From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 07:43:07 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 08:43:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deleting a thread. In-Reply-To: <000701c37009$926c6620$f1ee7f50@Default> References: <001f01c36f8f$0a943f40$e140e150@endicott> <003101c36fc4$47b010e0$58e87f50@Default> <000601c36ff5$9530cd60$8881403e@endicott> <000701c37009$926c6620$f1ee7f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F52EA7B.2080208@hdw.be> I've been following this discussion and had nothing to add, until now: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > 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. > Bridge is not like most sports, Jaap. In Football, when the referee decides to award a penalty, there is nothing the infracting player can reasonably add to make the TD change his mind. In Bridge however, the TD has to take into account a number of elements, some of which he needs to find out from the players, all four of them. Yet they are playing a different board next, and he does not want to disturb them even more than he already had to. So there can arise situations where the party that has been ruled against finds itself with things left unsaid. They are allowed their "day in court". Yes Jaap, you are allowed to argue in favour of abolishing committees. You are allowed to argue in favour of better committee membership (I agree with you on that one - I never claimed I was on the EBL AC for reasons of my bridge abilities). But you should accept that you are proposing minority views here, and that the membership at large is probably not ready to accept final rulings from - believe me - sometimes awful TD's. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 07:54:53 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 08:54:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000001c36ff3$f4fd4180$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c36ff3$f4fd4180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F52ED3D.8030602@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>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" > No Sven. There is no player "making a mistake". What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants to take advantage of the unclarity. I am not talking of a player pointing to the wrong card and trying to change it. I am not talking of a player who does not know diamonds are trumps and says "any red card". I am talking of a player who is in full possession of his senses but fails to make this clear to the table. That player has not made a mistake (under the current laws) and he does not need to "get away with it". Rather he has done something risky, because he has only "gotten away with it" because the TD decided it was incontrovertible. "Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of words. If everybody should understand it, it means some don't. When some don't, it's not incontrovertible and the TD should rule against. What we are talking of are cases where "Everybody understands that", including opponents. We are talking of the opponent who tells the TD "yes I know he knows diamonds are trumps, and I know that with -any card- declarer intended hearts or spades, but he did say -any card- and now I want some tricks because I want him to "discard" a diamond and be stuck on dummy". The laws are not designed to help bridge lawyers of that genre. Maybe they should be, and maybe this could be made to work. I doubt it, but maybe it could. But the laws are not bad for them not being like that. I like the more gentle atmosphere this game is being played in. Still serious, but you are not nailed to the stake for every small error in procedure. I don't mind paying the price for an additional call to the TD's good senses in deciding whether something is incontrovertible or not. The severity of that word is enough to allow him to give the benefit of the doubt to the "non"-offenders. But sometimes there is no doubt. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Sep 1 08:30:00 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:30:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Equity Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990060AB83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Ed wrote: > 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. In Norway we have our LC present as AC at our national championships. The L= C is tha NA. So no problem. At other tournaments the AC decisions my be app= ealed to the LC. The final ranking and prizes may be changed by the LC. 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 a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Mon Sep 1 09:01:16 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 10:01:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deleting a thread. Message-ID: Grattan: > So there it is, Jaap. Enough said on this. Jaap: I probably have been too agressive with you on this one. One big difference between you and me is that I always react to what you (or anybody) say. ***But the most important information you mostly deliver is that your counterpart isn't able to play bridge and you are a top player, suggesting that further discussion is not very useful. Try to skip those sentences for a while and concentrate on the content. ton*** 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'. +=+ Jaap: Well, I don't keep books. But there was a long period, well after 1980, that this 'non-offenders' thing was 'en vogue'. ***I have to agree with Jaap more than with Grattan. This 'ruling in favour of the non-offenders' started in '87 and was adopted in WBF and EBL events as well. And then after a few years the EBL awoke earlier than the WBF, realising that this was a wrong approach. Personally I have been against it from the beginning but even in the Dutch Bridge Federation we obediantly (?) followed this approach for a while. And in the WBF it has been followed for a long time though Kojak among others were opposing this idea. But when Ortiz Patino, Wolff and Kaplan are members of the appeal committee asking the TD why he tried to make a real ruling, telling the TD what Jaap is telling all the time: that he doesn't know what he is doing anyway, it is not easy to keep your back straight. This is a black page in the history of application of the laws. And that was the reason that I proposed for the '97 edition to make it possible that the TD appeals his own decision, since non-offenders got too good results that time. ton*** From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 1 09:41:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:41:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F52ED3D.8030602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c37064$dbcc0f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > >>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" > > >=20 > No Sven. There is no player "making a mistake". No? > What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about > which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants > to take advantage of the unclarity. What is wrong with training and requiring players to be precise in their actions? And I am not talking about the inexperienced player striving to master the game while his opponents tries to take advantage of him.=20 ......... > I am talking of a player who is in full possession of his senses but > fails to make this clear to the table. > That player has not made a mistake (under the current laws) and he > does not need to "get away with it". Rather he has done something > risky, because he has only "gotten away with it" because the TD > decided it was incontrovertible. >=20 > "Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of > words. If everybody should understand it, it means some don't. When > some don't, it's not incontrovertible and the TD should rule against. I am glad reading you expressing that view. So the next time my = opponents claim and eventually utter the words "everybody should understand that I would ....." I can just say: "No, that is not obvious to me" and we have ended that discussion? There are I believe quite a few recent appeals on claim situations which came out contrary to this principle; is this view of yours = representative for WBFLC and binding upon the bridge world or is it just your personal opinion (which happens to coincide with mine)? ......... > I like the more gentle atmosphere this game is being played in. Still > serious, but you are not nailed to the stake for every small error in > procedure. I don't mind paying the price for an additional call to the > TD's good senses in deciding whether something is incontrovertible or > not. The severity of that word is enough to allow him to give the > benefit of the doubt to the "non"-offenders. But sometimes there is no > doubt. I couldn't agree with your first phrase more, but I feel that the = evolution towards a bridge where you no longer are "nailed" to your performance = but in many cases get the result somebody (director, AC) rules that you deserve will be destructive to duplicate bridge. Just consider a soccer match where the referee would rule goal because "everybody (including opposing keeper and his team) consider the = situation to be a 100% scoring position" (but the scoring attempt failed). What about the "famous" incident in a Norwegian top level soccer match a couple of years ago where a keeper accidentally threw the ball into his = own goal? That if anything was incontrovertibly not his intention? (We = laughed for about six months afterwards). Would it be "fair" or desirable to = ignore that as a scoring? Or consider a skating competition where one skater falls for absolutely = no reason at all. Had he not fallen he would have won the competition so = "we rule that he is the winner anyway"? Ridiculous? Yes, of course. And happily this is not (yet) the situation = in bridge, but we have already gone a long way towards it. =20 There is no "conflict" between a game strictly regulated by rules and = that same game played gentlemanly. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 10:33:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:33:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: <3f504b99.10b6.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3f504b99.10b6.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3F53127A.4000404@hdw.be> Karel, please. Karel wrote: > [snip ...] > > > 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. > Karel, please. You give four examples, each of which, in itself, would be enough to rule against the lazy sod. You use that as an argument to criticize laws which do not rule against a player who has done far less than any of those four. Please. The TD has to decide whether any of the four things you cite above is actually happening. If any of them is, or there is even a small doubt, he rules against this player. Please don't use arguments like this because sometimes a director finds no reason to rule against someone who has done, basically, nothing wrong. > K. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 10:49:04 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:49:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000001c37064$dbcc0f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c37064$dbcc0f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F531610.5090308@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> >>No Sven. There is no player "making a mistake". > > > No? > No. I am talking of people who made no mistake other than inclarity. I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play anything" rather than "a heart", and when I have found out, I will rule if he has made a mistake. If he has, I rule against him. So then we have no discussion. We are only discussing the cases where I find out he has made no mistake (he knew the diamonds were trumps and he intended to say "play anything but a diamond"). So, no, there is no player "making a mistake". > >>What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about >>which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants >>to take advantage of the unclarity. > > > What is wrong with training and requiring players to be precise in their > actions? And I am not talking about the inexperienced player striving to > master the game while his opponents tries to take advantage of him. > There is nothing wrong with that. But players have not been trained that way, and I fear that it would take 50 years to get rid of all the ones who would forget, even after 49 years, to be retrained. I don't believe it is worth the bother. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and IMHO it ain't broke. > ......... > >>I am talking of a player who is in full possession of his senses but >>fails to make this clear to the table. >>That player has not made a mistake (under the current laws) and he >>does not need to "get away with it". Rather he has done something >>risky, because he has only "gotten away with it" because the TD >>decided it was incontrovertible. >> >>"Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of >>words. If everybody should understand it, it means some don't. When >>some don't, it's not incontrovertible and the TD should rule against. > > > I am glad reading you expressing that view. So the next time my opponents > claim and eventually utter the words "everybody should understand that I > would ....." I can just say: "No, that is not obvious to me" and we have > ended that discussion? > Yes, if the TD agrees with you that it is not obvious, he should rule against you. > There are I believe quite a few recent appeals on claim situations which > came out contrary to this principle; is this view of yours representative > for WBFLC and binding upon the bridge world or is it just your personal > opinion (which happens to coincide with mine)? > Yes I do believe that my view is a majority one in WBF midst. It is people like David Burn and Jaap Van Der Neut who are against it. I don't think people like Ton or Grattan are in favour of changing the laws in this respect. > ......... > >>I like the more gentle atmosphere this game is being played in. Still >>serious, but you are not nailed to the stake for every small error in >>procedure. I don't mind paying the price for an additional call to the >>TD's good senses in deciding whether something is incontrovertible or >>not. The severity of that word is enough to allow him to give the >>benefit of the doubt to the "non"-offenders. But sometimes there is no >>doubt. > > > I couldn't agree with your first phrase more, but I feel that the evolution > towards a bridge where you no longer are "nailed" to your performance but in > many cases get the result somebody (director, AC) rules that you deserve > will be destructive to duplicate bridge. > You talk of "no longer". I happen to believe that the laws as they have been for the past 50 years are the ones that I advocate. The ones in which you are NOT nailed to your statements. The change you propose is for you to be nailed to them. > Just consider a soccer match where the referee would rule goal because > "everybody (including opposing keeper and his team) consider the situation > to be a 100% scoring position" (but the scoring attempt failed). > Silly example, and you know it. If the soccer rules would be that if the keeper tackles the player, the result is no longer a penalty, but straight away a goal, that would not change anything. If in addition the referee would have to decide whether it was a 100% scoring position or not, that would just make the referee's task a little more difficult, but not more than he already has to do. > What about the "famous" incident in a Norwegian top level soccer match a > couple of years ago where a keeper accidentally threw the ball into his own > goal? That if anything was incontrovertibly not his intention? (We laughed > for about six months afterwards). Would it be "fair" or desirable to ignore > that as a scoring? > In Norway too - I only saw one from Andorra a number of years ago. And no, it would not be fair - so? By what stretch of the imagination do you equate throwing the ball in your own nets with forgetting to add "but not a diamond" to "anything"? > Or consider a skating competition where one skater falls for absolutely no > reason at all. Had he not fallen he would have won the competition so "we > rule that he is the winner anyway"? > > Ridiculous? Yes, of course. And happily this is not (yet) the situation in > bridge, but we have already gone a long way towards it. > No we have not. We have a sensible rule that says that if you say "anything" and you _clearly_ (an I stress the clearly) mean "anything but a trump", then you have not played a trump. Such has been the rule for a number of years (the example you cite against Culbertson is from a different era altogether) and there has been no change. We have not "gone a long way towards" anything. You advocate a law change which I, for one, don't think a change for the better. > There is no "conflict" between a game strictly regulated by rules and that > same game played gentlemanly. > None whatsoever. Whatever the rules are, they should be strictly adhered to. You are the one who is talking of changing the rules (by scrapping one sentence in L46B). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 1 11:20:29 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:20:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <6008845.1062411629521.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play anything" rather than "a heart", and when I have found out, I will rule if he has made a mistake. Why, Herman, do you persist in this mind-reading approach to tournament directing? Do you think that everyone in the world will honestly tell you why they acted as they did? If it becomes established that the director will only rule on what you did after he has found out the innermost workings of your mind, then players are simply going to say whatever will obtain for them the most favourable ruling. This simply will not work, and I cannot believe that anyone could be so naive as to assume that it has any chance of working. If a player says "play anything", then he has indicated that he does not care what is played; he is therefore assumed for legal purposes to play that card least advantageous to his side. This, contrary to the Mystic Meg School of Ruling, will work, and is the only way of being both consistent and fair. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 1 11:31:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:31:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F531610.5090308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ....... > >>"Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of > >>words. If everybody should understand it, it means some don't. When > >>some don't, it's not incontrovertible and the TD should rule = against. > > > > > > I am glad reading you expressing that view. So the next time my > opponents > > claim and eventually utter the words "everybody should understand = that I > > would ....." I can just say: "No, that is not obvious to me" and we = have > > ended that discussion? > > >=20 > Yes, if the TD agrees with you that it is not obvious, he should rule > against you. Against me? I hope that was just a simple misprint? But how can the TD read my mind and say that I am wrong in stating it is = not obvious to me? I do not need his "agreement". According to your own = words (with which I heartily agree) I may say that "this is not obvious to me" (and that must be considered a fact), hence it is not incontrovertible. .......... > > There is no "conflict" between a game strictly regulated by rules = and > that > > same game played gentlemanly. > > >=20 > None whatsoever. Whatever the rules are, they should be strictly > adhered to. You are the one who is talking of changing the rules (by > scrapping one sentence in L46B). And part of the footnote to Laws 69, 70 and 71 ("for the class of player involved").=20 But most of all a change in how the laws are applied whenever the = question involves the terms "incontrovertible" or "irrational".=20 Very few players understand and accept that the laws shall be different = for different players.=20 The higher class of a player the more we should require him the ability = to act and make himself clearly understood also by players below his own = class. We should never let the class of player be an opening for accepting something that would not be accepted from a less skilled player. Regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Sep 1 12:00:52 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:00:52 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB78@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Burn wrote: Herman wrote: >I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play anything" r= ather than "a heart", and when I have found out, I will rule if he has made= a mistake. Why, Herman, do you persist in this mind-reading approach to tournament dir= ecting? Do you think that everyone in the world will honestly tell you why = they acted as they did? If it becomes established that the director will on= ly rule on what you did after he has found out the innermost workings of yo= ur mind, then players are simply going to say whatever will obtain for them= the most favourable ruling. This simply will not work, and I cannot believe that anyone could be so nai= ve as to assume that it has any chance of working. If a player says "play a= nything", then he has indicated that he does not care what is played; he is= therefore assumed for legal purposes to play that card least advantageous = to his side. This, contrary to the Mystic Meg School of Ruling, will work, = and is the only way of being both consistent and fair. ----- Well put. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Sep 1 12:57:26 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 13:57:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F533426.3030804@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ....... > >>>>"Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of >>>>words. If everybody should understand it, it means some don't. When >>>>some don't, it's not incontrovertible and the TD should rule against. >>> >>> >>>I am glad reading you expressing that view. So the next time my >> >>opponents >> >>>claim and eventually utter the words "everybody should understand that I >>>would ....." I can just say: "No, that is not obvious to me" and we have >>>ended that discussion? >>> >> >>Yes, if the TD agrees with you that it is not obvious, he should rule >>against you. > > > Against me? I hope that was just a simple misprint? > yep - against declarer. > But how can the TD read my mind and say that I am wrong in stating it is not > obvious to me? I do not need his "agreement". According to your own words > (with which I heartily agree) I may say that "this is not obvious to me" > (and that must be considered a fact), hence it is not incontrovertible. > Come on, Sven, You understand what I mean. It is not enough for this bridge lawyer to claim it is not obvious to him. It might well be obvious to everyone. It's up to the TD to decide, not up to the player who wants a couple of tricks. > .......... > >>>There is no "conflict" between a game strictly regulated by rules and >> >>that >> >>>same game played gentlemanly. >>> >> >>None whatsoever. Whatever the rules are, they should be strictly >>adhered to. You are the one who is talking of changing the rules (by >>scrapping one sentence in L46B). > > > And part of the footnote to Laws 69, 70 and 71 ("for the class of player > involved"). > > But most of all a change in how the laws are applied whenever the question > involves the terms "incontrovertible" or "irrational". > > Very few players understand and accept that the laws shall be different for > different players. > > The higher class of a player the more we should require him the ability to > act and make himself clearly understood also by players below his own class. > > > We should never let the class of player be an opening for accepting > something that would not be accepted from a less skilled player. > Come on, Sven. Without going into the details of a well-known case, don't you accept that it might be possible for a player of international standard to utter the words "I make it on a double squeeze", and that this constitutes a full and complete description of his line of play? While you would not accept the same from me. Or give another example. From me, you will accept "I'm finessing in spades" as a complete claim statement. Yet from some beginner, you might not. So the words "for the class of player involved" are necessary in the current set of laws. Yes, I know that this imposes on the TD an extra amount of decision-making. Yes, I know that this creates extra possibility of argument. And yet I believe the current laws are better than some draconian ones where "I'm finessing in spades" is not a valid statement and only "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you play something else, I play the jack" is. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 1 14:07:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:07:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F533426.3030804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > > But how can the TD read my mind and say that I > > am wrong in stating it is not obvious to me?=20 > > I do not need his "agreement". According to=20 > > your own words (with which I heartily agree)=20 > > I may say that "this is not obvious to me" > > (and that must be considered a fact), hence=20 > > it is not incontrovertible. >=20 > Come on, Sven, You understand what I mean.=20 > It is not enough for this bridge lawyer to claim > it is not obvious to him. It might well be > obvious to everyone. It's up to the TD to decide, > not up to the player who wants a couple of tricks. >=20 Yes, I believe I understand what you try to express. I have no objection against that but the problem (in my opinion) is that this is not the way = the laws are currently applied.=20 Instead of only accepting "obvious" and clear-cut cases wee have ended = up in a situation where we have to read minds (as well as we possibly can), = assume intentions even where the intention is not obvious and in fact ignore = the possibility of an expert player making possible mistakes which although rather unlikely should not be ignored when he fails to point out that he = is aware of that possibility. (This of course mainly concerns incomplete claims). I don't even think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the basic laws, but there seems to be a steady and unlucky evolution towards = giving more and more latitude to players who somehow are violating the correct procedures as specified in these laws.