in view of the episode, but frankly I feel that Ely was > > correct. > > > > Look at the game of chess which in comparable situations should not be too > > different from bridge (I do hope they haven't changed the laws I am about to > > cite): > > > > If a player has touched one of his own pieces he must move that piece no > > matter of how irrational that move is, and without any question of whether > > that move was incontrovertibly not his intention. If he has touched one of > > opponent's pieces he must similarly take that piece with one of his own. The > > only exception to these rules in chess is if there is no legal play in which > > he can fulfill this duty. > > > > It is my firm opinion that our game of bridge would not suffer from the > > abolishment of all such "exceptions" to the basic rules where the laws use > > the term "unless it was ...". Chess players know their rules and they accept > > and live up to them (well, at least I believe they do). > > > > Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they make an imprecise > > claim then all unspecified details will be resolved according to opponent's > > directives? (Once upon the time that was the law on claims). > > > > Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they as declarer make > > an imprecise designation of a card to be played from dummy then opponents > > decide which card among those available under the given designation is to be > > played? > > > > I really see no advantage of our present "unless" rules except to comfort > > sloppy players; I see a very big advantage in removing all the "unless ..." > > stuff so that players know they have no recourse for sloppiness and so that > > we shall have much less appeals which ought to be without merit in the first > > place. > > > > This one: > > > The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would probably > > be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting to a > > better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the table? > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 31 14:29:13 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:29:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000101c36fb4$648a7da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003001c36fc4$46efce20$58e87f50@Default> Sven, The answer of Herman is typical. For him and his friends it has become a kind of religion. Of course you are right, it is the only way to play serious competitive bridge. Sven: > Will such strict rules destroy the game? In my opinion definitely not. Of course not. It will make the game more enjoyable. Now you don't mind when you get away with doing something silly with Herman c.s. as the dear 'do not worry we will fix it' TD. But I know dozens of players who were completely pissed off after such a ruling going against them. Because they remember too well when they did something wrong they were ruled against (yes I know people have a selective memory but that doesn't change the perception). It is so obvious that you need simple strict rules that I wonder how the bridge community got stuck with some guys in important positions who set out to destroy our game (kind of Burn quote). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > Herman De Wael > Yes Sven, you gave your own answer: > > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > This one: > > > The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would > probably > > be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting to a > > better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the table? > > > > Bridge players are notoriously negligent. Chess players OTOH are > tought from an early age to behave correctly. If you have any > experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change > in an alert procedure, imagine the enormous difficulty you will face > with the simple change you propose. Yes, the end result would be a > little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we > really prepared to wait fifty years for that? And spend those fifty > years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split > between recreational and sporting bridge? > Seriously: I am not convinced that is the answer, or rather that that answer stands up to reason. For one thing the bridge laws have evolved away from such principles that I suggest, I have never really understood why. And even when I first learned bridge (well, whether I learned it is a matter of discussion) I was told and trained to pay respect to the game and act so that my intentions were clear. (Ref. the tale I had from my grandpa) You say that chess players are told from an early stage to behave correctly; I agree and have great problems in understanding why bridge players could not be told the same. Now, if we begin reversing the bridge laws by removing those awkward "unless" clauses and start telling players that from now on they will be ruled against if they do not obey the principal rules for claims and for designating cards to be played from dummy I suspect that after a rather brief introduction period most players will salute the change. They may not always be happy about the outcome, but at least they will appreciate that they no longer shall feel being subject to different rulings just because of who they happen to be. And the directors will have to establish the plain facts (like today) but then he will in 99% of the cases have a straight forward ruling with no need for any personal judgment. Fair? Yes - you have a set of precise rules; you know the consequences. And these rules in themselves are at least as "fair" as anything. They apply with the same force to everybody. Will such strict rules destroy the game? In my opinion definitely not. Finally I strongly suspect that those players who cannot adapt to such changes are the same players who already today exhibit a very relaxed attitude to the present laws. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 31 14:32:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:32:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <001f01c36f8f$0a943f40$e140e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003101c36fc4$47b010e0$58e87f50@Default> Grattan: > +=+ Nor was the point taken that with TDs consulting > players - often four or five - the demand on the bridge > expertise within the committee has lessened. +=+ No Grattan no. This makes no sense. TD consultation is an argument to disallow appeals altogether. AC's were invented because TD's were once considerd too stupid to make 'bridge rulings'. Now with good TD's who consult players (at least at high level serious events) the whole point of the AC is lost. In a way the consultation can be considered the committee, it is the necessary input of bridge expertise in the TD ruling. Anyway your 'demand on bridge expertise has lessened' sucks. If you allow appeals in the sense that the AC is going to have a look at the bridge judgement (which is the case for the moment) you do need that bridge expertise. Please tell me why this need has lessened. Another approach is that the AC only accepts appeals on procedure (like in the big majority of competitive sports). Like the TD didn't consult enough players, or the wrong players, or whatever. In that case you need only lawyers (well some bridge expertise is always a must). But such a committee should, if the appeal has merit, return the case to the TD rather than to decide something themselves. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " ..though she be blind, yet she is not invisible" > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 3:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 03:45 US/Eastern, > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > IMO you can do away with appeals altogether if a > > > competent CTD consults a couple of 'relevant' > > > players. A competent TD meaning he/she takes > > > that consultation serious. > > > > Even a competent TD can make a mistake. Should > > there not be some recourse against this possibility? > > > +=+ Nor was the point taken that with TDs consulting > players - often four or five - the demand on the bridge > expertise within the committee has lessened. +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 31 13:48:19 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: Message-ID: <002e01c36fc4$457e8ae0$58e87f50@Default> > Even a competent TD can make a mistake. Should there not be some > recourse against this possibility? Well, same is true for a competent AC. So if whoever makes the final ruling got it wrong you are fixed. There is by definition no recourse against the ultimate ruling. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 03:45 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > IMO you can do away with appeals altogether if a > > competent CTD consults a couple of 'relevant' players. A competent TD > > meaning he/she takes that consultation serious. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 31 18:46:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:46:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass In-Reply-To: <002e01c36fc4$457e8ae0$58e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <1CFAE45C-DBDB-11D7-9527-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 08:48 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Well, same is true for a competent AC. So if whoever makes the final > ruling > got it wrong you are fixed. There is by definition no recourse against > the > ultimate ruling. Hm. My immediate reaction to this is "so what?" I do not see how this truth affects the principle that there ought to be some check against the *first* ruling being wrong. From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Aug 31 19:06:57 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:06:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <003001c36fc4$46efce20$58e87f50@Default> References: <000101c36fb4$648a7da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003001c36fc4$46efce20$58e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F523941.4050306@hdw.be> Yes Jaap, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Sven, > > The answer of Herman is typical. Yes Jaap, it is. Why would I suddenly change opinions. Of course the answer is typical for me. So what? > For him and his friends it has become a > kind of religion. Yes indeed, defending a stance that has survived for 50 years against a small number of delusional revolutionaries can be described religious. So what? > Of course you are right, it is the only way to play > serious competitive bridge. > Indeed Sven is right, in the sense that it would be a better way to play serious bridge. But not the only way. Or do you call the game you are playing nowadays not serious? > Sven: > >>Will such strict rules destroy the game? In my opinion definitely not. > > > Of course not. It will make the game more enjoyable. No it won't. As can be attested by any director who gets called to a table where "serious" players are playing against recreational players. As soon as a rule is invoked that the recreational player does not know, he gets the typical answer, "if you want to play like that, you can have your top, I'm not coming back here where they play with knives on the table*" (*=dutch expression that translates well) Now you don't mind when > you get away with doing something silly with Herman c.s. as the dear 'do not > worry we will fix it' TD. I don't understand who you are addressing this sentence to. But I know dozens of players who were completely > pissed off after such a ruling going against them. You mean not against their opponents ? Because they remember too > well when they did something wrong they were ruled against (yes I know > people have a selective memory but that doesn't change the perception). Yes they have. So, do you really believe that in the 50 years between 2005 and 2055 (that is, between the law change Sven proposes and the death of the last bridge player that remembered the "good old days" when you could say "play anything" and get away with that meaning "play anything except that trump that I obviously still need") bridge players will not remember one table playing otherwise than some other? You don't just need good laws, you also need practical ways of implementing them. And I am convinced that a fundamental change such as the one you propose will create a rift between "serious" and "recreational" bridge that the game can do well without. It > is so obvious that you need simple strict rules that I wonder