=20 > > .......... > > > > We should never let the class of player be an opening for accepting > > something that would not be accepted from a less skilled player. > > >=20 > Come on, Sven. > Without going into the details of a well-known case, don't you accept > that it might be possible for a player of international standard to > utter the words "I make it on a double squeeze", and that this > constitutes a full and complete description of his line of play? > While you would not accept the same from me. If I can see that the statement is correct I shall accept it from you as well as from any player of whatever standard. And if I cannot = immediately see that the statement is correct I shall request further explanation no matter who is my opponent before I accept it. >=20 > Or give another example. > From me, you will accept "I'm finessing in spades" as a complete > claim statement. Yet from some beginner, you might not. Again, I shall either accept the statement from both of you or reject = the statement as incomplete regardless of who gave that statement. >=20 > So the words "for the class of player involved" are necessary in the > current set of laws. No, in my opinion those words, and the implication of them being = present, is a disaster to duplicate bridge. =20 > Yes, I know that this imposes on the TD an extra amount of > decision-making. Yes, I know that this creates extra possibility of > argument. And yet I believe the current laws are better than some > draconian ones where "I'm finessing in spades" is not a valid > statement and only "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you > play something else, I play the jack" is. Whenever I rule on the possibility of a play being "irrational" I demand that the play must be irrational regardless of who is making that play. = If the player does not in advance pinpoint any of the important facts of a board I shall rule that he is not aware of that fact when he made his statement and I will not allow him to become aware of it unless it must = be revealed through any legal progress of the play that is covered by the statement he has already given. I am fully aware that here I am in conflict with what seems to be the current official policy of WBFLC, but I have experienced so many "irrational" actions by even top ranked players that I am very reluctant = to discard as "irrational" even kinds of mistake that you should never = expect. As I have already said: I assume a player to announce all important = facts he is aware of when claiming, and even more so the higher class of player = he is. The consequence of this is that I rule against him as probably being unaware of any unannounced fact which eventually shows up to be = important. I accept as irrational failing to cover the King with an Ace when = playing small towards Ace-Queen. (But I do not allow the unannounced dropping of = a stiff King offside).=20 I accept as irrational failing to overruff if possible when an opponent makes a ruff with a forgotten trump. (But I do not allow ruffing with a = high trump to avoid the overruff with a possibly forgotten trump offside). Just to mention two cases of "obviously" irrational play (regardless of = the class of player!) Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 15:38:00 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:38:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F5359C8.60401@hdw.be> Sven, you have fallen into the common blml trap. Sven Pran wrote: > > Yes, I believe I understand what you try to express. I have no objection > against that but the problem (in my opinion) is that this is not the way the > laws are currently applied. > Yes they are. > Instead of only accepting "obvious" and clear-cut cases wee have ended up in > a situation where we have to read minds (as well as we possibly can), assume > intentions even where the intention is not obvious and in fact ignore the > possibility of an expert player making possible mistakes which although > rather unlikely should not be ignored when he fails to point out that he is > aware of that possibility. (This of course mainly concerns incomplete > claims). > Sven, when is the last time you have encountered such a case, anywhere but on blml? I have not seen anything in 4 years of EBL AC's. Nor in my own back yard. It is only on blml that we endlessly discuss hypothetical cases. Even the case that sparked off this thread ("play anything") was somewhat hypothetical, although I do believe it originated in real life somewhere. And even that thread has had no discussion, except my theoretical one. In fact, I do believe I am the only one on this list who is prepared to even consider the intent. Most of the reactions have been from either of two sides: - Grattan* et.al. who believe it is irrational to ruff, so no tricks; - David* et.al. who believe that the statement is (or should be) followed to the letter. I believe both views to be incorrect. A player should not be held to an inadvertent designation, but we should do everything possible to find out if it was indeed inadvertent and not a slip of the mind. I have tried reconstructing the case and have failed. I cannot create a story in which it is both possible for declarer to be cut off from hand AND not being able to claim. So I cannot even imagine when this case would come up. So Sven, we are talking principles here, and quite unimportant ones at that. *sorry to either if I attribute incorrectly. > I don't even think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the basic > laws, but there seems to be a steady and unlucky evolution towards giving > more and more latitude to players who somehow are violating the correct > procedures as specified in these laws. > No, there is no "more and more". It's the way the laws have been for the past 50 years. What is "more and more" is people like David hammering that the laws ought to be changed and hypothetical cases on blml are debated prompting you and others to believe (IMHO falsely) that there is something wrong with the laws and that it is even spreading. > >>>.......... >>> >>>We should never let the class of player be an opening for accepting >>>something that would not be accepted from a less skilled player. >>> >> >>Come on, Sven. >>Without going into the details of a well-known case, don't you accept >>that it might be possible for a player of international standard to >>utter the words "I make it on a double squeeze", and that this >>constitutes a full and complete description of his line of play? >>While you would not accept the same from me. > > > If I can see that the statement is correct I shall accept it from you as > well as from any player of whatever standard. And if I cannot immediately > see that the statement is correct I shall request further explanation no > matter who is my opponent before I accept it. > I am not talking of you as opponent but as TD. Your statement (I shall accept if I can see it is correct) means that if you are a TD who has just played 2 years bridge and you are ruling on Helgemo, he will be ruled against, while if some other TD comes along, Helgemo will get his claim? Surely the laws are less arbitrary than that? > >>Or give another example. >> From me, you will accept "I'm finessing in spades" as a complete >>claim statement. Yet from some beginner, you might not. > > > Again, I shall either accept the statement from both of you or reject the > statement as incomplete regardless of who gave that statement. > OK, so what is it, reject or accept? How are we to judge whether it is either? What is the standard? What is wrong with the legal standard "rational"? And rational for who? You wish to rule on Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim the same. But what is the standard? How do you define any standard that can apply to both? > >>So the words "for the class of player involved" are necessary in the >>current set of laws. > > > No, in my opinion those words, and the implication of them being present, is > a disaster to duplicate bridge. > Well, they have been there for 50 years (or any number larger than at least the 20 I know of). They have not been a disaster. And they are not. > >>Yes, I know that this imposes on the TD an extra amount of >>decision-making. Yes, I know that this creates extra possibility of >>argument. And yet I believe the current laws are better than some >>draconian ones where "I'm finessing in spades" is not a valid >>statement and only "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you >>play something else, I play the jack" is. > > > Whenever I rule on the possibility of a play being "irrational" I demand > that the play must be irrational regardless of who is making that play. That is an illogicallity. Something is rational only in the mind of a particular player. Either you define rationality as in the mind of a player of the standard of the one you are judging, or you define it as rationality as in the mind of some standard individual. OK, pick your individual. But don't try and define rationality on its own. That is logically impossible. If > the player does not in advance pinpoint any of the important facts of a > board I shall rule that he is not aware of that fact when he made his > statement and I will not allow him to become aware of it unless it must be > revealed through any legal progress of the play that is covered by the > statement he has already given. > Exactly as the laws say. So? > I am fully aware that here I am in conflict with what seems to be the > current official policy of WBFLC, but I have experienced so many No you are not. You have quoted the laws almost literally. > "irrational" actions by even top ranked players that I am very reluctant to > discard as "irrational" even kinds of mistake that you should never expect. > And so the laws say. You have not yet stated anything that I can disagree with, except your reluctance to admit that the laws are not as bad as you seem to believe after reading blml for a year. > As I have already said: I assume a player to announce all important facts he > is aware of when claiming, and even more so the higher class of player he > is. The consequence of this is that I rule against him as probably being > unaware of any unannounced fact which eventually shows up to be important. > Of course, when have I ever said differently? > I accept as irrational failing to cover the King with an Ace when playing > small towards Ace-Queen. (But I do not allow the unannounced dropping of a > stiff King offside). > Exactly as the laws state. But Sven, you were putting yourself in league with people like David Burn, who would not accept such a cover. David Burn expects a player to play exactly as he announces. To take your example, if a declarer announces "I play queen and ace of trumps and then run my good spades" when he is in hand and has to play trumps towards AQ, David rules that claimer is not allowed to cover the king with the ace if that king appears singleton (imagine claimer knows two are out but has forgotten that one of them is the king). You are far from being in that same camp, Sven, and you seem to pick on me for trying to bring some sense into people who advocate changing the laws in ways that would seriously hurt the occasional claimer. > I accept as irrational failing to overruff if possible when an opponent > makes a ruff with a forgotten trump. (But I do not allow ruffing with a high > trump to avoid the overruff with a possibly forgotten trump offside). > > Just to mention two cases of "obviously" irrational play (regardless of the > class of player!) > Yes indeed, Sven, in those examples the class of player is hardly needed. It is my opinion that the class of player hardly ever matters. But you cannot have a law that uses the word irrational without mentioning for whom it would be rational or not. The word simply has no meaning outside of some mind. > Regards Sven > Greetings back! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 15:51:12 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:51:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <6008845.1062411629521.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <6008845.1062411629521.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F535CE0.3010608@hdw.be> Hello again David, I was wondering how long you would stay out of this thread. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play anything" rather than "a heart", and when I have found out, I will rule if he has made a mistake. > > > Why, Herman, do you persist in this mind-reading approach to tournament directing? Sorry David, but it is not I, but the WBFLC who persist in this approach. You might want to advocate that they change it, but in the meantime stay out of discussions about what the laws are. Do you think that everyone in the world will honestly tell you why they acted as they did? If it becomes established that the director will only rule on what you did after he has found out the innermost workings of your mind, then players are simply going to say whatever will obtain for them the most favourable ruling. > And don't you believe that the TD is well placed to check the veracity of such statements. With the doubt in favour of the opponents? It is you, David, who persists in having laws that no-one will look at as being fair. You will have opponents saying, in cases where the intent is 110% clear even to David Burn "Oh, I know his intent, but still I want my tricks". Well, the WBF have decided that is not how they want to see the game played. And I happen to agree with them on that. You have never stated you wanted these tricks either, all you care for are laws that Johnny Robot can apply. Well, sorry for you, but we prefer laws that are a bit less simple to apply. So please stop insisting that this law should be changed. It won't happen, and every sensible person has already said that in some ways it would be better. But as Cruyff said - every advantage has its disadvantage. > This simply will not work, and I cannot believe that anyone could be so naive as to assume that it has any chance of working. If a player says "play anything", then he has indicated that he does not care what is played; he is therefore assumed for legal purposes to play that card least advantageous to his side. This, contrary to the Mystic Meg School of Ruling, will work, and is the only way of being both consistent and fair. > Well, it has worked for the past 50 years and we'd better make it work for the next 50 as well. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 15:53:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:53:24 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB78@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB78@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F535D64.6050400@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > ----- > Well put. > Sorry Harald, maybe it's well put, but it's not going to happen. So rather than getting everyone worked up about what the laws should be, why not try and find out what the laws really are. Why don't we stop argueing about hypothetical questions and get back to some real cases? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 1 16:15:06 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:15:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <2661775.1062429306258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Sorry David, but it is not I, but the WBFLC who persist in this approach. You might want to advocate that they change it, but in the meantime stay out of discussions about what the laws are. Herman, please do not presume to tell me what I can and cannot say, and what I can and cannot discuss. If you do not want to read what I write, that is your prerogative. But neither you nor anyone has the right to address me in the terms you have used. The laws are not as you say they are, and the WBFLC has not done anything that supports your interpretation. The laws are what the words in the law book say they are, and the WBFLC is bound by those words as much as anyone is. Yes, that Committee can (and does) issue "interpretations", some of which are harmless (though meaningless), while others are simply assertions that a word does not mean what it means. By those interpretations we are, unfortunately, bound. There exists, however, no WBFLC pronouncement to the effect that a director (or anyone else) is supposed to rule as you would rule, and not as I would rule. >And don't you believe that the TD is well placed to check the veracity of such statements. With the doubt in favour of the opponents? No, of course I don't. It is not true. If player knows what will "work" as far as convincing the director to give a favourable ruling is concerned, he will say it, whether it is true or not, and no director will ever be able to assemble enough evidence to call him a liar. >It is you, David, who persists in having laws that no-one will look at as being fair. Well, no one except the two people who, in the space of a couple of hours, have agreed with what I have said. No one except the very large number of ordinary players who are fed up with subjective and inconsistent rulings from biased and incompetent directors. >You will have opponents saying, in cases where the intent is 110% clear even to David Burn "Oh, I know his intent, but still I want my tricks". Well, the WBF have decided that is not how they want to see the game played. When? How? What were the words in which this monumental pronouncement was made manifest to the world? >You have never stated you wanted these tricks either What I "want" does not matter. If the law says that I get some tricks, then I get some tricks. If it says that I lose some tricks, then I lose some tricks. If I do not want to lose some tricks, I had better concentrate on cashing, or claiming, the tricks I have correctly. >all you care for are laws that Johnny Robot can apply. I am, as I have said, very far from alone in this. >Well, sorry for you, but we prefer laws that are a bit less simple to apply. This "we", Herman. Who exactly, besides you? And don't tell me "the WBF", unless you can show me chapter and verse. >So please stop insisting that this law should be changed. It won't happen, and every sensible person has already said that in some ways it would be better. I don't understand. Something that sensible people think would be better will not happen? Why, then, do we allow our game to be governed by stupid people? >But as Cruyff said - every advantage has its disadvantage. As Goldwyn said, include me out. He was also talking rubbish. >Well, it has worked for the past 50 years and we'd better make it work for the next 50 as well. There are none so blind as those who will not see. It has not worked. That is the point. That is why people think that the laws are stupid and unfair. It will not work for the next fifty years either - in fifty thousand years, it will not work, for it cannot work. David Burn London, England From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Sep 1 19:11:58 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:11:58 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] "Play anything" Message-ID: Sorry, I meant this as a comment to the list, not as personal response to Herman. Kaima Raija Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: "DRD" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 2:33 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] "Play anything" > > > > Karel, please. > > > > Karel wrote: > > > > > [snip ...] > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Karel, please. > > You give four examples, each of which, in itself, would be enough to > > rule against the lazy sod. > > You use that as an argument to criticize laws which do not rule > > against a player who has done far less than any of those four. > > Please. > > The TD has to decide whether any of the four things you cite above is > > actually happening. If any of them is, or there is even a small doubt, > > he rules against this player. > > Please don't use arguments like this because sometimes a director > > finds no reason to rule against someone who has done, basically, > > nothing wrong. > > ^^^^ ...nothing wrong except the player was sloppy, careless, asleep, lost > focus, spilled his coffee, was in dire need of a restroom break, or any of > many other reasons he is in such a mental state that he cannot produce a > valid claim. If one is not coherent enough to make a valid claim without TD > probing into the mind of the claimer, the Law stinks, if that is indeed what > TD would have to do. Others have supported clear Laws and so do I. When > you err, you pay. Where else can one err and then be able to give excuses > and get off scot free, provided that one can express oneself afterwards in > such a manner as to convince TD to accept excuses, in face of the fact that > this person didn't know or was otherwise unable to make a valid claim. And > Law requires TD to listen to this? Oh well... > Kaima > Raija Davis > > > From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 1 19:14:38 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:14:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <2661775.1062429306258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <2661775.1062429306258.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F538C8E.6040908@hdw.be> David, hello! dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Sorry David, but it is not I, but the WBFLC who persist in this approach. You might want to advocate that they change it, but in the meantime stay out of discussions about what the laws are. > > > Herman, please do not presume to tell me what I can and cannot say, and what I can and cannot discuss. If you do not want to read what I write, that is your prerogative. But neither you nor anyone has the right to address me in the terms you have used. > David, you are free to discuss whatever you want. But the law as of today is not as you pose it, and you should stay out of discussions as to how the law is. I was talking to Sven, who was telling us that he thought the law was changing for the worse. I told him that the law had not changed, and that the law was not as he thought it was. I told him that the law requires a bit of mindreading. That is where you jumped in, attacking me that *I* persist in mindreading. I did not think that was the correct place to put that in. > The laws are not as you say they are, and the WBFLC has not done anything that supports your interpretation. The laws are what the words in the law book say they are, and the WBFLC is bound by those words as much as anyone is. Yes, that Committee can (and does) issue "interpretations", some of which are harmless (though meaningless), while others are simply assertions that a word does not mean what it means. By those interpretations we are, unfortunately, bound. There exists, however, no WBFLC pronouncement to the effect that a director (or anyone else) is supposed to rule as you would rule, and not as I would rule. > Sorry David, but in this one I am quite certain that the laws are the way I have stated them to be. You have -as you have often done before- stated how you believe the laws could be made better. I do not believe you are delusional enough to think that the laws currently are as you state. > >>And don't you believe that the TD is well placed to check the veracity of such statements. With the doubt in favour of the opponents? > > > No, of course I don't. It is not true. If player knows what will "work" as far as convincing the director to give a favourable ruling is concerned, he will say it, whether it is true or not, and no director will ever be able to assemble enough evidence to call him a liar. > You are entitled to your opinion. Mind reading should be taken out of the laws. Go tell the WBFLC and ask them to change the 2007 laws in the way you propose. Meanwhile, let's continue mindreading. We've managed to do this rather well so far. > >>It is you, David, who persists in having laws that no-one will look at as being fair. > > > Well, no one except the two people who, in the space of a couple of hours, have agreed with what I have said. No one except the very large number of ordinary players who are fed up with subjective and inconsistent rulings from biased and incompetent directors. > Who have thought far less long about this subject than you and I. I have often said that your laws could also work. I happen to believe though that you'd need to start your player base from scratch. > >>You will have opponents saying, in cases where the intent is 110% clear even to David Burn "Oh, I know his intent, but still I want my tricks". Well, the WBF have decided that is not how they want to see the game played. > > > When? How? What were the words in which this monumental pronouncement was made manifest to the world? > Well, by writing the 1997 laws, and the 1987 laws, and the 2007 laws, and some other years besides. The WBF have put the words intent and incontrovertible in there. > >>You have never stated you wanted these tricks either > > > What I "want" does not matter. If the law says that I get some tricks, then I get some tricks. If it says that I lose some tricks, then I lose some tricks. If I do not want to lose some tricks, I had better concentrate on cashing, or claiming, the tricks I have correctly. > No David, I know you as a gentle person, who does not need to take advantage of bridge-lawyering to get trics he knows he does not deserve. What I fear is that, after a law change like the one you advocate, there will be two kinds of players: those that continue to go by intent, and those that, like you, decide they want these tricks, and call the TD. And then we're heading for 50 years of mayhem. Just my prediction, but that's OK. > >>all you care for are laws that Johnny Robot can apply. > > > I am, as I have said, very far from alone in this. > I quite realize that you are. > >>Well, sorry for you, but we prefer laws that are a bit less simple to apply. > > > This "we", Herman. Who exactly, besides you? And don't tell me "the WBF", unless you can show me chapter and verse. > Well, the WBF did write these laws. And is writing the next ones. And is hearing calls for change from David Burn, who appears not to be alone, but whose mass petition for a law change still has not arrived at WBF HQ in Paris. > >>So please stop insisting that this law should be changed. It won't happen, and every sensible person has already said that in some ways it would be better. > > > I don't understand. Something that sensible people think would be better will not happen? Why, then, do we allow our game to be governed by stupid people? > Well, David, I suggest you run for WBF pres on a platform of "simpler laws for stupider TDs". > >>But as Cruyff said - every advantage has its disadvantage. > > > As Goldwyn said, include me out. He was also talking rubbish. > > >>Well, it has worked for the past 50 years and we'd better make it work for the next 50 as well. > > > There are none so blind as those who will not see. It has not worked. That is the point. That is why people think that the laws are stupid and unfair. It will not work for the next fifty years either - in fifty thousand years, it will not work, for it cannot work. > It is working. Out there in the real world it is. Only on blml do we hear gruntles from people like David Burn who insists that the claim law is flawed. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaioudi3OJ@Ijjds.com Mon Sep 1 20:24:07 2003 From: jaioudi3OJ@Ijjds.com (jaioudi3OJ@Ijjds.com) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:24:07 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Email marketing Message-ID:

If you not hope to receive the similar letter again , please click here remove.Thank you

Email Marketing Email more than 2,500,000+ TARGETED prospects EVERYDAY! That's over 75,000,000+ prospects per month (and growing!). Our Optin email safelists are 100% Optin and 100% legal to use. Your ad will reach only those prospects who have requested to be included in Optin safelists for people interested in new business opportunities, products and services.
 

Products

 World Email Lists   Free download

Country or area total emails total price half email/half price order
America  (details)  175 Million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
Europe  (details)  156 Million Email Address $250 US $150 US Buy Now
Asia   (details)  168 Million Email Address $150 US $ 80 US Buy Now
China(PRC)  80 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US Buy Now
HongKong  (details) 3.25 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US Buy Now
TaiWan  (details) 2.25 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US Buy Now
Japan 27 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US Buy Now
Australia  (details) 6 Million Email Address $150 US $ 80 US Buy Now
Canda  (details) 10 Million Email Address $150 US $100 US Buy Now
Russia 38 Million Email Address $120 US $100 US Buy Now
England 3.2 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US Buy Now
German 20 Million Email Address $200 US $120 US Buy Now
France 38 Million Email Address $150 US $ 80 US Buy Now
India 12 Million Email Address $120 US $ 60 US Buy Now
CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA (details) 40 Million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA  (details) 45 million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
SOUTH EAST AREA (details) 32 million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists total price   $500 US        Buy Now


order please click here go to website
website: http://202.98.223.74/soft/html/wd/wd3.htm


the silver star internet information Company

copyright@2003-2005   all reserved  

If you not hope to receive the similar letter again , please click here remove.Thank you

From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 1 23:17:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:17:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: The ABF has just produced a slightly revised set of Alert regulations. ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - "...Take care not to ask questions where your intention is to pass regardless of the answer." ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred." These two regulations, read together, not only appear to create a Catch-22 situation, but also appear to give an incentive for players using slightly offbeat methods to "accidentally" sometimes forget to Alert. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 1 23:35:28 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:35:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deleting a thread. References: Message-ID: <009001c370d9$71767a70$2138e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Jaap van der Neut '" ; "'Grattan Endicott '" ; "'blml '" Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:01 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Deleting a thread. > > > ***I have to agree with Jaap more than with > Grattan. This 'ruling in favour of the non-offenders' > started in '87 and was adopted in WBF and EBL events > as well. And then after a few years the EBL awoke > earlier than the WBF, realising that this was a wrong > approach. < +=+ I do not want to extend the argument. However my experience is this: 1. In Sao Paolo in 1985 the Ortiz-Patino/Kaplan 'rule in favour of the non-offenders' policy applied. I was a team captain who protested it. (In parallel I renewed there the British argument that co-nationals should not sit on ACs). Both submissions were politely squashed. 2. My first attendance at an EBL Championship appeal, as an invited observer, was several years before that. The Chairman was Pencharz. His guidance to Directors at that time was not to rule automatically in favour of offenders. It has been his constant guidance subsequently. When Auken has been the TAC chairman in other years he has not adopted the O-P/EK position, although less explicit in his expressions to Directors. 3. At no time when I have been a member of an EBL Championship TAC has the policy of the TAC been the one adopted under O-P/EK by the WBF. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 1 23:47:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:47:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F5359C8.60401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c370db$12f6d1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven, you have fallen into the common blml trap. Which trap? (see below) >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > Yes, I believe I understand what you try to express. I have no > > objection against that but the problem (in my opinion) is that=20 > > this is not the way the laws are currently applied. > > >=20 > Yes they are. The way small children discuss: "Yes they are", "No they are not" is so unproductive; can we please leave this kind of arguments right here? >=20 > > Instead of only accepting "obvious" and clear-cut=20 > > cases wee have ended up in a situation where we=20 > > have to read minds (as well as we possibly can), > > assume intentions even where the intention is not > > obvious and in fact ignore the possibility of an > > expert player making possible mistakes which although > > rather unlikely should not be ignored when he fails > > to point out that he is aware of that possibility. > > (This of course mainly concerns incomplete claims). > > >=20 > Sven, when is the last time you have encountered such=20 > a case, anywhere but on blml? I have not seen anything > in 4 years of EBL AC's. Nor in my own back yard. It is > only on blml that we endlessly discuss hypothetical cases. Is this what you call the "blml trap"? I am very surprised if you have not noticed such cases in the real life. Whenever I am summoned to a table because of an incomplete claim = statement I have to make a ruling (of course). And contrary to what I regularly see argued here on blml I consistently resist ruling in favor of a claimer = from whom I get the impression that he tries to convince me the "possible" = play that will destroy his claim is "of course" irrational for him. The better player the more I insist that what he did not mention he had overlooked. I am in fact much more lenient with inexperienced players allowing from them what I would never accept from a top class player. Hypothetic problems are only seen on blml? Forget it, you are plain = wrong. ......... > So Sven, we are talking principles here, and quite unimportant ones at > that. Sure, the way I understand blml it is intended for principles, RGB is a = much more apt forum for discussing deals and plays as such. But unimportant? = When interest is arisen like we sometimes see then the principle under = discussion cannot be unimportant.=20 A claim to the effect that what we discuss is unimportant is in my = opinion an insult to all those who engage.=20 =20 > > I don't even think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the = basic > > laws, but there seems to be a steady and unlucky evolution towards > giving > > more and more latitude to players who somehow are violating the = correct > > procedures as specified in these laws. > > >=20 > No, there is no "more and more". It's the way the laws have been for > the past 50 years. What is "more and more" is people like David > hammering that the laws ought to be changed and hypothetical cases on > blml are debated prompting you and others to believe (IMHO falsely) > that there is something wrong with the laws and that it is even = spreading. Please Herman, personal attacks never contribute to anything. And again = I am surprised when you claim that the laws have been applied in an unchanged fashion for 50 years. Even I can remember serious changes in how we have been advised to rule only since 1980 when I received my first = authorization as a director. My impression is that this evolution which I regret = started with the laws revision in 1987.=20 ......... > > If I can see that the statement is correct I shall accept it from = you as > > well as from any player of whatever standard. And if I cannot > immediately > > see that the statement is correct I shall request further = explanation no > > matter who is my opponent before I accept it. > > >=20 > I am not talking of you as opponent but as TD. I really do not understand what difference that makes? (Except of course that as a player it is not my business to accept or reject the claim but = to summon the director if I feel uncomfortable with it) > Your statement (I shall accept if I can see it is correct) means that > if you are a TD who has just played 2 years bridge and you are ruling > on Helgemo, he will be ruled against, while if some other TD comes > along, Helgemo will get his claim? > Surely the laws are less arbitrary than that? In both cases I will first of all let the claimer explain to me why he thinks his line of play is obvious beyond the need for more detailed specifications. If he can meet all my "buts" and "what ifs" with satisfactory answers convincingly nothing he has just now realized as important then I shall accept his claim, if not I shall most probably = rule against him whether it should happen to be Helgemo, Zia or the kid next = door who is making his first visit to a bridge party. In any case I shall inform him on what point I am not satisfied that his statement stands up. > OK, so what is it, reject or accept? How are we to judge whether it is > either? What is the standard? What is wrong with the legal standard > "rational"? And rational for who? > You wish to rule on Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim the same. But what is > the standard? How do you define any standard that can apply to both? The standard is simply that if you do not mention some fact it is = because you are unaware of the fact itself or the importance of it. And the = better player you are the less latitude I shall give you in this respect. The question should always bee whether it is possible to show a line of = play that makes the claim to fail and this line of play is not in conflict = with the original claim statement (including clarifying follow up remarks = which are accepted as not being subsequently discovered as important).=20 > >>So the words "for the class of player involved" are necessary in = the > >>current set of laws. > > > > > > No, in my opinion those words, and the implication of them being > present, is > > a disaster to duplicate bridge. > > >=20 > Well, they have been there for 50 years (or any number larger than at > least the 20 I know of). They have not been a disaster. And they are = not. The words "for the class of player involved" entered the laws in 1987. = That is 16 years ago. > > Whenever I rule on the possibility of a play being "irrational" I = demand > > that the play must be irrational regardless of who is making that = play. >=20 > That is an illogicallity. Something is rational only in the mind of a > particular player. Either you define rationality as in the mind of a > player of the standard of the one you are judging, or you define it as > rationality as in the mind of some standard individual. OK, pick your > individual. But don't try and define rationality on its own. That is > logically impossible. The few places I have found anything resembling our use of "irrational" = in the laws since the thirties up to 1987 there has never been any = indication that the "class of player" or any similar personal properties mattered. = ......... > Exactly as the laws say. So? >=20 > > I am fully aware that here I am in conflict with what seems to be = the > > current official policy of WBFLC, but I have experienced so many >=20 > No you are not. You have quoted the laws almost literally. ......... > And so the laws say. > You have not yet stated anything that I can disagree with, except your > reluctance to admit that the laws are not as bad as you seem to > believe after reading blml for a year. Have you still not realized that I am not criticizing the laws proper (except for six words in a footnote)? I am criticizing the application practice that seems to be sneaking in as we are told from WBFLC minutes = and WBF AC decisions. I do seriously fear that this diversion from how I understand the present laws will next result in direct alterations to = the laws themselves. And I have a strong feeling from other participants on blml, not to = mention my fellow directors and bridge club friends that I am not alone with = this fear. .........(snip) Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 2 00:04:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:04:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c370dd$54cdc280$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 > The ABF has just produced a slightly revised=20 > set of Alert regulations. >=20 > ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - >=20 > "...Take care not to ask questions where your=20 > intention is to pass regardless of the answer." >=20 > ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - >=20 > "When players claim damage due to a failure to=20 > alert (but are likely to have been aware of=20 > probable alternative meanings of a call), their > claim will be unsuccessful if they could have=20 > enquired as to the meaning of the call before=20 > damage occurred." >=20 > These two regulations, read together, not only=20 > appear to create a Catch-22 situation, but also > appear to give an incentive for players using=20 > slightly offbeat methods to "accidentally"=20 > sometimes forget to Alert. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James I hate to engage in discussions like this (questioning the actions of a = body within an organization except in the regular way) but this regulation is dangerous not only on the "catch-22" question (where does that term come from?) but also on a separate matter which is often overlooked: If you are required never to ask after an alert unless the answer can influence your choice of action the fact that you ask or do not ask = itself creates information which should be avoided. The regulation quoted has = the effect of a player not asking after an alert before he passes actually announcing to all players at the table that his hand is under no circumstance worth anything but a pass. However if he passes after = asking a question he announces that his pass probably is marginal. It is a well known rule in information theory that complete randomness = is the only safe way to avoid giving information. (What kind of information? That is unspecified) regards Sven =20 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 2 00:11:35 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:11:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: Message-ID: <001d01c370de$65bde420$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: ####### The ABF has just produced a slightly revised set of Alert regulations. ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - "...Take care not to ask questions where your intention is to pass regardless of the answer." ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred." These two regulations, read together, not only appear to create a Catch-22 situation, but also appear to give an incentive for players using slightly offbeat methods to "accidentally" sometimes forget to Alert. ###### We have about the same Catch 22 in ACBL-land, but there are ways its effects could be greatly reduced. Certainly questions that are clearly answered on the CC need not be asked and should be barred unless playing behind a screen. The 8.3 wording merely says to "take care," so it does not bar the asking of questions but merely points out (indirectly) what L20F1's footnote cautions, which is that L16 may apply. It would help if players would ask for an explanation of the auction, as required by L20F1/F2, instead of highlighting a particular call, and SOs could enforce that. I do think SOs should strongly discourage requests for an explanation of the auction in the passout position when one's partner is about to make the opening lead and there is obviously no "need to know.". L16 is of no help unless a question points to a particular action. However, something that is permitted by L20F1 can hardly be barred. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 2 00:18:06 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:18:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: <000101c370dd$54cdc280$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002201c370df$534a44e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" I hate to engage in discussions like this (questioning the actions of a body within an organization except in the regular way) but this regulation is dangerous not only on the "catch-22" question (where does that term come from?) ###### It comes from a book by Joseph Heller (and a movie) entitled "Catch-22" >From the book: There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed. "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 2 00:12:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:12:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: Message-ID: <00ac01c370df$e1e03110$2138e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 The ABF has just produced a slightly revised set of Alert regulations. ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - "...Take care not to ask questions where your intention is to pass regardless of the answer." ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred." These two regulations, read together, not only appear to create a Catch-22 situation, but also appear to give an incentive for players using slightly offbeat methods to "accidentally" sometimes forget to Alert. < +=+ I imagine the thought is that if a player does not ask immediately, having no immediate use for the information, he can do so on a later round if he is aware of alternative probable meanings and now needs to know to avoid possible damage, or he can save his enquiry until the end of the auction if that will be time enough to know. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 2 00:30:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:30:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: <002201c370df$534a44e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c370e1$0ea54310$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ....... > the "catch-22" question (where does that term come from?) > > ###### > > It comes from a book by Joseph Heller (and a movie) entitled > "Catch-22" > > From the book: > > There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a > concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and > immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could > be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would > no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be > crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane > he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; > but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved > very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and > let out a respectful whistle. > "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed. > "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed. Thanks! I have read this three times now. The clock here says 1:30 AM and I am now going to bed - very confused. Hopefully I shall have my brain back on track again tomorrow after reading this once more (if I dare). Regards - and good night, Sven From Steve Willner" > From: "Sven Pran" > I have read this three times now. The clock here says 1:30 AM and I am now > going to bed - very confused. Perhaps a little context will help. The setting of the book is a WW 2 American bomber base. Each air crewman is required to fly 25 missions before returning to the States. In actual fact, at the time and place of the book's setting, the chance of completing the mission quota was well under 50%. Yossarian, the main character in the book, tries to obtain a return stateside on grounds of insanity. The fact that he requests a transfer is _prima facie_ evidence that he is sane. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 2 00:52:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:52:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: <000101c370dd$54cdc280$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <587FCD28-DCD7-11D7-A69F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 19:04 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > this regulation is dangerous not only on the "catch-22" question > (where does that term come > from?) Oh, my. It's from Joseph Heller's wonderful novel (later made into a movie starring Alan Arkin) "Catch-22", which is about the efforts of one Yossarian, assigned during WWII to a US Army Air Corps unit in North Africa, to get himself sent back to the States. The problem was, in order to get sent back, you had to be crazy - and if you *wanted* to get sent back, well, you couldn't possibly be crazy. That was the catch. :) Other memorable characters included Milo Minderbender and Major Major - whose descendent (well, he certainly fit the description, and had the same surname) I met in real life at the Naval War College in Newport, RI in 1976. :-) From Steve Willner" > From: Herman De Wael > But you cannot have a law that uses the word irrational without > mentioning for whom it would be rational or not. The word simply has > no meaning outside of some mind. This seems exactly backwards to me. I don't see how an action that would be rational for one person would be irrational for another in the same circumstances. (Those last four words are quite important in "real life," but not in the context of a bridge claim, where the circumstances involve the play so far and the desire to win the most tricks.) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 2 00:56:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:56:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: <000601c370e1$0ea54310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 19:30 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >> Marvin French > ....... >> the "catch-22" question (where does that term come from?) >> >> ###### >> >> It comes from a book by Joseph Heller (and a movie) entitled >> "Catch-22" >> >> From the book: >> >> There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a >> concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and >> immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could >> be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would >> no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be >> crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane >> he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; >> but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved >> very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and >> let out a respectful whistle. >> "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed. >> "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed. Hm. Seems my memory was faulty. I'd forgotten about Orr. > Thanks! > > I have read this three times now. The clock here says 1:30 AM and I am > now > going to bed - very confused. Hopefully I shall have my brain back on > track > again tomorrow after reading this once more (if I dare). Read the book. It's well worth it. From Steve Willner" > From: "Sven Pran" > 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. ... > 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. This would be sensible. If there is a desire that spectators should not affect the contest, surely the way to enforce that is to put the burden on the TD's (who presumably know the Laws) and not the spectators themselves (who probably don't). If you don't want action taken on (some types of) spectator reports, spell that out in the TD's duties. But you cannot expect spectators to know that the TD will welcome reports of misplaced boards and suspicious conduct but not of revokes. > From: "grandeval" > +=+ 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. Would you think it appropriate for a player to consult a friend on the merits of a potential appeal? If so, would it matter whether the friend was or was not present at the tournament site? > From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" > 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. Exactly so. There is no way to prevent discussions between players and spectators (and indeed others off site), and there is no reliable way to find out whether any proposed appeal or scoring correction has been prompted by such discussions. > 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. What was it S. J. Simon said, "the best result possible, not the best possible result?" I think that applies to the Laws as well as play at the table. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Repeated for convenience: > [28-Oct-1901 WBFLC Minutes item 11] > ... The subject was remitted > for the consideration of the Laws Review > Subcommittee. Let us hope the Subcommittee drafts a rule that is practical to apply. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 2 03:18:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:18:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF Directors' Corner Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From toddz@att.net Tue Sep 2 04:13:17 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:13:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Reppert > Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 > > Hm. Seems my memory was faulty. I'd forgotten about Orr. And no one's mentioned Lt. Scheisskopf yet either, or are we too polite to call each other names? ;) -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Sep 2 04:19:57 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:19:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <003501c370e5$68cea260$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <00c901c37101$166f3a40$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Steve wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > But you cannot have a law that uses the word irrational without > > mentioning for whom it would be rational or not. The word simply has > > no meaning outside of some mind. > This seems exactly backwards to me. I don't see how an action that > would be rational for one person would be irrational for another in the > same circumstances. (Those last four words are quite important in "real > life," but not in the context of a bridge claim, where the circumstances > involve the play so far and the desire to win the most tricks.) It's not quite as simple as that. Is it irrational to throw yourself out of a fortieth-floor window? If you think you can fly, then that action is not irrational per se; of course, it is irrational to think you can fly, but the action in itself may be rational for A (who thinks he can fly) and irrational for B (who does not). Your parenthesis, however, indicates that you are to some extent aware of the difficulty; A and B are not "in the same circumstances" if A thinks he can fly but B does not. The idiocy of the de Wael approach lies in this: that if a man throws himself out of a fortieth-floor window, Herman will ask him if he did this because he thought he could fly; if he says "Yes", then the WBF Laws Commission will magically bring him (or at any rate, his contract) back to life. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 2 05:22:15 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 05:22:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <005e01c37109$d06aa440$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [a typo corrected -- I wrote "alert" instead of "explanation"] When the ABF was soliciting suggestions, I proposed a suggestion (like Grattan's). British and Australian alert rules create spurious problems. America and the rest of the world have different unnecessary problems implicit in their alert rules. With simple sensible rules the UI problems are reduced. Exposing an "explain" card at the beginning of a set of boards would mandate opponents to elucidate their partner's calls. If you judge that asking opponents to explain in real time will help them more than it will help you, then you don't face your "explain" card. At the end of each auction, opponents *must* elucidate all their calls, anyway (whether asked or not). If *both* sides know the *WBF standard system*, then the only calls that require explanation are the departures from that standard. Simple rules that any player or TD can understand. A level world-wide playing field. Hence zero chance of adoption in my life-time (or the life-time of bridge). --- 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 2 07:46:36 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:46:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030702003137.025d1ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <001b01c3711e$1e8cb000$9c7187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Catch-22 > Don't forget that Major Major was a Captain > until someone with a sense of humor promoted > him so that he became Major Major Major. > > Walt > +=+ A minor issue.+=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 2 07:52:29 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:52:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <003501c370e5$68cea260$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> <00c901c37101$166f3a40$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001301c3711e$e5a10b00$625e87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Steve Willner" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" >If you think you can fly, < +=+ How do you know you can't fly before you have tried? +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 2 07:54:23 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:54:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Play anything" In-Reply-To: References: <3f504b99.10b6.0@esatclear.ie> <3F53127A.4000404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3F543E9F.6070903@hdw.be> DRD wrote: >>Please don't use arguments like this because sometimes a director >>finds no reason to rule against someone who has done, basically, >>nothing wrong. > > > ^^^^ ...nothing wrong except the player was sloppy, careless, asleep, lost > focus, spilled his coffee, was in dire need of a restroom break, or any of NO NO NO NO NO. The people I am talking of have done nothing of the sort! I'm saying it again. Please don't use arguments about people who have done something wrong to criticize laws that rule in favour of people who have done nothing wrong !!!!!!!!! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 2 07:57:45 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:57:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000001c370db$12f6d1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c370db$12f6d1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F543F69.6060802@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sven, you have fallen into the common blml trap. > > > Is this what you call the "blml trap"? > > I am very surprised if you have not noticed such cases in the real life. > > Whenever I am summoned to a table because of an incomplete claim statement I > have to make a ruling (of course). And contrary to what I regularly see > argued here on blml I consistently resist ruling in favor of a claimer from > whom I get the impression that he tries to convince me the "possible" play > that will destroy his claim is "of course" irrational for him. > OK. Now tell me those cases rather than assume that I would rule differently from you. You have ruled against those people, haven't you? So what is wrong with the current laws? The fact that you needed to check if the player had done something wrong? The fact that you needed to know what the rule says? I agree with you that with Burnian claim laws, those cases would be far easier. But also far more unfair. Please don't criticize the laws without good examples. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 2 08:04:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:04:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <00c901c37101$166f3a40$a8f48051@pbncomputer> References: <003501c370e5$68cea260$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> <00c901c37101$166f3a40$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3F5440F9.3050302@hdw.be> David, quite the opposite: David Burn wrote: > > It's not quite as simple as that. Is it irrational to throw yourself out > of a fortieth-floor window? If you think you can fly, then that action > is not irrational per se; of course, it is irrational to think you can > fly, but the action in itself may be rational for A (who thinks he can > fly) and irrational for B (who does not). > > Your parenthesis, however, indicates that you are to some extent aware > of the difficulty; A and B are not "in the same circumstances" if A > thinks he can fly but B does not. The idiocy of the de Wael approach > lies in this: that if a man throws himself out of a fortieth-floor > window, Herman will ask him if he did this because he thought he could > fly; if he says "Yes", then the WBF Laws Commission will magically bring > him (or at any rate, his contract) back to life. > Quite the opposite. In general terms, it would be called irrational to jump out of a 40th-floor window. Now if the final result of a deal depends on this action, then I believe that for player B it can be a fair outcome to leave him alive, while for player A it is rational to jump. Thus, I (and I presume the WBF) will rule B alive, and A, for whom jumping is rational and therefor normal, as having jumped. Contrast with DB, who would rule both players 40 down, as jumping is a legal action not specifically covered by a claim statement "I shall not jump out of the window". Silly example really, but your conclusion being exactly opposite from mine I felt I needed to correct it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Sep 2 08:29:23 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:29:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: David, quite the opposite: David Burn wrote: >=20 > It's not quite as simple as that. Is it irrational to throw yourself out > of a fortieth-floor window? If you think you can fly, then that action > is not irrational per se; of course, it is irrational to think you can > fly, but the action in itself may be rational for A (who thinks he can > fly) and irrational for B (who does not). >=20 > Your parenthesis, however, indicates that you are to some extent aware > of the difficulty; A and B are not "in the same circumstances" if A > thinks he can fly but B does not. The idiocy of the de Wael approach > lies in this: that if a man throws himself out of a fortieth-floor > window, Herman will ask him if he did this because he thought he could > fly; if he says "Yes", then the WBF Laws Commission will magically bring > him (or at any rate, his contract) back to life. >=20 Quite the opposite. In general terms, it would be called irrational to jump out of a=20 40th-floor window. Now if the final result of a deal depends on this action, then I=20 believe that for player B it can be a fair outcome to leave him alive,=20 while for player A it is rational to jump. Thus, I (and I presume the=20 WBF) will rule B alive, and A, for whom jumping is rational and=20 therefor normal, as having jumped. Contrast with DB, who would rule=20 both players 40 down, as jumping is a legal action not specifically=20 covered by a claim statement "I shall not jump out of the window". Silly example really, but your conclusion being exactly opposite from=20 mine I felt I needed to correct it. ----- If A and B both jumped out of the window, it would be quite logical to beli= eve that jumping out the window was their intended action. A thought he could f= ly=20 and B either wanted to commit suicide or was insane. Who are you (or the WBF LC) to say what was B's intention? Why not implement the law as it is and rule B 40 down. 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 Sep 2 08:56:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:56:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <00c901c37101$166f3a40$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c37127$b34124c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn ............ > It's not quite as simple as that. Is it irrational to throw yourself out > of a fortieth-floor window? If you think you can fly, then that action > is not irrational per se; of course, it is irrational to think you can > fly, but the action in itself may be rational for A (who thinks he can > fly) and irrational for B (who does not). > > Your parenthesis, however, indicates that you are to some extent aware > of the difficulty; A and B are not "in the same circumstances" if A > thinks he can fly but B does not. The idiocy of the de Wael approach > lies in this: that if a man throws himself out of a fortieth-floor > window, Herman will ask him if he did this because he thought he could > fly; if he says "Yes", then the WBF Laws Commission will magically bring > him (or at any rate, his contract) back to life. To many people this is an ill-chosen argument: Although memories hurt I shall point out that probably none of those who threw themselves from WTC two years ago thought they could fly. Still their action cannot be considered irrational under the circumstances. I think we had better be very careful trying to judge what goes on in people's minds and return to a more objective analysis on what is actually happening. This applies to the bridge table as well as in the real life. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 2 09:03:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:03:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F543F69.6060802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > Please don't criticize the laws without good examples. Spade is trump: T A A - "The rest is mine" Opponent holds: J - - AK I do not know what you rule. As far as I understand WBFLC they rule one trick to opponent. I want to give opponent all three tricks. And I do rule that way in practical life when I meet comparable situations. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 2 10:31:11 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:31:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>Please don't criticize the laws without good examples. > > > Spade is trump: > > T > A > A > - > > "The rest is mine" > > Opponent holds: > > J > - > - > AK > > I do not know what you rule. > Again a hypothetical, Sven, but OK, I'll bite. There are two separate cases: 1) declarer thinks his S10 is high, but not last. he will of course play it and lose 3 tricks - easy. 2) declarer thinks his S10 is last. > As far as I understand WBFLC they rule one trick to opponent. > This is a difficult situation, and we need guidance. Tenerife has provided this - last trumps are not cashed but kept, one trick to opponents. > I want to give opponent all three tricks. > Why? What we need is for every TD to rule the same way. Why should that be this way and not another one. I said that this is the gray area. wherever the boundary lies, there will be gray areas, except in the extreme Burn rule - least of all legal plays. > And I do rule that way in practical life when I meet comparable situations. > Sven, how can you talk of comparables when you are talking about a borderline issue. We might well have as guideline that the trump ace is always cashed, because that cannot lose, and that the trump two is never cashed, because that cannot win. So what about the trump ten? You cannot present an example that is very close, and then say that you always rule in comparable situations. > Sven -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 2 10:53:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:53:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c37137$ffadb520$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sent: 2. september 2003 11:31 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Herman De Wael > > > > ............ > > > >>Please don't criticize the laws without good examples. > > > > > > Spade is trump: > > > > T > > A > > A > > - > > > > "The rest is mine" > > > > Opponent holds: > > > > J > > - > > - > > AK > > > > I do not know what you rule. > > >=20 > Again a hypothetical, Sven, but OK, I'll bite. > There are two separate cases: >=20 > 1) declarer thinks his S10 is high, but not last. > he will of course play it and lose 3 tricks - easy. >=20 > 2) declarer thinks his S10 is last. >=20 > > As far as I understand WBFLC they rule one trick to opponent. > > >=20 > This is a difficult situation, and we need guidance. Tenerife has > provided this - last trumps are not cashed but kept, one trick to > opponents. >=20 > > I want to give opponent all three tricks. > > >=20 > Why? > What we need is for every TD to rule the same way. Why should that be > this way and not another one. I said that this is the gray area. > wherever the boundary lies, there will be gray areas, except in the > extreme Burn rule - least of all legal plays. >=20 > > And I do rule that way in practical life when I meet comparable > situations. > > >=20 > Sven, how can you talk of comparables when you are talking about a > borderline issue. We might well have as guideline that the trump ace > is always cashed, because that cannot lose, and that the trump two is > never cashed, because that cannot win. So what about the trump ten? > You cannot present an example that is very close, and then say that > you always rule in comparable situations. >=20 > > Sven Come on Herman, you asked for an example and I gave you one.=20 There is nothing hypothetical here; it is the plain everyday case of incomplete claims narrowed down to focus on the essentials. The example = is typical for almost every dubious claim for which I get called to a = table. My principle is simply this: If a player apparently believes that it = does not matter in which order he plays his remaining suits I always rule him = to play the suits in the sequence that is worst for him and luckiest for = his opponents; trump suit or not trump suit handled the same. (But just to = stop any silly sidestepping in advance: When running a suit I rule that it is = run from top). Anything else would in my opinion be for me as a director to play the claimers game for him; that is not for the director to do and it is not = for the AC to do. So in my example I rule that he plays his trump first. Give opponents a low trump instead of the high trump and everything else unchanged I rule that the claimer plays one of his side-suit aces first; = one trick to opponent. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 2 11:07:27 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 12:07:27 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F546BDF.8090905@hdw.be> Sorry Harald, but just like David you have misunderstood what the term irrational is for: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > ----- > If A and B both jumped out of the window, it would be quite logical to believe > that jumping out the window was their intended action. A thought he could fly > and B either wanted to commit suicide or was insane. > > Who are you (or the WBF LC) to say what was B's intention? > Why not implement the law as it is and rule B 40 down. > When discussing rational or irrational actions, we must only consider things that have not happened. FI the case that Sven just asked me - would declare play the S10 or not? So the question we should be posing is not whether it is irrational or not, given that A and B have jumped, but whether or not it would be irrational for either of them to jump, given that they have not, but merely claimed that they would get down to the ground floor. So if A thinks he can fly, then for A jumping will be deemed normal, and that shall be the outcome of the claim ruling for him. Whereas for B we rule it irrational to jump, and we rule that he has taken the elevator and reached the ground floor safely. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Sep 2 11:39:34 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:39:34 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >=20 > ............ >=20 >>Please don't criticize the laws without good examples. >=20 >=20 > Spade is trump: >=20 > T > A > A > - >=20 > "The rest is mine" >=20 > Opponent holds: >=20 > J > - > - > AK >=20 > I do not know what you rule. >=20 Again a hypothetical, Sven, but OK, I'll bite. There are two separate cases: 1) declarer thinks his S10 is high, but not last. he will of course play it and lose 3 tricks - easy. 2) declarer thinks his S10 is last. ----- As declarer mentioned no outstanding trumps, simply said "the rest is mine"= , without saying anything about the need to play the cards in any special o= rder, it's reasonable to believe declarer think there's no outstanding trum= ps left. ----- > As far as I understand WBFLC they rule one trick to opponent. >=20 This is a difficult situation, and we need guidance. Tenerife has=20 provided this - last trumps are not cashed but kept, one trick to=20 opponents. > I want to give opponent all three tricks. >=20 Why? What we need is for every TD to rule the same way. Why should that be=20 this way and not another one. I said that this is the gray area.=20 wherever the boundary lies, there will be gray areas, except in the=20 extreme Burn rule - least of all legal plays. > And I do rule that way in practical life when I meet comparable situation= s. >=20 Sven, how can you talk of comparables when you are talking about a=20 borderline issue. We might well have as guideline that the trump ace=20 is always cashed, because that cannot lose, and that the trump two is=20 never cashed, because that cannot win. So what about the trump ten? You cannot present an example that is very close, and then say that=20 you always rule in comparable situations. ----- When you believe all your cards are high, any sequence of play is rational = and normal. I would rule three tricks to the opponents, as would probably e= very single TD in Norway. Exchange the opponent's spade jack with the nine,= and we would rule one trick to the opponents. This is, IMO, 100% in accordance with the laws, as I read it. It's in accor= dance to what we have been taught, both nationally and internationally. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- > Sven --=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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Sep 2 11:43:33 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:43:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4CC3ACEC-DD32-11D7-97D4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 10:31 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Tue Sep 2, 2003 10:31:11 am Europe/London > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Herman De Wael >> ............ >>> Please don't criticize the laws without good examples. >> Spade is trump: >> T >> A >> A >> - >> "The rest is mine" >> Opponent holds: >> J >> - >> - >> AK >> I do not know what you rule. > > Again a hypothetical, Sven, but OK, I'll bite. > There are two separate cases: > > 1) declarer thinks his S10 is high, but not last. > he will of course play it and lose 3 tricks - easy. > > 2) declarer thinks his S10 is last. > >> As far as I understand WBFLC they rule one trick to opponent. > > This is a difficult situation, and we need guidance. Tenerife has > provided this - last trumps are not cashed but kept, one trick to > opponents. > >> I want to give opponent all three tricks. > > Why? > What we need is for every TD to rule the same way. Yet you wish to rule two different ways in the same position. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 2 14:07:12 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:07:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902084848.00a059b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:35 AM 8/31/03, Sven 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. > >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? This overlooks the fact that touching a chess piece is an unambiguous action; you either do it or you don't. Spoken language, OTOH, is very often ambiguous when strictly parsed, hence we have "unless... incontrovertable" language which means (or should mean) that if we are sure we know what the intended meaning of a player's statement is, we base action on the intention, not on the literal meaning of the strictly parsed English. I don't play tournament chess, but I'd be willing to be that there is a de facto (if not explicit) exception to the touch rule "when the player's intent is incontrovertable". Imagine an elderly chess player with severe palsy. He reaches for a piece to move it. It is absolutely clear to everyone watching, including his opponent, that he intends to move that piece. But his shaking hand inadvertantly grazes another piece on the way to it. Would he really be required to move the piece that he touched first by accident? I'd be surprised and disappointed to learn that he would. I do believe that it was the original intention of our lawmakers to use language that would cover cases analogous to my chess example. And I am thoroughly convinced of the point Sven alludes to in passing: that when we stretch the definition of "incontrovertable" so far as to encompass situations that might depend on the "class of player involved" we have gone much too far. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 2 14:33:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:33:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000001c37064$dbcc0f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3F52ED3D.8030602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902092650.02386ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:41 AM 9/1/03, Sven wrote: >Herman De Wael > > > What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about > > which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants > > to take advantage of the unclarity. > >What is wrong with training and requiring players to be precise in their >actions? And I am not talking about the inexperienced player striving to >master the game while his opponents tries to take advantage of him. Sven leaves his own argument with no force. Herman's point is that these rules *do* protect "the inexperienced player striving to master the game while his opponents tr[y] to take advantage of him", and if we abolish those rules we lose that protection. It's very easy to argue that we don't need a particular rule if one explicitly excludes talking about those contexts in which those arguing to the contrary believe that we do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 2 14:46:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:46:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3F531610.5090308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902093859.00ac4e70@pop.starpower.net> At 06:31 AM 9/1/03, Sven wrote: >We should never let the class of player be an opening for accepting >something that would not be accepted from a less skilled player. Amen, and hallelujah! If nothing else, a set of laws that respected this as a fundamental principle would be perceived by the overwhelming majority of ordinary players as an order of magnitude more fair than is currently the case. If I had my way, Sven's words would be prominently posted at all future meetings of the WBFLC. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 2 15:02:26 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:02:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F533426.3030804@hdw.be> References: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902095150.00ac2220@pop.starpower.net> At 07:57 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: >Come on, Sven. >Without going into the details of a well-known case, don't you accept >that it might be possible for a player of international standard to >utter the words "I make it on a double squeeze", and that this >constitutes a full and complete description of his line of play? >While you would not accept the same from me. > >Or give another example. > From me, you will accept "I'm finessing in spades" as a complete > claim statement. Yet from some beginner, you might not. I can't speak for Sven, but I don't accept this. If I am to make fair and impartial judgments, I believe I *must* ask myself "how would I evaluate this claim statement coming from a complete stranger about whose level of play I know absolutely nothing?" and either accept it or reject it on that basis. To do otherwise is to give unfair advantage or disadvantage to players about whose level of skill I do have an opinion. As a low-level working TD I follow the law as interpreted by authorities whose jurisdiction I respect and accept, so, when making a ruling on a disputed claim, I do consider what I know of "class of player involved". When the WBFLC and the ACBLLC tell me that the Laws do not permit me to render fair and impartial judgments I hear and obey. But I don't like it, and wish it were otherwise. So do my players. >So the words "for the class of player involved" are necessary in the >current set of laws. > >Yes, I know that this imposes on the TD an extra amount of >decision-making. Yes, I know that this creates extra possibility of >argument. And yet I believe the current laws are better than some >draconian ones where "I'm finessing in spades" is not a valid >statement and only "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you >play something else, I play the jack" is. > > >-- >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 Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 2 15:17:47 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:17:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F533426.3030804@hdw.be> References: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902101308.00ac7440@pop.starpower.net> My mailer screwed up and forced me to either send or lose the partial reply to Herman's post that I just sent. Here is the rest of it... At 07:57 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: >Yes, I know that this imposes on the TD an extra amount of >decision-making. Yes, I know that this creates extra possibility of >argument. And yet I believe the current laws are better than some >draconian ones where "I'm finessing in spades" is not a valid >statement and only "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you >play something else, I play the jack" is. I am in 100% agreement with Herman's last sentence, but what has this to do with the "class of player" issue? Would Herman really require "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you play something else, I play the jack", as opposed to "I'm finessing in spades" from *any* player, regardless of his opinion of that player's "class"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 2 15:35:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:35:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F5359C8.60401@hdw.be> References: <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> At 10:38 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: >OK, so what is it, reject or accept? How are we to judge whether it is >either? What is the standard? What is wrong with the legal standard >"rational"? And rational for who? >You wish to rule on Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim the same. But what is >the standard? How do you define any standard that can apply to both? What do you do when you are called upon to judge Mr. X, whom you have never seen before, and about whose level of play you know nothing? Do you refuse to rule, leave the room, and hide out for the rest of the event? Of course not. You apply your (implicit or explicit) standard, make a ruling, and get on with the game. That's your "standard". If you wish to act "impartially", you give the same ruling you would give to Mr. X to either Mr. Helgemo or Mrs. Guggenheim, or anyone else. WTP? 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 Sep 2 18:22:20 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:22:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <3f54d1cc.ee7.0@esatclear.ie> +++ Now I'm no law maker - but the below sections seem to just be asking for trouble. Grattan has already expressed his opinion on what the sentiment or idea behind the below is. All I can say is if we're trying to figure out their meaning at conception god help us trying to put em into practice ... K. >The ABF has just produced a slightly revised set of Alert >regulations. > >ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - > >"...Take care not to ask questions where your intention is to pass >regardless of the answer." > >ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - > >"When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely >to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their >claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the >meaning of the call before damage occurred." > >These two regulations, read together, not only appear to create a >Catch-22 situation, but also appear to give an incentive for players >using slightly offbeat methods to "accidentally" sometimes forget to >Alert. > >Best wishes > >Richard James >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or >copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any >views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except >where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view >of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs >(DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy >Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- http://www.iol.ie From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 2 11:28:25 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:28:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman] Sven, how can you talk of comparables when you are talking about a borderline issue. We might well have as guideline that the trump ace is always cashed, because that cannot lose, and that the trump two is never cashed, because that cannot win. So what about the trump ten? You cannot present an example that is very close, and then say that you always rule in comparable situations. [Nigel] Herman, you've hit a pay-dirt. The problem is those borderline cases. Using simple objective rules like David Burn's most TD's and AC's would rule the same way on cases like Sven's. Affected players would easily understand the clear legal principles and readily appreciate that justice and equity were upheld. With more complex and subjective recommendations, TDs can't achieve consistent rulings. There are millions of such positions to consider. And different TDs and ACs will set dividing lines at different places; and vary them for different classes of player (: e.g. friend, stranger :) Unless the player ruled against has a masochistic sense of humour he may feel he is the object of discrimination. And he most unlikely to understand the dubious legal justification. Playing Monopoly, if you are about to land on "Goto Jail", you can't ask for a suspended sentence because you had no intention of throwing a six-five and it is unfair that you threw such a large number and anyway you are an expert dice thrower. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 2 05:15:54 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 05:15:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: Message-ID: <003401c37108$ee5c2880$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> When the ABF was soliciting suggestions, I proposed a suggestion (like Grattan's). British and Australian alert rules create spurious problems. America and the rest of the world have different unnecessary problems implicit in their alert rules. With simple sensible rules the UI problems are reduced. Exposing an "explain" card at the beginning of a set of boards would mandate opponents to elucidate their partner's calls. If you judge that asking opponents to explain in real time will help them more than it will help you, then you don't face your "explain" card. At the end of each auction, opponents *must* elucidate all their calls, anyway (whether asked or not). If *both* sides know the *WBF standard system*, then the only calls that require an alert are the departures from that standard. Simple rules that any player or TD can understand. A level world-wide playing field. Hence zero chance of adoption in my life-time (or the life-time of bridge). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 2 23:58:33 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:58:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: <003401c37108$ee5c2880$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003701c371a5$be075540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > When the ABF was soliciting suggestions, I > proposed a suggestion (like Grattan's). > > At the end of each auction, opponents *must* > elucidate all their calls, anyway (whether > asked or not). > Having defenders volunteer the meaning of partner's calls is not a good idea. The UI generated might be too useful during the play. This is a serious problem with current ACBL disclosure recommendations. While declarer/dummy are encouraged (why not required??) to volunteer information about their auction, defenders are not allowed to do so until play is complete, which may be too late. Assuming no screens in use, of course. It behooves the declaring side to ask for an "elucidation" of the opposing auction, even when no undisclosed meaning is suspected. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 3 00:07:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 09:07:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: The auction: LHO Pard RHO You 1D Pass 3D(1) (1) Not alerted, so under ABF rules RHO "should" have 8+ hcp. The regulation: ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred." The problem: You hold a balanced 19 hcp with a diamond stopper, so you are "likely" to be "aware" that LHO has forgotten to alert a preemptive raise. The Catch-22: If RHO does have a limit raise, your winning strategy is to pass in tempo without a question. Asking first gives LHO the AI to play you for the high cards, and make 3D on a squeeze and endplay. If RHO has a preemptive raise which LHO has forgotten to alert, your winning strategy is to enquire, then overcall 3NT, which makes. The result: You choose to pass in tempo, missing the cold 3NT. The TD cites regulation 11.2, and refuses to adjust the score. But virtue is triumphant. Your team still gains four imps when the opposing pair at the other table fail in the wrong game of 4S. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 3 01:51:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 01:51:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: <003401c37108$ee5c2880$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003701c371a5$be075540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002b01c371b5$924dd720$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Marvin French] Having defenders volunteer the meaning of partner's calls is not a good idea. The UI generated might be too useful during the play. [Nigel] Good point, Marvin. I was trying to protect beginners from secretive opponents. But on reflection, I agree that it would suffice *to offer* to discose your understandings before the play. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003 From adam@tameware.com Wed Sep 3 03:17:42 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:17:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] NABC Casebook Summaries Message-ID: Last year I posted my summaries of the appeals from the Toronto and Las Vegas NABC casebooks. I've added summaries of the 2002 casebooks and posted them at http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html As always, comments, corrections, and suggestions are appreciated. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 3 06:19:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 01:19:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000101c371b9$fa2282c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2F37C7F4-DDCE-11D7-BB92-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 21:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > They said that it is irrational for a player who believes he has three > high > cards left, one of which he believes is the last and only remaining > trump, > to play this trump first. > > I (and in fact every Norwegian Director including the Norwegian LC > seems to > agree) feel that this is nonsense being an interpretation with which we > simply cannot agree. Nontheless, it is the WBFLC's interpretation that governs. > I shall adhere to the WBFLC interpretation from the moment the > Norwegian LC > instructs me to do, not before. You do what you like, but... Seems to me that if the Norwegian LC disagrees with the WBFLC it's up to the former to make representation to the latter in an attempt to get the interpretation changed. If they haven't done so, IMO that's a dereliction of duty. IAC, until it *is* changed, to fail follow the WBFLC interpretation is to fail to follow the law. From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Sep 3 08:00:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:00:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <2F37C7F4-DDCE-11D7-BB92-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701c371e9$1abf2900$1218e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > I shall adhere to the WBFLC interpretation from > > the moment the Norwegian LC instructs me to do, > > not before. > > You do what you like, but... Seems to me that if the > Norwegian LC disagrees with the WBFLC it's up to > the former to make representation to the latter in > an attempt to get the interpretation changed. If they > haven't done so, IMO that's a dereliction of duty. IAC, > until it *is* changed, to fail follow the WBFLC > interpretation is to fail to follow the law. > +=+ I do not recall that the WBFLC has ever expressed an opinion on the point. Furthermore I consider the judgement is one for the WBF Appeals Committee not the WBFLC since it does not involve interpretation of text but the application of the meaning to a bridge situation. That said, I do not believe that the WBF By-Laws require affiliates to adopt the positions taken by the WBF AC as they do the interpretations of the text of the laws by the WBFLC. As an aside, I have a personal distaste for the undefined inclusion of absolute terms like 'incontrovertible'/'irrational' in the laws. What I think is possibly intended (and should be said) is "which the Director considers it is incredible the player would do" or something like that. ~ G ~ +=+. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 3 13:15:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:15:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <001701c371e9$1abf2900$1218e150@endicott> References: <2F37C7F4-DDCE-11D7-BB92-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030903080629.01f16890@pop.starpower.net> At 03:00 AM 9/3/03, Grattan wrote: > As an aside, I have a personal distaste for the >undefined inclusion of absolute terms like >'incontrovertible'/'irrational' in the laws. What I think >is possibly intended (and should be said) is "which the >Director considers it is incredible the player >would do" or something like that. ISTM that the writers used those particular words because they wanted to define certain exception-like cases (we allow these plays even though they weren't explicitly stated, we don't consider those lines even though they're consistent with a player's statement) as narrowly as possible. And ISTM that most of the discussion about them in this forum has been about cases where they were (arguably) interpreted too broadly. If we change language to eliminate them, we should be very careful not to do so in a way that would lead to even broader interpretations. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 3 16:56:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:56:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <2F37C7F4-DDCE-11D7-BB92-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c37233$e27ac0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" " > > On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 21:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > They said that it is irrational for a player who believes he has three > > high > > cards left, one of which he believes is the last and only remaining > > trump, > > to play this trump first. > > > > I (and in fact every Norwegian Director including the Norwegian LC > > seems to > > agree) feel that this is nonsense being an interpretation with which we > > simply cannot agree. > > Nontheless, it is the WBFLC's interpretation that governs. > > > I shall adhere to the WBFLC interpretation from the moment the > > Norwegian LC > > instructs me to do, not before. > > You do what you like, but... Seems to me that if the Norwegian LC > disagrees with the WBFLC it's up to the former to make representation > to the latter in an attempt to get the interpretation changed. If they > haven't done so, IMO that's a dereliction of duty. IAC, until it *is* > changed, to fail follow the WBFLC interpretation is to fail to follow > the law. The ACBLLC routinely ignores any interpetations coming from the WBFLC with which it disagrees, saying they are not bound by what the WBFLC says. WBFLC interpretations are not even promulgated, as they should be, in ACBL-land. Worse, the ACBL Constitution says that its LC is responsible for writing and interpreting the Laws. This despite the fact that the ACBL signed on to the WBF, agreeing to abide by its Constitution and By-Laws, which say that the WBFLC has sole authority for interpreting the Laws. Have I said this before? Sorry about that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 3 18:27:51 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:27:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <2F37C7F4-DDCE-11D7-BB92-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000b01c37233$e27ac0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006401c37240$b4c83940$b09468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Marvin] The ACBLLC routinely ignores any interpetations coming from the WBFLC with which it disagrees, saying they are not bound by what the WBFLC says. WBFLC interpretations are not even promulgated, as they should be, in ACBL-land. Worse, the ACBL Constitution says that its LC is responsible for writing and interpreting the Laws. This despite the fact that the ACBL signed on to the WBF, agreeing to abide by its Constitution and By-Laws, which say that the WBFLC has sole authority for interpreting the Laws. Have I said this before? Sorry about that. [Nigel] Rather than issue vague interpretations or highlight particular AC decisions, the WBF should issue regular minor revisions of the law book, each eliminating a few solecisms, ambiguities, discrepancies, redundancies, and omissions. The danger of allowing local rule-makers to promulgate their pet ideas is that games grow apart. Like British "Rounders" and its derivative American "Baseball" or like British "Rugby" and the later American "Football". Surely it is better for the game to encourage international competition on a level legal playing field. --- 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 adam@irvine.com Wed Sep 3 21:24:12 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 13:24:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:34:38 EDT." <5.1.1.6.0.20030702003137.025d1ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <200309032024.NAA24527@mailhub.irvine.com> > Don't forget that Major Major was a Captain until someone with a sense of > humor promoted him so that he became Major Major Major. Actually, I believe you forgot his middle name, which was [drum roll...] Major. So after his promotion he was actually Major Major Major Major. -- Adam From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Sep 4 00:50:53 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 00:50:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <3f567e5d.47ab.0@esatclear.ie> >The auction: > >LHO Pard RHO You >1D Pass 3D(1) > >(1) Not alerted, so under ABF rules RHO "should" have 8+ hcp. > >The regulation: > >ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - > >"When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely >to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their >claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the >meaning of the call before damage occurred." +++ Well the above auction or 1x (dbl) 3x is another are pet hates for me. Once people became aware of "The Law" these auctions became completely random. If you asked, you got a raised eyebrow and the ole "i didn't alert so obviously natural limit+ raise ... " & the implications of asking. You don't ask and dummy comes down with a heap of rubbish, you call the TD and get no satisfaction as the above 11.2 is quoted at you. Infact it's got to the stage where 3x as pre-emptive is now normal and we should start alerting 3x as limit raises. As stated in numerous posts the only real way around this it is to get the 3x bidder to alert regardless. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Sep 4 01:38:35 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:38:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: <3f567e5d.47ab.