how the bridge > community got stuck with some guys in important positions who set out to > destroy our game (kind of Burn quote). > IMHO, your proposals would be far more destructive than you imagine. > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 1:38 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > > >>Herman De Wael >>Yes Sven, you gave your own answer: >> >>Sven Pran wrote: > > ........... > >>This one: >> >> >>>The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would >> >>probably >> >>>be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting to a >>>better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the table? >>> >> >>Bridge players are notoriously negligent. Chess players OTOH are >>tought from an early age to behave correctly. If you have any >>experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change >>in an alert procedure, imagine the enormous difficulty you will face >>with the simple change you propose. Yes, the end result would be a >>little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we >>really prepared to wait fifty years for that? And spend those fifty >>years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split >>between recreational and sporting bridge? >> > > > Seriously: I am not convinced that is the answer, or rather that that answer > stands up to reason. > > For one thing the bridge laws have evolved away from such principles that I > suggest, I have never really understood why. > > And even when I first learned bridge (well, whether I learned it is a matter > of discussion) I was told and trained to pay respect to the game and act so > that my intentions were clear. (Ref. the tale I had from my grandpa) > > You say that chess players are told from an early stage to behave correctly; > I agree and have great problems in understanding why bridge players could > not be told the same. > > Now, if we begin reversing the bridge laws by removing those awkward > "unless" clauses and start telling players that from now on they will be > ruled against if they do not obey the principal rules for claims and for > designating cards to be played from dummy I suspect that after a rather > brief introduction period most players will salute the change. > > They may not always be happy about the outcome, but at least they will > appreciate that they no longer shall feel being subject to different rulings > just because of who they happen to be. And the directors will have to > establish the plain facts (like today) but then he will in 99% of the cases > have a straight forward ruling with no need for any personal judgment. > > Fair? Yes - you have a set of precise rules; you know the consequences. And > these rules in themselves are at least as "fair" as anything. They apply > with the same force to everybody. > > Will such strict rules destroy the game? In my opinion definitely not. > > Finally I strongly suspect that those players who cannot adapt to such > changes are the same players who already today exhibit a very relaxed > attitude to the present laws. > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Aug 31 19:18:01 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:18:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F523BD9.6000704@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman > >>Bridge players are notoriously negligent. > > > So what, if you are negligent you pay the price > So, you want to change the game so that the negligent end up with -25% overall? See if that player comes back next time. As David puts it, if revokes are punished with death, after a while only players who can follow suit are left. But I fear it will be a very small number. > Herman: > >>If you have any >>experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change >>in an alert procedure, > > > This is ridiculous comparison. No it is not. It is a rule, which we need. And players don't follow it. Completely contrary to real fact, they say it changes every year, and they don't understand, or don't want to understand even the simplest elements of it. As a comparison it is excellent. Bridge polayers simply don't want to know the rules, whatever they are. They just want to play bridge. The alert rule is a very complicated thing, > full of contradictions, which has been changed dozens of time and differs by > now from country to country and from year to year. Even I, after decades of > top level bridge and top level AC-ing, have no idea what to alert and what > not (excluding the simple obvious cases). The only advice is to alert > everything when playing against lawyer types. > You see? And you call yourself a serious bridge player. You should really know that alerting too much is just as wrong as alerting too little. > Herman: > >>imagine the enormous difficulty you will face >>with the simple change you propose. > > > I can imagine very well. Difficulty? There won't be any difficulty because > this is a simple to understand rule. When playing from dummy you have to > state suit and rank Very simple rule. (ok, 'spade' means 'small spade' and 'ace' means the > 'ace of the suit played' or the 'only ace' in dummy.) Less simpler already. You were advocating simpler laws, but when it suits you, they can be a little more complicated. Why are you the only one who knows how complicated a law can get? If not you have a > problem. To which difficulty are you refering for god's sake ? > To all the other ones Sven was referring to in his catch-all proposition. > >>Yes, the end result would be a >>little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we >>really prepared to wait fifty years for that? > > > Fifty years ? For an ill conceived monstriosity as the allert rule maybe.But > what about a couple of weeks for a good simple rule. > With people not knowing it and waving to the left to indicate a heart, and opponents calling the director and asking for a ruling and insisting declarer did not name the card, so they get to have him play the ace; and a director having to rule against someone who has been doing what he's done all his life, including the past three months since that law change? Revolution is what you will have, and for longer than a couple of weeks. > >>And spend those fifty >>years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split >>between recreational and sporting bridge? > > > What is recreational bridge ? If it is a passtime where the four players > decide not to apply the rules then the rules don't matter in the first > place. And it is always possible to waive an infraction you know. But if > people want to play a game according to the rules, which can be done very > recreational, then rules we need. Simple ones. Straight ones. Easy to > understand ones. And so without dozens of silly exceptions. > What silly exceptions? The "exceptions" are part of the rules, and it is your task as a TD to know them. I find all the rules in the lawbook simple, straight and easy to understand. I have no problem with any of them. But then I am a acting TD and you are not. Sorry. > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:57 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > > >>Yes Sven, you gave your own answer: >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>I am usually very happy with both those terms the way they are used in > > the > >>>laws when I as a player have made a silly mistake which I can demand > > undone > >>>with reference to them. >>> >>>But when I take on my role as a director I am most unhappy with the way > > the > >>>laws of duplicate contract bridge have evolved over the years in this >>>respect. The situation became even worse (as we have seen in numerous >>>complaints and appeals) when we got the added clause "for the class of >>>player". >>> >>>My grandfather told me once of an episode at the first world > > championship in > >>>1937: Norway played against USA in the quarter finals in a very exiting >>>match and it took two extra rounds after the scheduled 72 boards to > > decide > >>>the winner. Then the Norwegian declarer straightened a card in dummy > > without > >>>any intention of playing that card but just to tidy up dummy. Ely > > Culbertson > >>>demanded the card played ("touched is played") after which the lay-down > > slam > >>>went one down and Norway lost. My grandfather told me that the declarer >>>should have said "just tidying up" or words to that effect before > > touching > >>>any card in dummy and Ely would not have had any case. >>> >>>Today Ely would have been ruled against and if he had tried an appeal > > that > >>>would obviously have been ruled as frivolous. As a Norwegian I should of >>>course nod to this in view of the episode, but frankly I feel that Ely > > was > >>>correct. >>> >>>Look at the game of chess which in comparable situations should not be > > too > >>>different from bridge (I do hope they haven't changed the laws I am > > about to > >>>cite): >>> >>>If a player has touched one of his own pieces he must move that piece no >>>matter of how irrational that move is, and without any question of > > whether > >>>that move was incontrovertibly not his intention. If he has touched one > > of > >>>opponent's pieces he must similarly take that piece with one of his own. > > The > >>>only exception to these rules in chess is if there is no legal play in > > which > >>>he can fulfill this duty. >>> >>>It is my firm opinion that our game of bridge would not suffer from the >>>abolishment of all such "exceptions" to the basic rules where the laws > > use > >>>the term "unless it was ...". Chess players know their rules and they > > accept > >>>and live up to them (well, at least I believe they do). >>> >>>Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they make an > > imprecise > >>>claim then all unspecified details will be resolved according to > > opponent's > >>>directives? (Once upon the time that was the law on claims). >>> >>>Why should not bridge players know and accept that if they as declarer > > make > >>>an imprecise designation of a card to be played from dummy then > > opponents > >>>decide which card among those available under the given designation is > > to be > >>>played? >>> >>>I really see no advantage of our present "unless" rules except to > > comfort > >>>sloppy players; I see a very big advantage in removing all the "unless > > ..." > >>>stuff so that players know they have no recourse for sloppiness and so > > that > >>>we shall have much less appeals which ought to be without merit in the > > first > >>>place. >>> >> >>This one: >> >> >>>The greatest difficulty in removing the "unless ..." clauses would > > probably > >>>be to train all those sloppy players (including myself) in adapting to a >>>better discipline and concentration on what they are doing at the table? >>> >> > >>>Regards Sven >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blml mailing list >>>blml@rtflb.org >>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 toddz@att.net Sun Aug 31 19:36:13 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:36:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F523941.4050306@hdw.be> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > No it won't. As can be attested by any director who > gets called to a > table where "serious" players are playing against recreational > players. As soon as a rule is invoked that the > recreational player > does not know, he gets the typical answer, "if you want > to play like > that, you can have your top, I'm not coming back here > where they play > with knives on the table*" (*=dutch expression that > translates well) Is it the strictness, obscurity, or absurdity of the rule that causes the adverse response? -Todd From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 31 20:13:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:13:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F523BD9.6000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c36ff3$f4fd4180$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael commenting mainly to Jaap (?) .......... (including some admissions related to alert rules) > You see? And you call yourself a serious bridge player. You should > really know that alerting too much is just as wrong as alerting too > little. I don't know about the Netherlands, but in Norway (as far as I know) = nobody will ever be penalized simply because they alert a call that needs no = alert. We use the Alert to tell opponents that they may have an interest in = asking and usually instruct the players: If you are in doubt you had better = alert. ........... >=20 > With people not knowing it and waving to the left to indicate a heart, > and opponents calling the director and asking for a ruling and > insisting declarer did not name the card, so they get to have him play > the ace; and a director having to rule against someone who has been > doing what he's done all his life, including the past three months > since that law change? Revolution is what you will have, and for > longer than a couple of weeks. Isn't this simply an attempt to derail the discussion? A player "waving" towards the cards in dummy has always within my environments been asked = to clarify the card towards which he is pointing. ........... > What silly exceptions? The "exceptions" are part of the rules, and it > is your task as a TD to know them. I find all the rules in the lawbook > simple, straight and easy to understand. I have no problem with any of > them. But then I am a acting TD and you are not. Sorry. Are they? When the player making a mistake knows that he has a great possibility for recourse in calling the director and claim that what he = did was not his intention: "everybody should understand that" ......... Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 31 17:14:16 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" References: <3f4e9259.6adb.0@esatclear.ie> <000a01c36e61$7b8e43f0$8f51e150@endicott> <3F51AF7A.8080300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c36ff5$9340e440$8881403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" >. Surely you agree that if it turns out that declarer really > was mistaken in this manner, claimer's intent not the > "throw a diamond" is not incontrovertible? > +=+ I do agree that the Director must form his opinion whether a possible action was incontrovertibly not declarer's intention. He must explore the evidence to satisfy himself about this. What he must not do is to allow a fast-thinking slippery opponent to rush him into accepting a designation that no sane declarer, conscious of the facts of the hand, could reasonably intend - and he will not, therefore, jump all too readily to a conclusion that declarer has lost track of the contract and the situation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 31 18:06:35 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c36ff5$94210b10$8881403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:57:04 +0200, > Herman De Wael wrote: > > Not always: IMO, Bridge players tend not to care for rules > changes as long as they suffer no disadvantage. A change > as proposed by Sven would carry an automatic disadvantage > for those who disregard it, and would probably be > internalised as fast as the - 300 for the fourth doubled > undertrick N/V. > +=+ Sorry, Petrus, I have not quite understood you. What are you saying with the word 'internalised'? Are you saying the players would absorb the rule change, accept it easily, and just get on with the game as revised? I would hope so (with anything that did not stand the game on its head). On the other hand I see bridge as a very different game from chess. The elements of partnership communication and understanding, with the consequent fluidity of judgements that are not merely matters of spatial relationships within a defined constant theatre of combat, set the two games fundamentally apart one from the other in my opinion.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Aug 31 20:21:38 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:21:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass References: <001f01c36f8f$0a943f40$e140e150@endicott> <003101c36fc4$47b010e0$58e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <000601c36ff5$9530cd60$8881403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan: > > +=+ Nor was the point taken that with TDs consulting > > players - often four or five - the demand on the bridge > > expertise within the committee has lessened. +=+ > > No Grattan no. This makes no sense. > > TD consultation is an argument to disallow appeals > altogether. AC's were invented because TD's were > once considerd too stupid to make 'bridge rulings'. > +=+ There was an element of this in WBF arrangements under Kaplan's guidance, but not at all in the EBL where from time immemorial - well back before 1980 anyway - Directors have been told they must make the proper rulings. I have sat there many times in my early days on the tour listening to Pencharz telling the TDs at the preliminary meeting between the TAC and the TDs that they were expected to make the correct ruling called for in the law and not to rule automatically for the 'non-offenders'. +=+ < > Now with good TD's who consult players (at least > at high level serious events) the whole point of > the AC is lost. In a way the consultation can be > considered the committee, it is the necessary input > of bridge expertise in the TD ruling. > +=+ We do not agree on this. It is an elementary principle that provides for appeal against a decision that may be misjudged or biased or simply not give effect to the law. I do not know about your experience in Holland, but in EBL/WBF ACs we have the information available to the AC about consultations. I do not say that it never happens that stronger players on an AC will tell their colleagues that they do not agree with the majority opinion of players consulted and ask for acceptance of a different view, but it is rare; if it happens it usually betokens a belief that the wrong question was asked of the players consulted, that the question was not put as it should have been. So there it is, Jaap. Enough said on this. You think I am ill equipped to deal with these matters, I think you go overboard in your judgements and make bombastic statements about things outwith your knowledge. Go in peace - I am deleting the thread. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 31 21:57:32 2003 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:57:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Expert Night References: <3F51B0AD.52A6D9DD@san.rr.com> <20030831052444.23411.00000196@mb-m19.aol.com> Message-ID: <00af01c37002$80040b20$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ian Payn] Match-Pointed Pairs, Game All You deal, and, playing a Strong No Trump hold: Ax xxx QJxx KQxx 1C (1S) 2H (3S) P (P) 4C (P) 4H (P) 4N (P) 5D (P) 6C (P) ? [Nigel] P=10 6H=7 6N-5 Partner is likely to have something like x AKxxx AKx AJxx when you survive even clubs 4-1 and hearts 5-0. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 31 22:06:20 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:06:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Expert Night References: <3F51B0AD.52A6D9DD@san.rr.com> <20030831052444.23411.00000196@mb-m19.aol.com> <00af01c37002$80040b20$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00df01c37003$bae52ca0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Sorry all, I've done it again. Nigel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: [blml] Re: Expert Night [Ian Payn] Match-Pointed Pairs, Game All You deal, and, playing a Strong No Trump hold: Ax xxx QJxx KQxx 1C (1S) 2H (3S) P (P) 4C (P) 4H (P) 4N (P) 5D (P) 6C (P) ? [Nigel] P=10 6H=7 6N-5 Partner is likely to have something like x AKxxx AKx AJxx when you survive even clubs 4-1 and hearts 5-0. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 _______________________________________________ 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: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From henk@amsterdamned.org Sun Aug 31 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Aug 31 22:48:06 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:48:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deleting a thread. References: <001f01c36f8f$0a943f40$e140e150@endicott> <003101c36fc4$47b010e0$58e87f50@Default> <000601c36ff5$9530cd60$8881403e@endicott> Message-ID: <000701c37009$926c6620$f1ee7f50@Default> Dear Grattan, > So there it is, Jaap. Enough said on this. You think > I am ill equipped to deal with these matters, I think > you go overboard in your judgements and make > bombastic statements about things outwith your > knowledge. Go in peace - I am deleting the thread. Go in peace. True. I probably have been too agressive with you on this one. Sorry about that. But it is a pity you decide to 'delete the thread' now that we are so near the real issue. In a way we agree on far more than we disagree. This makes the disagreement maybe more violent, more painful. > You think I am ill equipped to deal with these matters Wrong Grattan, I don't think that. You have an enormous expertise and experience. But to a lesser extend so do I. We come from different cultures, we come from different generations, we have a fundamently different approach to the game and the way it should be regulated. Still I take you dead serious. > I think you go overboard in your judgements and make bombastic statements Possible, but I have my style and you have yours (and yours is also quite special). One big difference between you and me is that I always react to what you (or anybody) say and you tend to focus on the way I say it rather than what I say. > about things outwith your knowledge Come on Grattan. Stop making yourself ridiculous. Whatever is wrong with me, an awful lot, I know what I am talking about. And you know it. So why do you make this kind of stupid insults (in the process insulting your own intelligence). Frustration ? Anyway, back to business. > +=+ There was an element of this in WBF arrangements > under Kaplan's guidance, but not at all in the EBL where > from time immemorial - well back before 1980 anyway - > Directors have been told they must make the proper > rulings. I have sat there many times in my early days > on the tour listening to Pencharz telling the TDs at the > preliminary meeting between the TAC and the TDs > that they were expected to make the correct ruling > called for in the law and not to rule automatically > for the 'non-offenders'. +=+ Well, I don't keep books. But there was a long period, well after 1980, that this 'non-offenders' thing was 'en vogue'. Good for Pencharz he was against it but he had powerful opponents. This is clear from what you say. If you have explicitly to tell TD's they have to make 'correct rulings' and not to do something 'silly' (like automatically ruling for the 'non-offenders), something is very very wrong. Still today, maybe a little bit less automatic, it is quite common to hear 'we ruled in favor of the non offenders to put the appeal burden in the right place'. It was phased out before 1980 in the EBL ? You must be joking. > +=+ We do not agree on this. It is an elementary > principle that provides for appeal against a > decision that may be misjudged or biased or > simply not give effect to the law. I do not know > about your experience in Holland, but in EBL/WBF > ACs we have the information available to the AC > about consultations. I do not say that it never happens > that stronger players on an AC will tell their colleagues > that they do not agree with the majority opinion of > players consulted and ask for acceptance of a > different view, but it is rare; if it happens it usually > betokens a belief that the wrong question was asked > of the players consulted, that the question was not > put as it should have been. We agree more than you think. But we also disagree. 1. This elementary principle is absent in every other competitive sport. In any sport there is a moment you have to live with a ruling like it or not. And for practical reasons sooner rather than later. 2. The only good ground for appeal should be 'wrong procedure'. Because however misjudged or biased a TD can be, so can an AC. 3. Experience in Holland. Whatever we call it (for legal reasons), we play all our main championships now with a TD-consult without appeal (or immediate AC without TD). The whole point is there is only one judgement which is final (we use our best people of course). Because we want to have a final result at prizegiving time. In the not so distant past there were two disasters. A pending appeal about first place in a major championship that only got resolved a week later. I among others have used that to force a procedure were that would become impossible. Even Ton couldn't stop it. Well (if my memory is right) Ton actually designed the current procedure, I just organised the political pressure that forced him to do so. 4. Whatever you say about the interaction bewteen consultation and AC's, you twist historical relevance. Consultation is a new thing (in a way it is an AC with the TD as chair). Limited TD's and all powerful AC's is an old thing. They don't fit. With 'bad' TD's you need an AC. With good TD's and good consultation you don't need AC's. In a way you say so yourself. An AC should check if the consultation is done ok, if the AC players start overruling the consultation players you might as well skip the consultation. Why do everything twice. We are playing a game for god's sake. Like in any other sport you can expect the referee to take it serious, but apart from real glaring ridiculous mistakes (and in most sports not even that) you get only one ruling. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " ..though she be blind, yet she is not invisible" > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; > "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 2:32 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 1D followed by Hesitation Pass > > > > > > Grattan: > > > +=+ Nor was the point taken that with TDs consulting > > > players - often four or five - the demand on the bridge > > > expertise within the committee has lessened. +=+ > > > > No Grattan no. This makes no sense. > > > > TD consultation is an argument to disallow appeals > > altogether. AC's were invented because TD's were > > once considerd too stupid to make 'bridge rulings'. > > > +=+ There was an element of this in WBF arrangements > under Kaplan's guidance, but not at all in the EBL where > from time immemorial - well back before 1980 anyway - > Directors have been told they must make the proper > rulings. I have sat there many times in my early days > on the tour listening to Pencharz telling the TDs at the > preliminary meeting between the TAC and the TDs > that they were expected to make the correct ruling > called for in the law and not to rule automatically > for the 'non-offenders'. +=+ > < > > Now with good TD's who consult players (at least > > at high level serious events) the whole point of > > the AC is lost. In a way the consultation can be > > considered the committee, it is the necessary input > > of bridge expertise in the TD ruling. > > > +=+ We do not agree on this. It is an elementary > principle that provides for appeal against a > decision that may be misjudged or biased or > simply not give effect to the law. I do not know > about your experience in Holland, but in EBL/WBF > ACs we have the information available to the AC > about consultations. I do not say that it never happens > that stronger players on an AC will tell their colleagues > that they do not agree with the majority opinion of > players consulted and ask for acceptance of a > different view, but it is rare; if it happens it usually > betokens a belief that the wrong question was asked > of the players consulted, that the question was not > put as it should have been. > So there it is, Jaap. Enough said on this. You think > I am ill equipped to deal with these matters, I think > you go overboard in your judgements and make > bombastic statements about things outwith your > knowledge. Go in peace - I am deleting the thread. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Aug 30 08:00:41 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:00:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: <3f504b99.10b6.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ...] >> - At some point in the original post "Declarer >> claimed the rest were his". We know LHO had >> a trump and dummy a higher one. To claim >> the rest declarer had to park his losing hearts >> on his own winners after drawing Lho's trump >> or over ruffing him. As LHO had a void in >> clubs there is no way to get to dummy to draw >> LHO's truump other than overruffing. But why >> would LHO overruff when all he has to do is >> wait till the 2nd last trick when a club must be >> played, ruff it and win or get overruffed and >> dummy loses the last trick. >> >+=+ Er, excuse me - if the Director refused to >let opponent insist declarer ruff his own winner, >would not the above be the outcome of the hand >anyway? +=+ +++ Yes it would ... BUT ... why then did declarer claim the rest ?? Basically Grattan you are giving the benefit of the doubt to declarer which in this case is being extremely nice. As other contributors have pointed out - why do we as TD's have to go such mental anguish and hardship in such cases when in reality declarer was (a) asleep in which case we've done the opps out of a good score (b) a lazy sod who could not bother to make a more astute claim (c) forgot about the outstanding trump (extremely likely) (d) fancied he give the TD a work out. To be honest a few "Burns" like ruling would swiftly put this operator out of business and would see such ridiculous TD time wasting cases substancially reduced. One has to draw the line somewhere. IMO when a declarer claims the rest or any other nebulous claim and an opponent has an outstanding trump he should be automatically ruled against. If he knows there is an outstanding trump his claim should cover it specifically otherwise we assume he forgot about it. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Aug 31 15:06:17 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:06:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <3f5200d9.2b69.0@esatclear.ie> > >Bridge players are notoriously negligent. Chess players OTOH are >tought from an early age to behave correctly. If you have any >experience with trying to have bridge players cope with a small change >in an alert procedure, imagine the enormous difficulty you will face >with the simple change you propose. Yes, the end result would be a >little less discussions of the type we have here on blml, but are we >really prepared to wait fifty years for that? And spend those fifty >years in purgatory, not to mention the risk of a definite split >between recreational and sporting bridge? +++ I applaude Sven's idea. I think he's bang on. Less AC cases more automatic ruling's, and wayyy less sloppy play/attitude at bridge. Sure it will take some time to filter down, what changes dont - and well worth 50 years. As for the effect on recreational bridge - I think they'd love it. I can clearly recall when starting my bridge career having the local TD make some decisions causing general grumblings because of the unclear nature of the laws he quoted. The TD could hardly figure out what the laws implied so it's hardly a surprise the players were not too happy with his rulings. A few crisp black and white laws would be welcomed at recreational/local level IMO. just look at the recent points system for driving offenses introduced in Ireland (an idea stolen from the UK I believe) - didn't take long to filter down, has reduced driving related cases enormously and the punter knows what he's risking if he breaks a law. It's harsh, black and white and IMO successful. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 31 20:11:28 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:11:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000101c36fb4$648a7da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003001c36fc4$46efce20$58e87f50@Default> <3F523941.4050306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002b01c36ff3$b0e8f8e0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] No it won't. As can be attested by any director who gets called to a table where "serious" players are playing against recreational players. As soon as a rule is invoked that the recreational player does not know, he gets the typical answer, "if you want to play like that, you can have your top, I'm not coming back here where they play with knives on the table*" (*=dutch expression that [Nigel] Great metaphor, Herman! We have all been there! An expert cites some bizarre sophisticated rule unknown and incomprehensible except to Bridge Lawyers. This makes for a one-sided game where knowledge of and skill in arguing abstruse points of law is more important than bidding or play. This disadvantage for recreational players is exacerbated by TDs who consider possible damage only if the NOS specifically draw attention to it. -- Another ludicrous interpretation which ensures that legal expertise supervenes justice. You are quite right -- the sophistication of current laws is the main deterrent to would-be bridge-players. And "equity" laws are among the worst offenders. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 31 19:54:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:54:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] So what, if [bridge players are negligent they should] pay the price. [Comparing simplifying the rules to changing the alert procedure] is ridiculous. The alert rule is a very complicated thing, full of contradictions, which has been changed dozens of times and differs by now from country to country and from year to year. Even I, after decades of top level bridge and top level AC-ing, have no idea what to alert and what not (excluding the simple obvious cases). The only advice is to alert everything when playing against lawyer types. [Nigel] Spot on Jaap! Do you then agree with Grattan's and my "Explain" suggestions? [Jaap van der Neut] There won't be any difficulty because this is a simple to understand rule. When playing from dummy you have to state suit and rank (ok, 'spade' means 'small spade' and 'ace' means the 'ace of the suit played' or the 'only ace' in dummy. Fifty years ? For an ill conceived monstriosity as the allert rule maybe. But what about a couple of weeks for a good simple rule. What is recreational bridge ? If it is a passtime where the four players decide not to apply the rules then the rules don't matter in the first place. And it is always possible to waive an infraction you know. But if people want to play a game according to the rules, which can be done very recreational, then rules we need. Simple ones. Straight ones. Easy to understand ones. And so without dozens of silly exceptions. [Nigel] Yes, especially in a family context, if you play recreational games like Monopoly or any other card game, everybody knows and sticks to the letter of the rules -- the simpler the better. The young hate to have the rules bent in their favour because they feel you are playing favourites or "treating them like children". Perhaps they should say "Bridge players"? David Burn's argument is another worth noting: It is frustrating for opponents when a clueless declarer nominates the wrong card or misclaims only to be rescued by a show-off TD or AC who points out that "the Vienna coup and squeeze are routine for a player in declarer's class". Maybe, normally, but on this occasion, declarer is in the category that miscounts trumps or even forgets what they were! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 31 12:47:59 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:47:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004a01c36fb5$baa75cc0$5e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Sven, if you had your simplistic way the law book would be clearer and shorter. Players would understand the rules, acquiesce to most of the rulings, and recognise their justice and fairness. Unfortunately, you seem to know absolutely nothing about "equity", as redefined by Bridge legislators. Using Sven's pathetic little rule book, without the benefit of "judgement"... ... How could the laws of each country preserve their individual patriotic flavour, reflecting local bridge culture and customs? ... How could a TD justify ruling in favour of his friends or countrymen, but against strangers or foreigners, in identical circumstances? No! to make sure that the law is beyond the reach of most bridge players and even some TDs, and to justify such capricious rulings, it is essential to preserve their sophisticated and subjective state and encourage quaint local variants. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Eric = Landau=20
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 = 7:17=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Spam

At 10:55 PM 8/8/03, Nancy wrote:

Is anyone=20 else receiving spam via BLML??

Yes, but in = small=20 quantities, more often than not clearly labeled as spam by Henk's = helpful=20 spam-filtering software.  A drop in the bucket compared to my = everyday=20 intake of spam; not yet enough to cause concern.

Eric=20 = Landau           &= nbsp;        =20 ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale=20 = Drive           &n= bsp;    =20 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     = Fax=20 (301) 589-4618