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 > > >The auction: > > > >LHO Pard RHO You > >1D Pass 3D(1) > > > >(1) Not alerted, so under ABF rules RHO "should" have 8+ hcp. > > > >The regulation: > > > >ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - > > > >"When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely > >to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their > >claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the > >meaning of the call before damage occurred." > > +++ Well the above auction or 1x (dbl) 3x is another are pet hates for me. > Once people became aware of "The Law" these auctions became completely random. > If you asked, you got a raised eyebrow and the ole "i didn't alert so obviously > natural limit+ raise ... " & the implications of asking. You don't ask and > dummy comes down with a heap of rubbish, you call the TD and get no satisfaction > as the above 11.2 is quoted at you. > > Infact it's got to the stage where 3x as pre-emptive is now normal and we should > start alerting 3x as limit raises. As stated in numerous posts the only real > way around this it is to get the 3x bidder to alert regardless. > > K. Here is a little off topic comment, but related: What makes it even worse - people consider same hands differentely. I will call one hand limit raise, while another person evaluates it as a preemptive raise...the standards of preemptive raises versus limit raises vary from person to person and the style/evaluation methods are not revealed in the opponent's response, even if you should ask for the meaning of 3D. Example: similar to this, though I cannot remember exact honor card placement in side suits, actually happened against me in a sequence 1D-P-3D and was explained as preemptive = Axx-KQx-xxxxxx-x. Next time the same pair bids 1D-P-3D, responder has xxxx-x-QJxxx-xxx, the same answer will be given if asked = "preemptive", and upon further investigation their actual agreement is still "any support with less than 10HCPs" Admittedly, this pair's preemptive tactics (or lack of it rather) probably bite themselves more than they hurt opponents, but it is irritating not to be let into the secret that this is their style. And the Law does nothing to stop this or does it? Just call a jump raise *preemptive* and never mind the details/style? One solution would be to stop calling the so-called preemptive raises "preemptive" - let the opponents be the judge how much they feel preempted from bidding and start giving the truth instead when asked, and say something like *weak* * less than xx HCP* *weak with 5 trumps* *any support with less than 10 HCP* *5 trumps and no side king or ace, less than 9 highs* or whatever the ACTUAL agreement is. The truth here was "any support with less than 10 HCP" Raija Davis From David Stevenson Thu Sep 4 00:26:22 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 00:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] IBLF help [OT] Message-ID: <6cdwnJDeinV$Ewa9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Todd Zimnoch: emails to you are bouncing happily. Is there some way I can contact you please? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 2 12:03:29 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:03:29 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F547901.10503@hdw.be> Sorry Harald, but you are being arrogant. Allow me to explain: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > ----- > When you believe all your cards are high, any sequence of play is rational and normal. That statement is true and has been confirmed by the Tenerife ruling. It is however, not completely of application in the example. Declarer does not believe "all cards are high". Declarer believes "all non-trumps are high and no trumps are outstanding". A small difference in practice, but a huge difference in players' minds. Tenerife tought us that in such cases trumps are not cashed but kept to ruff. I would rule three tricks to the opponents, as would probably every single TD in Norway. And you would not be consistent with what some TDs in some other countries might do. But let's not open that discussion again. Exchange the opponent's spade jack with the nine, and we would rule one trick to the opponents. Now to my calling you arrogant. You write: > > This is, IMO, 100% in accordance with the laws, as I read it. The laws only speak of the words "normal" and "irrational". How can you claim to read anything in those words and say that your reading is any better than mine? I read something different in the word "normal". Which is why we are having this discussion. To claim that your reading is 100% in accordance is, well, arrogant. It's in accordance to what we have been taught, both nationally and internationally. OK, tell me the textbook in which this case is being exposed. Tell me why EBL appeal xx from Tenerife should not be seen, at least, as a precedent to rule the other way. And don't tell me the laws are clear, either. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Sep 4 07:38:37 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:38:37 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Sorry Harald, but you are being arrogant. Allow me to explain: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > When you believe all your cards are high, any sequence of play is rationa= l and normal.=20 That statement is true and has been confirmed by the Tenerife ruling. It is however, not completely of application in the example. Declarer does not believe "all cards are high". Declarer believes "all non-trumps are high and no trumps are outstanding". A small difference in practice, but a huge difference in players' minds. Tenerife tought us that in such cases trumps are not cashed but kept=20 to ruff. ----- The last sentence is nonsensical. If all your cards are high and there's no= outstanding trumps - what are you gonna ruff???? It's a question of in what sequence you're cashing your winners. And if you (or the WBFLC/Tenerife AC) claims that keeping the trump to the = last trick is the only rational line, then I must confess that I strongly d= isagree, as do lots of others. Reading the law, it's quite obvious that leading the trump before the last = trick must me considered irrational to come to the conclusion that trumps a= re not cashed but kept to ruff, as you say. Someone misunderstood the meaning of irrational, it seems. I'm quite certai= n who. If that's beeing arrogant, well so be it. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- >I would rule three tricks to the opponents, as would probably every=20 >single TD in Norway. And you would not be consistent with what some TDs in some other=20 countries might do. But let's not open that discussion again. >Exchange the opponent's spade jack with the nine, and we would rule=20 >one trick to the opponents. Now to my calling you arrogant. You write: >=20 > This is, IMO, 100% in accordance with the laws, as I read it.=20 The laws only speak of the words "normal" and "irrational". How can you claim to read anything in those words and say that your=20 reading is any better than mine? I read something different in the word "normal". Which is why we are=20 having this discussion. To claim that your reading is 100% in=20 accordance is, well, arrogant. It's in accordance to what we have been taught, both nationally and=20 internationally. OK, tell me the textbook in which this case is being exposed. Tell me why EBL appeal xx from Tenerife should not be seen, at least,=20 as a precedent to rule the other way. And don't tell me the laws are clear, either. >=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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Sep 4 07:47:58 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:47:58 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Raija Davis wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 > > >The auction: > > > >LHO Pard RHO You > >1D Pass 3D(1) > > > >(1) Not alerted, so under ABF rules RHO "should" have 8+ hcp. > > > >The regulation: > > > >ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - > > > >"When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely > >to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their > >claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the > >meaning of the call before damage occurred." > > +++ Well the above auction or 1x (dbl) 3x is another are pet hates for me. > Once people became aware of "The Law" these auctions became completely random. > If you asked, you got a raised eyebrow and the ole "i didn't alert so obviously > natural limit+ raise ... " & the implications of asking. You don't ask and > dummy comes down with a heap of rubbish, you call the TD and get no satisfaction > as the above 11.2 is quoted at you. > > Infact it's got to the stage where 3x as pre-emptive is now normal and we should > start alerting 3x as limit raises. As stated in numerous posts the only real > way around this it is to get the 3x bidder to alert regardless. > > K. Here is a little off topic comment, but related: What makes it even worse - people consider same hands differentely. I will call one hand limit raise, while another person evaluates it as a preemptive raise...the standards of preemptive raises versus limit raises vary from person to person and the style/evaluation methods are not revealed in the opponent's response, even if you should ask for the meaning of 3D. Example: similar to this, though I cannot remember exact honor card placement in side suits, actually happened against me in a sequence 1D-P-3D and was explained as preemptive =3D Axx-KQx-xxxxxx-x. Next time the same pair bids 1D-P-3D, responder has xxxx-x-QJxxx-xxx, the same answer will be given if asked =3D "preemptive", and upon further investigation their actual agreement is still "any support with less than 10HCPs" Admittedly, this pair's preemptive tactics (or lack of it rather) probably bite themselves more than they hurt opponents, but it is irritating not to be let into the secret that this is their style. And the Law does nothing to stop this or does it? Just call a jump raise *preemptive* and never mind the details/style? One solution would be to stop calling the so-called preemptive raises "preemptive" - let the opponents be the judge how much they feel preempted from bidding and start giving the truth instead when asked, and say something like *weak* * less than xx HCP* *weak with 5 trumps* *any support with less than 10 HCP* *5 trumps and no side king or ace, less than 9 highs* or whatever the ACTUAL agreement is. The truth here was "any support with less than 10 HCP" ----- Preemptive has no meaning as a descritpion of a bid. It tells nothing about= the hand, only about the intention of the bid (or maybe not even that). If= you define a 3S opening as a solid suit with a side ace, it's still a pree= mptive bid even if it's strong. And even if a preempt is "weak" the style v= aries. An explanation should say something about suit length and quality as well a= s supply a range of overall strenght. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- Raija Davis _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 4 08:19:21 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:19:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <002b01c36ff3$b0e8f8e0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000101c36fb4$648a7da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003001c36fc4$46efce20$58e87f50@Default> <3F523941.4050306@hdw.be> <002b01c36ff3$b0e8f8e0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F56E779.30709@hdw.be> Thanks for your support Nigel, but then you go ... Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [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. > So far, so good. > And "equity" laws are among the worst offenders. > Completely the opposite, I believe. If a recreational player does something wrong, and he has the good fortune to be playing against another recreational player, the TD does not get called. If he plays against a bridge-lawyer, the TD gets called. Now with equity-based laws, the TD will be able to: - tell the recreant that he should take more care, that his opponent is quite right in calling the TD; - tell him why the rule is as it is; - ascertain that no damage has occured (in the majority of cases) and no ruling is needed; - thank the opponent for calling him and getting the opportunity to educate. OTOH, with mechanical laws, the TD shall have to apply some penalty: - the recreant is mad - he has a bad score but feels he has done nothing wrong; - the lawyer is happy - he received some points; - the athmosphere is spoilt; - the recreant won't return but keep on playing in his own club, where his opponents don't call on small things. Result: a split in the bridge-playing public. A majority of players who don't follow the rules. That same split is already present now, but at least when the different proponents meet, the TD can show to the recreant that there is nothing wrong with following the laws. So Nigel, I think mechanical laws are far worse for this phenomenon than equity-based ones. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 08:21:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:21:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F56E7F4.7080007@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > David Burn's argument is another worth noting: It is > frustrating for opponents when a clueless declarer > nominates the wrong card or misclaims only to be > rescued by a show-off TD or AC who points out that > "the Vienna coup and squeeze are routine for a player > in declarer's class". Maybe, normally, but on this > occasion, declarer is in the category that miscounts > trumps or even forgets what they were! > Come on, Nigel, use serious arguments. What TD has ever given such a silly ruling? If you want to criticise the laws, at least do so from real rulings, that have some basis in law. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 08:32:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:32:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F56EA89.6030206@hdw.be> Nigel is, as usual, spot on in his analysis. Equally as usual, he draws the wrong conclusion. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman] > > Sven, how can you talk of comparables when you > are talking about a borderline issue. We might > well have as guideline that the trump ace > is always cashed, because that cannot lose, and > that the trump two is never cashed, because that > cannot win. So what about the trump ten? > You cannot present an example that is very close, > and then say that you always rule in comparable > situations. > > [Nigel] > > Herman, you've hit a pay-dirt. The problem is > those borderline cases. > Indeed it is. My point is that we cannot avoid having borderline cases, and drawing the border somewhere else just shifts the problem. Unless of course: > Using simple objective rules like David Burn's > most TD's and AC's would rule the same way on > cases like Sven's. Again, indeed. But the problem with David's proposal is that, while the border is very clear indeed, it is drawn in a place where I, among others, do not want it to be drawn. If you are going to draw a border between Serbs and Croats accross ex-Yugoslavia, you will have problems wherever you draw it. There will always remain minorities on the other side. David's solution is to draw the border in the Adriatic. I am certain that this is one way of ensuring that there are no minorities, but the Croats will not be happy. > Affected players would easily > understand the clear legal principles and readily > appreciate that justice and equity were upheld. > No they would not. They would leave and go play somewhere where those harsh laws are not being enforced. > With more complex and subjective recommendations, > TDs can't achieve consistent rulings. > Indeed not. Even if we solve the S10 problem, next time there will be a S7 problem, and TD's will argue about it. WTP? > There are millions of such positions to consider. > And different TDs and ACs will set dividing > lines at different places; and vary them for > different classes of player (: e.g. friend, > stranger :) > And through blml we have achieved two things: 1) we now know that laws we thought of as clear, are really rather fuzzy. "everybody in Norway rules that way". True, but now we know that in Belgium, everybody rules the other way. We won't know for a long time which is right. 2) we have created a medium through which we can discuss these things and align them. If only people recognize that maybe they need to shift their personal border somewhat in order to place the border at roughly the same place. > Unless the player ruled against has a masochistic > sense of humour he may feel he is the object of > discrimination. And he most unlikely to > understand the dubious legal justification. > What dubious legal justification? A law says that "intent" matters. His opponent has shown his intent and the TD has ruled on that intent. He may disagree with the ruling, but surely he should not blame the law. > Playing Monopoly, if you are about to land on > "Goto Jail", you can't ask for a suspended > sentence because you had no intention of > throwing a six-five and it is unfair that you > threw such a large number and anyway you are an > expert dice thrower. > I would wish people would stop giving examples from other sports that have no bearing on the issues at hand. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 3 14:56:56 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15:56:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deleting a thread. References: <009001c370d9$71767a70$2138e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002801c372b7$7bf5e500$5a72a63e@Default> Grattan, This statement is substantially different on facts than your earlier one in our discussion. Might I suggest you take facts and truth a little bit more serious next time? Some dubious items: Grattan some days ago: +=+ There was an element of this in WBF arrangements under Kaplan's guidance, Grattan now: > 1. In Sao Paolo in 1985 the Ortiz-Patino/Kaplan > 'rule in favour of the non-offenders' policy applied. This cannot be considered 'an element' my dear. For me this is a disgusting use of language. Maybe it is not lying but it more than distorts the truth. Or is this what you call spin in England nowadays. Grattan some days ago: > from time immemorial - well back before 1980 anyway - Curious but everything you present now is well after 1980. Strange. Grattan some days ago: > but not at all in the EBL Grattan now: 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' When Auken has been the TAC chairman in other years he has not adopted the O-P/EK position, although less explicit in his expressions to Directors. 3. At no time when I have been a member of an EBL Championship TAC has the policy of the TAC been the one adopted under O-P/EK by the WBF. This is a far far cry from 'not at all'. Anyway even if the EBL has never adopted the O-P/EK policy, I take your word for it, the EBL has been (heavily) influenced by it. Like we were in Holland. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'blml '" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deleting a thread. > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " ..though she be blind, yet she is not invisible" > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" > To: "'Jaap van der Neut '" ; > "'Grattan Endicott '" ; > "'blml '" > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:01 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Deleting a thread. > > > > > > > > ***I have to agree with Jaap more than with > > Grattan. This 'ruling in favour of the non-offenders' > > started in '87 and was adopted in WBF and EBL events > > as well. And then after a few years the EBL awoke > > earlier than the WBF, realising that this was a wrong > > approach. > < > +=+ I do not want to extend the argument. However > my experience is this: > 1. In Sao Paolo in 1985 the Ortiz-Patino/Kaplan > 'rule in favour of the non-offenders' policy applied. > I was a team captain who protested it. (In parallel I > renewed there the British argument that co-nationals > should not sit on ACs). Both submissions were > politely squashed. > 2. My first attendance at an EBL Championship > appeal, as an invited observer, was several years > before that. The Chairman was Pencharz. His > guidance to Directors at that time was not to rule > automatically in favour of offenders. It has been > his constant guidance subsequently. When Auken > has been the TAC chairman in other years he has > not adopted the O-P/EK position, although less > explicit in his expressions to Directors. > 3. At no time when I have been a member of an > EBL Championship TAC has the policy of the TAC > been the one adopted under O-P/EK by the WBF. > Regards, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 07:49:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:49:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902084848.00a059b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002b01c372b7$7d2404c0$5a72a63e@Default> Eric: > I don't play tournament chess, but I'd be willing to be that there is a > de facto (if not explicit) exception to the touch rule "when the > player's intent is incontrovertable". Imagine an elderly chess player > with severe palsy. He reaches for a piece to move it. It is > absolutely clear to everyone watching, including his opponent, that he > intends to move that piece. But his shaking hand inadvertantly grazes > another piece on the way to it. Would he really be required to move > the piece that he touched first by accident? I'd be surprised and > disappointed to learn that he would. This is over the top, and I am sure it doesn't work like that in chess (in the end it is legal to center pieces on their square as long as you announce it). Here you are discussing someone disabled and I am sure he can play chess even with his handicap. The whole issue is that there is an 'anti take back' rule in chess. You make up your mind and you make your move. In chess there is no such thing as a partial move. Now I admit that given the nature of chess this rule is easier to enforce at chess than at bridge but that is no excuse not to try to play bridge in a proper way. Any way the game would be easier and more enjoyable if players SHOULD make up their mind before making a bid (or play). So once your hand reaches for the box or you start speaking you have to finish your action. But for the moment people like Grattan accept people bidding 'four' and then nothing. Or taking a bid out of the box and putting it back in. We also should do away with all these take back rules and exceptions. Part of the game is to pay enough attention to procedure to avoid silly mistakes like pulling the wrong card. I hope the point is clear. It is not about things like the bidding box falling on the floor or someone with a handicap making him clumsy. The whole point is that you are not supposed to change your mind during the proces of making a bid (or playing a card). The game would be much more pleasant and much easier to rule under this principle. There should be a law like: once you start making a bid or play you have to complete it. This type of text leaves enough scope for the disabled or the ramifications of someone spilling his coffee. Anyway, the quest for simple and strict rules has nothing to do with a 'law and order' mentality. You need simple and strict rules to enjoy the game, at any level. We play the game because we like the game, not because we like to bicker over its rules. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > At 05:35 AM 8/31/03, Sven 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. > > > >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? > > This overlooks the fact that touching a chess piece is an unambiguous > action; you either do it or you don't. Spoken language, OTOH, is very > often ambiguous when strictly parsed, hence we have "unless... > incontrovertable" language which means (or should mean) that if we are > sure we know what the intended meaning of a player's statement is, we > base action on the intention, not on the literal meaning of the > strictly parsed English. > > I don't play tournament chess, but I'd be willing to be that there is a > de facto (if not explicit) exception to the touch rule "when the > player's intent is incontrovertable". Imagine an elderly chess player > with severe palsy. He reaches for a piece to move it. It is > absolutely clear to everyone watching, including his opponent, that he > intends to move that piece. But his shaking hand inadvertantly grazes > another piece on the way to it. Would he really be required to move > the piece that he touched first by accident? I'd be surprised and > disappointed to learn that he would. > > I do believe that it was the original intention of our lawmakers to use > language that would cover cases analogous to my chess example. And I > am thoroughly convinced of the point Sven alludes to in passing: that > when we stretch the definition of "incontrovertable" so far as to > encompass situations that might depend on the "class of player > involved" we have gone much too far. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 08:21:46 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:21:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002c01c372b7$7eb55320$5a72a63e@Default> > [Nigel] > Spot on Jaap! Do you then agree with Grattan's > and my "Explain" suggestions? Sorry, Nigel, I do not know about "explain". But I am curious if only because you mention you and Grattan together. Given blml postings on these and releated subjcts I have a rather opposite view of the two of you. But I am rather sceptical about alerts without screens. Hard to see how to balance the payload (info to the opponents) with the trade off (info for partner). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 08:33:09 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:33:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002d01c372b7$801ef540$5a72a63e@Default> Eric: > What do you do when you are called upon to judge Mr. X, whom you have > never seen before, and about whose level of play you know nothing? Do > you refuse to rule, leave the room, and hide out for the rest of the > event? Of course not. You apply your (implicit or explicit) standard, > make a ruling, and get on with the game. That's your "standard". If > you wish to act "impartially", you give the same ruling you would give > to Mr. X to either Mr. Helgemo or Mrs. Guggenheim, or anyone else. WTP? WTP? One. A problem is that I expect Helgemo to claim all kind of stuff (and he expects me to) which cannot be accepted from Mrs. G. because she simply is not up to it. But in real life it hardly matters because Mrs. G. never claims. Two. In MI/UI cases you end up answering questions like 'what is the effect of the MI/UI' or 'what would have happened without the MI/UI'. As long as we have this approach to MI/UI problems it really matters if Helgemo is at the table or Mrs. G. because it (heavily) influences the answers to those questions, like it or not. I agree there is a problem dealing with mr X. But then maybe this way of handling the whole MI/UI issue is no good. But do you know something better. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > At 10:38 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: > > >OK, so what is it, reject or accept? How are we to judge whether it is > >either? What is the standard? What is wrong with the legal standard > >"rational"? And rational for who? > >You wish to rule on Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim the same. But what is > >the standard? How do you define any standard that can apply to both? > > What do you do when you are called upon to judge Mr. X, whom you have > never seen before, and about whose level of play you know nothing? Do > you refuse to rule, leave the room, and hide out for the rest of the > event? Of course not. You apply your (implicit or explicit) standard, > make a ruling, and get on with the game. That's your "standard". If > you wish to act "impartially", you give the same ruling you would give > to Mr. X to either Mr. Helgemo or Mrs. Guggenheim, or anyone else. WTP? > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 08:55:07 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:55:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> References: <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F56EFDB.1080601@hdw.be> Good argument, Eric, but this works both ways: Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:38 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: > >> OK, so what is it, reject or accept? How are we to judge whether it is >> either? What is the standard? What is wrong with the legal standard >> "rational"? And rational for who? >> You wish to rule on Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim the same. But what is >> the standard? How do you define any standard that can apply to both? > > > What do you do when you are called upon to judge Mr. X, whom you have > never seen before, and about whose level of play you know nothing? Do > you refuse to rule, leave the room, and hide out for the rest of the > event? Of course not. You apply your (implicit or explicit) standard, > make a ruling, and get on with the game. That's your "standard". If > you wish to act "impartially", you give the same ruling you would give > to Mr. X to either Mr. Helgemo or Mrs. Guggenheim, or anyone else. WTP? > In a tournament with both Helgemo and Mrs G., it may well be a problem to class Mr X. Although if you don't know him, he's probably closer to Mrs G. than to Helgemo. But it's not fair to use Mr X. class in the final of a world championship, where all players can be considered (almost) of Helgemo's class, or in a tournament organised by Mrs G. for her society friends. I don't consider it fair to judge anyone by a standard that is far from his own. And there are just two ways out of that: judge him by his own standards, or by a mechanical way. You know which one I prefer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 08:54:53 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:54:53 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F547901.10503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004d01c372b9$d72135e0$5a72a63e@Default> Herman > Tell me why EBL appeal xx from Tenerife should not be seen, at least, > as a precedent to rule the other way. That decision has been widely critcised, both on judgement and on being legal, so why should we take it too serious. Remember Turku were someone lost 13 (or even 26) imps because some silly AC ruled that a Lightner double should be alerted (it has been reversed some years later but that is not the point). Anyway you yourself were and that Tenerife committee so how do you dare to give that as an example (the only one ?) to support your own views. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:03 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > Sorry Harald, but you are being arrogant. Allow me to explain: > > Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > > ----- > > When you believe all your cards are high, any sequence of play is rational and normal. > > That statement is true and has been confirmed by the Tenerife ruling. > It is however, not completely of application in the example. > Declarer does not believe "all cards are high". > Declarer believes "all non-trumps are high and no trumps are outstanding". > A small difference in practice, but a huge difference in players' minds. > Tenerife tought us that in such cases trumps are not cashed but kept > to ruff. > > I would rule three tricks to the opponents, as would probably every > single TD in Norway. > > And you would not be consistent with what some TDs in some other > countries might do. But let's not open that discussion again. > > Exchange the opponent's spade jack with the nine, and we would rule > one trick to the opponents. > > Now to my calling you arrogant. You write: > > > > > This is, IMO, 100% in accordance with the laws, as I read it. > > The laws only speak of the words "normal" and "irrational". > How can you claim to read anything in those words and say that your > reading is any better than mine? > I read something different in the word "normal". Which is why we are > having this discussion. To claim that your reading is 100% in > accordance is, well, arrogant. > > It's in accordance to what we have been taught, both nationally and > internationally. > > OK, tell me the textbook in which this case is being exposed. > Tell me why EBL appeal xx from Tenerife should not be seen, at least, > as a precedent to rule the other way. > > And don't tell me the laws are clear, either. > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 08:58:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:58:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902101308.00ac7440@pop.starpower.net> References: <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000101c37074$355a3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902101308.00ac7440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F56F0B6.60901@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > At 07:57 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: > >> Yes, I know that this imposes on the TD an extra amount of >> decision-making. Yes, I know that this creates extra possibility of >> argument. And yet I believe the current laws are better than some >> draconian ones where "I'm finessing in spades" is not a valid >> statement and only "if you play the queen, I play the king, and if you >> play something else, I play the jack" is. > > > I am in 100% agreement with Herman's last sentence, but what has this to > do with the "class of player" issue? Would Herman really require "if > you play the queen, I play the king, and if you play something else, I > play the jack", as opposed to "I'm finessing in spades" from *any* > player, regardless of his opinion of that player's "class"? > It has nothing to do with that issue, just with some others that David Burn throws around. It is the issue of "intent" versus "mechanical". It is my contention that one cannot really draw a clear line. And once you accept "I finesse" as a shortcut for that long sentence above, you must also accept "I win it on a double squeeze", from someone who knows what he is doing. And while you can accept "I finesse" from everybody, you cannot accept the double squeeze except from expat Swedes. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 09:18:04 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:18:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <000201c37137$ffadb520$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c37137$ffadb520$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F56F53C.9050008@hdw.be> Sven, don't worry: Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Again a hypothetical, Sven, but OK, I'll bite. > > Come on Herman, you asked for an example and I gave you one. > > There is nothing hypothetical here; Yes there is - this case has not come up in real play, has it? We don't know what has gone on before, and we don't know what the player believes. I have given two solutions to the ruling, depending on the state of mind of the individual involved. So yes, it is a hypothetical. > it is the plain everyday case of > incomplete claims narrowed down to focus on the essentials. OK, I'll grant you that. Which is why I agree to talk about the case. > The example is > typical for almost every dubious claim for which I get called to a table. > I don't grant you that one. You have deliberately chosen an example which is very much borderline. Next to this one, there are 999 claims where you and I will rule exactly the same. Now I contend that in many of those 999 claims, a law change such as David proposes would change the ruling. I am saying that I would not feel those changed rulings to be better for the game as I want to play it. I am not prepared to pay that price for eliminating the discussion we are having about this one case. I am also saying that no law change, other than one as David proposes, can deal with our problem. We would probably know how to rule the case above with more certainty, but there would be some other borderline case where you and I would argue. > My principle is simply this: If a player apparently believes that it does > not matter in which order he plays his remaining suits I always rule him to > play the suits in the sequence that is worst for him and luckiest for his > opponents; trump suit or not trump suit handled the same. (But just to stop > any silly sidestepping in advance: When running a suit I rule that it is run > from top). > Your principle is valid. But the premise does not hold on the example. The player above does not believe "that it does not matter in which order he plays his remaining suits". IMO, this player believes "it does not matter in which order I play my remaining non-trump suits". What he believes about the trump suit, I don't know. I will try to find out, and base my ruling on that one. Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same as other suits. Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than to his 2 aces? > Anything else would in my opinion be for me as a director to play the > claimers game for him; that is not for the director to do and it is not for > the AC to do. > Yes, actually, it is. We play the hand in all the manners that are considered normal and then we award the lowest result. > So in my example I rule that he plays his trump first. > And I don't. I don't see a big problem with that. As I said, it is a borderline case. I have just one problem. Why don't you accept that this is the case, and why don't you, in order to get to some order in bridge rulings, accept to re-place your border somewhere else? I know what your answer is to that: "why don't you (I) do that instead". My answer to that is that I would be willing to do so, if some higher authority decides thus. I feel that some higher authority has done so. The fact that I formed part of that higher authority when it arrived at that decision should IMO not matter to the discussion we are having here. > Give opponents a low trump instead of the high trump and everything else > unchanged I rule that the claimer plays one of his side-suit aces first; one > trick to opponent. > So you agree: the height of the trump matters? Why then is a 10 a high trump? Is a 7 a high trump or a low one. What is an 8? You see - the EBLAC precedent is actually a better rule than the one you apparently apply: any trump would be handled in the way you would have handled a low trump. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 09:21:43 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:21:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <4CC3ACEC-DD32-11D7-97D4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4CC3ACEC-DD32-11D7-97D4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F56F617.1040808@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> There are two separate cases: >> >> 1) declarer thinks his S10 is high, but not last. >> he will of course play it and lose 3 tricks - easy. >> >> 2) declarer thinks his S10 is last. >> >> What we need is for every TD to rule the same way. > > > Yet you wish to rule two different ways in the same position. > Not the same position, Gordon. The same cards yes, but not the same perception in claimer's mind. If you don't agree that claimer's mind is important, we can never agree. Surely you agree that it is irrational for a claimer not to cash the trumps ace if he knows there is one out? Surely you agree that it is irrational for a claimer to cash the trump deuce if he knows there is one out? But what is rational if he believes all trumps have gone is a different matter. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Thu Sep 4 09:32:02 2003 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:32:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double mail Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B1B@rama.micronas.com> Hello, I seem to get everything twice at the moment. Does anyone else notice this problem? --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 09:30:43 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:30:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F56EA89.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005a01c372be$fc16a100$5a72a63e@Default> Herman: > "everybody in Norway rules that way". True, but now we know > that in Belgium, everybody rules the other way. Herman, I would be more than suprised if in Belgium everyone shared your view (some might). Sven and Harald seem to be quite senior officials in Norway (please correct me on details) so when they make statements about Norwegian policies or treatments I take that serious and consider it useful information (besides I cannot remember them given faulty or coloured info). But who are you in Belgium to make a statement like 'everybody rules a certain way' or at least should rule a certain way (let alone that such a thing 'is known'). I have been told by more than one senior Belgian official that you were considered a failure as a TD in Belgium before one way or another you managed to be appointed to the EBL. I might be wrong, because things change over time, but what is your current position in the Belgian (or Flemish) Fed ? You need to be something in Belgium Fed to make that kind of claims about Belgian TD policies. Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as a Belgian policy. If anything, there will be a Flemish one and a Walloon one. I know it is not nice to write the above and I have refrained from doing so during a couple of years. But now you are strongly suggesting again to the world (at least blml) that Herman is the voice of the EBL and the Belgium Fed, and the way you recently are insulting people who oppose your views all over the place (to start a mail with 'Harald you are arrogant' is just one example), it is about time to make clear who Herman really is. Anyway I would like you if to learn something from our Norwegian friends. Sven (most people by the way) is always very clear on the difference between 'Sven thinks' and 'the Norway Fed policy on x is'. You are more than terrible on that. Probably because Herman thinks that whatever Herman thinks, should be or is the truth or law. This goes a long way in explaining most of your communications. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > Nigel is, as usual, spot on in his analysis. > Equally as usual, he draws the wrong conclusion. > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > [Herman] > > > > Sven, how can you talk of comparables when you > > are talking about a borderline issue. We might > > well have as guideline that the trump ace > > is always cashed, because that cannot lose, and > > that the trump two is never cashed, because that > > cannot win. So what about the trump ten? > > You cannot present an example that is very close, > > and then say that you always rule in comparable > > situations. > > > > [Nigel] > > > > Herman, you've hit a pay-dirt. The problem is > > those borderline cases. > > > > Indeed it is. My point is that we cannot avoid having borderline > cases, and drawing the border somewhere else just shifts the problem. > Unless of course: > > > Using simple objective rules like David Burn's > > most TD's and AC's would rule the same way on > > cases like Sven's. > > Again, indeed. > But the problem with David's proposal is that, while the border is > very clear indeed, it is drawn in a place where I, among others, do > not want it to be drawn. > > If you are going to draw a border between Serbs and Croats accross > ex-Yugoslavia, you will have problems wherever you draw it. There will > always remain minorities on the other side. David's solution is to > draw the border in the Adriatic. I am certain that this is one way of > ensuring that there are no minorities, but the Croats will not be happy. > > > Affected players would easily > > understand the clear legal principles and readily > > appreciate that justice and equity were upheld. > > > > No they would not. They would leave and go play somewhere where those > harsh laws are not being enforced. > > > With more complex and subjective recommendations, > > TDs can't achieve consistent rulings. > > > > Indeed not. Even if we solve the S10 problem, next time there will be > a S7 problem, and TD's will argue about it. WTP? > > > There are millions of such positions to consider. > > And different TDs and ACs will set dividing > > lines at different places; and vary them for > > different classes of player (: e.g. friend, > > stranger :) > > > > And through blml we have achieved two things: > 1) we now know that laws we thought of as clear, are really rather > fuzzy. "everybody in Norway rules that way". True, but now we know > that in Belgium, everybody rules the other way. We won't know for a > long time which is right. > 2) we have created a medium through which we can discuss these things > and align them. If only people recognize that maybe they need to shift > their personal border somewhat in order to place the border at roughly > the same place. > > > Unless the player ruled against has a masochistic > > sense of humour he may feel he is the object of > > discrimination. And he most unlikely to > > understand the dubious legal justification. > > > > What dubious legal justification? A law says that "intent" matters. > His opponent has shown his intent and the TD has ruled on that intent. > He may disagree with the ruling, but surely he should not blame the law. > > > Playing Monopoly, if you are about to land on > > "Goto Jail", you can't ask for a suspended > > sentence because you had no intention of > > throwing a six-five and it is unfair that you > > threw such a large number and anyway you are an > > expert dice thrower. > > > > I would wish people would stop giving examples from other sports that > have no bearing on the issues at hand. > > > > > -- > 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 4 09:54:32 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:54:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002c01c372b7$7eb55320$5a72a63e@Default> Message-ID: <011801c372c2$29d5b880$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] Sorry, Nigel, I do not know about "explain". But I am curious if only because you mention you and Grattan together. Given blml postings on these and releated subjcts I have a rather opposite view of the two of you. But I am rather sceptical about alerts without screens. Hard to see how to balance the payload (info to the opponents) with the trade off (info for partner). [Nigel] Our suggestion is to *ban alerts* altogether and so reduce all the UI problems inherent in disclosure. Grattan suggests that you "announce" the meanings of each call that partner makes. A refinement of mine is to have an *explain card* which works as follows... Before a set of boards, if opponents face their *explain card*, then you must explain your partner's call as soon as he makes it. Since you must explain all calls, opponents can't give UI by asking about *particular* calls. Alternatively, before a set of boards, opponents may place their explain card *face down* to prevent you explaining from any of your partner's calls. They do this if they think that you could have bidding accidents, unless "woken up" by such explanations. In the latter case, you must still offer to explain your auction, after the bidding but before the play. Another refinement is that you need explain only departures from the *WBF standard system*, assuming that both you and opponents are familiar with it. IMO most players would quickly learn the basics of the system They already have to learn what to alert -- and a standard system would be more useful, and much easier to learn. Not having to alert and ask would save time. Only explaining differences from the *standard* would save even more time. Some advantages of a standard system: 1. "Explain" laws would be the same all over the world: it would be the first step towards a universal law. 2. It would be a common language for use in beginner's events, individuals, and with pick-up partners. 3. The media would find it easier to explain what was going on in such events -- so it would be good for Bridge PR. 4. If you want to introduce "Wolff" penalties for forgetting your system, you could waive such penalties for beginners trying to learn the *standard system* OK Jaap, please criticise. --- 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 svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 4 09:52:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:52:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F56F53C.9050008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c372c1$ce078600$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > There is nothing hypothetical here; > > it is the plain everyday case of > > incomplete claims narrowed down to=20 > > focus on the essentials. > > The example is typical for almost=20 > > every dubious claim for which I get=20 > > called to a table. > > >=20 > I don't grant you that one. You have deliberately chosen an example > which is very much borderline.=20 I cannot see anything that makes this claim "borderline". The claimer is convinced that all his cards are high, that there is no outstanding = trump other than the one he himself holds, and thus it does not matter whether = his trump is the Ace, the 2 or any card ranked in between. As far as the claim and the claimer concerns there is no reason to = think trump or notrump for the remaining tricks. ............. =20 > Your principle is valid. But the premise does not hold on the example. > The player above does not believe "that it does not matter in which > order he plays his remaining suits". IMO, this player believes "it > does not matter in which order I play my remaining non-trump suits". Really?=20 Having miscounted the trumps he has no reason to believe anything about = the importance of when to play his own trump. It is just the highest (and = only remaining) card in that particular suit and he is just going to cash it = like his high cards in the other suits. > What he believes about the trump suit, I don't know. I will try to > find out, and base my ruling on that one.=20 Because of the claim you do know that he believes his own trump is the = only trump left. Law 70C tells you that much in direct plain words. You have absolutely no reason to "try to find out" what he believes about the = trump suit. > Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same > as other suits. Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife = decision? It appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. > Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really > believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than to > his 2 aces? Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. > > Anything else would in my opinion be for me as a director to play = the > > claimers game for him; that is not for the director to do and it is = not > for > > the AC to do. > > >=20 > Yes, actually, it is. We play the hand in all the manners that are > considered normal and then we award the lowest result. >=20 > > So in my example I rule that he plays his trump first. > > >=20 > And I don't. I don't see a big problem with that. As I said, it is a > borderline case. I have just one problem. Why don't you accept that > this is the case, and why don't you, in order to get to some order in > bridge rulings, accept to re-place your border somewhere else? Because I see no borderline here. Holding only high cards I couldn't = care less about their actual face values. > I know what your answer is to that: "why don't you (I) do that > instead". Tell you sump'n? You guessed my answer wrong! > > Give opponents a low trump instead of the high trump and everything = else > > unchanged I rule that the claimer plays one of his side-suit aces = first; > one > > trick to opponent. > > >=20 > So you agree: the height of the trump matters? Yes, not on how to judge as such but on the result of that judgment = because now there is a different line of play that leads to the less favorable result. It doesn't matter for the logic to be applied for the ruling as such. > Why then is a 10 a high trump? > Is a 7 a high trump or a low one. What is an 8? > You see - the EBLAC precedent is actually a better rule than the one > you apparently apply: any trump would be handled in the way you would > have handled a low trump. All I can say here is that you confuse how you should judge with the = result of that judgment. And you do surprise me failing to see that for yourself. Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Sep 4 10:13:47 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:13:47 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman keep saying that trumps last was laid down as a ruling guidance (not= his words) by the Tenerife AC. I quote from the appeal: "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has hi= gh cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of = the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the = trump suit, which is cashed last." Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, B= elgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England). I'm not inclined to accept that this decision, contrary to "a well-establis= hed principle" can give presedence on how to rule similar cases. The commit= tee give us no background for going against the well-established principle.= Some other composition of the AC might have ruled 2 down instead of contra= ct making. If a well-established principle should change so drastically, a change of p= romulgated law is the desired procedure. Failing that, the proper WBF body (WBFLC?) should make a decision concernin= g how "normal" and "irrational" in laws 69-71 should be understood and info= rm all NBO's of their decision. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ************************************************************************** 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 Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Thu Sep 4 10:18:42 2003 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:18:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double mail Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B1C@rama.micronas.com> Hmm, seems that a new spam rule caused the problem (not created by me :) ); it caused all BLML messages to be moved to the Junk folder AND the BLML folder. A slight change in the rule seems to have solved the problem. Sorry for the trouble. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sinot Martin=20 > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:32 > To: Bridge Laws (E-mail) > Subject: [blml] Double mail >=20 >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I seem to get everything twice at the moment. Does anyone > else notice this problem? >=20 > --=20 > Martin Sinot > martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 10:25:39 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:25:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <005a01c372be$fc16a100$5a72a63e@Default> References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F56EA89.6030206@hdw.be> <005a01c372be$fc16a100$5a72a63e@Default> Message-ID: <3F570513.80803@hdw.be> Jaap, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >> "everybody in Norway rules that way". True, but now we know >>that in Belgium, everybody rules the other way. > > > Herman, I would be more than suprised if in Belgium everyone shared your > view (some might). Sven and Harald seem to be quite senior officials in > Norway (please correct me on details) so when they make statements about > Norwegian policies or treatments I take that serious and consider it useful > information (besides I cannot remember them given faulty or coloured info). > Jaap, I was not being literal. I was just saying that the argument "everyone in Norway rules that way" is not an argument at all. Unless we know that all countries rule that way, and Belgium is the one that is out of line, there is nothing to say that maybe Norway isn't wrong. Surely you understand that statement. As to what my position and statute in Belgium are, I will leave the personal remarks for what they are and simply state that I am on the board of governors of both the Flemish and Belgian federations, that I am chair of the VBLAC and one of only three directors in the Belgian premier division. As to what "all belgians rule this way or that". It is just as important as whether all Norwegian TDs do or do not rule in the same manner. Totally irrelevant. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 4 10:31:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:31:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F56EA89.6030206@hdw.be> <005a01c372be$fc16a100$5a72a63e@Default> Message-ID: <014801c372c7$5d0876c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Jaap, please criticise the arguments of Ton, Grattan, and Herman -- but please, please --- don't criticise the men themselves. --- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 10:29:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:29:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <002b01c372b7$7d2404c0$5a72a63e@Default> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902084848.00a059b0@pop.starpower.net> <002b01c372b7$7d2404c0$5a72a63e@Default> Message-ID: <3F5705ED.3090102@hdw.be> For what it's worth, I agree with Jaap on this point: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > Any way the game would be easier and more enjoyable if players SHOULD make > up their mind before making a bid (or play). So once your hand reaches for > the box or you start speaking you have to finish your action. But for the > moment people like Grattan accept people bidding 'four' and then nothing. Or > taking a bid out of the box and putting it back in. > We both know this is not allowed but at the moment the only rule that can be applied is L16. Which is not enough, I agree. > We also should do away with all these take back rules and exceptions. Part > of the game is to pay enough attention to procedure to avoid silly mistakes > like pulling the wrong card. > > I hope the point is clear. It is not about things like the bidding box > falling on the floor or someone with a handicap making him clumsy. The whole > point is that you are not supposed to change your mind during the proces of > making a bid (or playing a card). The game would be much more pleasant and > much easier to rule under this principle. > > There should be a law like: once you start making a bid or play you have to > complete it. This type of text leaves enough scope for the disabled or the > ramifications of someone spilling his coffee. > This is the statement I fully agree with. > Anyway, the quest for simple and strict rules has nothing to do with a 'law > and order' mentality. You need simple and strict rules to enjoy the game, at > any level. We play the game because we like the game, not because we like to > bicker over its rules. > > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Sep 4 10:38:43 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:38:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <7952516.1062668323541.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >As to what "all belgians rule this way or that". It is just as important as whether all Norwegian TDs do or do not rule in the same manner. Totally irrelevant. If a senior official thinks it "irrelevant" whether or not other officials give consistent rulings, then the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum. David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 10:41:44 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:41:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <000101c372c1$ce078600$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c372c1$ce078600$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F5708D8.7040809@hdw.be> Sven, I felt we were getting somewhere - but now I am not so sure. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> >>>There is nothing hypothetical here; >>>it is the plain everyday case of >>>incomplete claims narrowed down to >>>focus on the essentials. >>>The example is typical for almost >>>every dubious claim for which I get >>>called to a table. >>> >> >>I don't grant you that one. You have deliberately chosen an example >>which is very much borderline. > > > I cannot see anything that makes this claim "borderline". The claimer is What makes it borderline is that, by making the trump a ten, we are having this discussion. If it's an ace or a two, we would not be having the discussion. We would both rule the same way. And we would also rule the same way in 500 cases either side of this border. > convinced that all his cards are high, that there is no outstanding trump > other than the one he himself holds, and thus it does not matter whether his > trump is the Ace, the 2 or any card ranked in between. > I have told you already that I do not agree with your assessment of this case. he does not believe his ten is high, he believes it is the last trump. IMO not the same thing. > As far as the claim and the claimer concerns there is no reason to think > trump or notrump for the remaining tricks. > Your opinion. Mine differs. > ............. > > > >>Your principle is valid. But the premise does not hold on the example. >>The player above does not believe "that it does not matter in which >>order he plays his remaining suits". IMO, this player believes "it >>does not matter in which order I play my remaining non-trump suits". > > > Really? > > Having miscounted the trumps he has no reason to believe anything about the > importance of when to play his own trump. It is just the highest (and only > remaining) card in that particular suit and he is just going to cash it like > his high cards in the other suits. > No, it is the last trump, not the highest one. > > >>What he believes about the trump suit, I don't know. I will try to >>find out, and base my ruling on that one. > > > Because of the claim you do know that he believes his own trump is the only > trump left. Law 70C tells you that much in direct plain words. You have > absolutely no reason to "try to find out" what he believes about the trump > suit. > I know nothing about the claim. You have not told anything. I don't know why he claimed. Did he know there was a trump out and it was lower than his ten, or did he think all trumps had gone. Both are possible, and we cannot from you -hypothetical- deduce which is true. But of course only one case is interesting - the one in which he believes all trumps are gone. If he believes there is a lower trump out he will lose three tricks. We agree on that one. > > >>Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same >>as other suits. > > > Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife decision? It > appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. > > What laws? Sven, really - stop it. If that is the way you are going to deal with this discussion, we are not going to end it and I'll be giving up on you. Yet another one. If by now you have not yet grasped that the laws don't help us in this case and there are two possible views to this case, go back into you corner and believ that all is well in the world. I don't bother about your corner of Norway. > >>Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really >>believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than to >>his 2 aces? > > > Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so > whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. > Well, it still is a trump. > > > Because I see no borderline here. Holding only high cards I couldn't care > less about their actual face values. > I have told you seven times already that it is not the highest spade, it is the last trump. > >>I know what your answer is to that: "why don't you (I) do that >>instead". > > > Tell you sump'n? You guessed my answer wrong! > >> >>So you agree: the height of the trump matters? > > > Yes, not on how to judge as such but on the result of that judgment because > now there is a different line of play that leads to the less favorable > result. It doesn't matter for the logic to be applied for the ruling as > such. > No Sven, misanalysed. Your case had the 10 of trumps with the J in opponent. Change the case to the 2 of trumps with the 3 in opponent. Just the same case. Yet you may not be as willing to have this player "cash" his high spade. Trumps are not other suits. In trumps, you count how many are left, in other suits, you count if any higher remain. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 10:47:02 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:47:02 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <004d01c372b9$d72135e0$5a72a63e@Default> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F547901.10503@hdw.be> <004d01c372b9$d72135e0$5a72a63e@Default> Message-ID: <3F570A16.1080408@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman > >>Tell me why EBL appeal xx from Tenerife should not be seen, at least, >>as a precedent to rule the other way. > > > > That decision has been widely critcised, both on judgement and on being > legal, so why should we take it too serious. Remember Turku were someone > lost 13 (or even 26) imps because some silly AC ruled that a Lightner double > should be alerted (it has been reversed some years later but that is not the > point). > It has been criticized on blml. Is that widely? > Anyway you yourself were and that Tenerife committee so how do you dare to > give that > as an example (the only one ?) to support your own views. > Because that is not the point. The point is that Sven and I place a borderline quite close to one another and we need to deplace it, one or both of us. I am saying that is either of us change, then perhaps it better be Sven, as my position is apparently shared by the other AC members present and perhaps by others less reluctant to change their personal points of view. I actually don't believe Sven and I are that far apart, so for him to make this small adjustment is not a huge step. All he needs to do is to acknowledge that trumps are something different in cases like this and look at the case again from that perspective. We could be discussing for years about drawing suits from the top down, but that has apparently also been settled by some people changing their minds out of concern for consistency accross the world. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 4 10:55:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Incomplete call - was The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F5705ED.3090102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c372ca$ac7e8980$6900a8c0@WINXP> ........... > > > > There should be a law like: once you start making a bid=20 > > or play you have to complete it. This type of text leaves > > enough scope for the disabled or the ramifications of > > someone spilling his coffee. > > >=20 > This is the statement I fully agree with. During the early days of "stop" and "alert" a question came up in Norway = on how to treat the case of a player who although not in turn to call = places the "Stop" card in front of himself apparently with the intention to = make a skip (opening) bid. The initial procedure recommended by the Norwegian LC was to demand the = call (bid) to be completed and then to apply the applicable law on bid out of turn. It didn't take long before this recommendation was altered so that the "stop" card was simply to be retracted with no immediate consequence = other than that law 16 would apply on the information that partner could infer from that stop card. As a consequence a similar recommendation now applies to the case when = (with verbal calling) a player starts to make a bid out of turn but is stopped after just saying the level but not the denomination. Bottom line: In Norway incomplete calls are not calls but extraneous information. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 4 11:19:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:19:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F5708D8.7040809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I am on the point of giving up but ..... > Herman De Wael ......... > I have told you already that I do not agree with your assessment of > this case. he does not believe his ten is high, he believes it is the > last trump. IMO not the same thing. .........=20 > No, it is the last trump, not the highest one. You repeatedly seem to distinguish between the claimer's trump being the only one left and the highest one left. Of course there is a difference, but I cannot follow you when you say = that the only trump left is NOT the highest trump left? Can there be any (nonexistent) higher trump left anywhere? > >>What he believes about the trump suit, I don't know. I will try to > >>find out, and base my ruling on that one. > > > > > > Because of the claim you do know that he believes his own trump is = the > only > > trump left. Law 70C tells you that much in direct plain words. You = have > > absolutely no reason to "try to find out" what he believes about the > trump > > suit. > > >=20 > I know nothing about the claim. You have not told anything. I don't > know why he claimed. Did he know there was a trump out and it was > lower than his ten, or did he think all trumps had gone. Both are > possible, and we cannot from you -hypothetical- deduce which is true. You know (because that was part of the original example posted) that the claimer said words to the effect that "rest is mine" and said nothing = about any outstanding trumps. Law 70 tells you in so many words this is to be taken for a fact that he assumes there are no outstanding trumps left with opponents. What you essentially are saying is that you are searching for = circumstances (as basis for your ruling) which Law 70 tells us are not to be = considered. >=20 > But of course only one case is interesting - the one in which he > believes all trumps are gone. If he believes there is a lower trump > out he will lose three tricks. We agree on that one. No we don't. And you keep surprising me. With one lower trump = outstanding he shall be ruled to play his Aces first allowing opponent one trick for = his smallest trump. The claimer shall not be allowed to pull that trump with = his own higher trump. =20 > > > > > >>Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the = same > >>as other suits. > > > > > > Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife > decision? It > > appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. > > > > >=20 > What laws? Law 70 for Heaven's sake! You are familiar with that law I assume? ............. > >>Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really > >>believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than = to > >>his 2 aces? > > > > > > Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; = so > > whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. > > >=20 > Well, it still is a trump. Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually = so he believes). ........=20 > I have told you seven times already that it is not the highest spade, > it is the last trump. And why is that not the highest spade left? ......... > > Yes, not on how to judge as such but on the result of that judgment > because > > now there is a different line of play that leads to the less = favorable > > result. It doesn't matter for the logic to be applied for the ruling = as > > such. > > >=20 > No Sven, misanalysed. Your case had the 10 of trumps with the J in > opponent. Change the case to the 2 of trumps with the 3 in opponent. > Just the same case. Yet you may not be as willing to have this player > "cash" his high spade. Of course I shall, why not? It is (in his opinion) the only card left in that suit. > Trumps are not other suits. In trumps, you count how many are left, in > other suits, you count if any higher remain. Whether you count how many cards are left or whether any higher card = remains is immaterial when according to law 70 you have clearly stated you = "know" that all your own cards are high regardless of in which order you play = your suits. Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Sep 4 11:19:20 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:19:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CD3B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Herman wrote: "No Sven, misanalysed. Your case had the 10 of trumps with the J in=20 opponent. Change the case to the 2 of trumps with the 3 in opponent. Just the same case. Yet you may not be as willing to have this player=20 "cash" his high spade. Trumps are not other suits. In trumps, you count how many are left, in=20 other suits, you count if any higher remain." I beg your pardon? It is just as vital to know if your trumps are high as any other suit. Even when I first started counting hands, I always kept track both of how many and what key cards had gone in every = suit, trumps or not. Any decent player knows exactly which cards have been played by which opponent, and if they lose track somewhere (as has = usually=20 happened in a dodgy claim) it could be any suit. Poor players vary their mis-technique, but I haven't noticed them being more or less observant of pips (or honours) in trumps compared to = side-suits. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Sep 4 11:35:06 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard System Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CD3C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Nigel] Another refinement is that you need explain only departures from the *WBF standard system*, assuming that both you and opponents are familiar with it. IMO most players would quickly learn the basics of the system They already have to learn what to alert -- and a standard system would be more useful, and much easier to learn. Not having to alert and ask would save time. Only explaining differences from the *standard* would save even more time. Some advantages of a standard system: 1. "Explain" laws would be the same all over the world: it would be the first step towards a universal law. 2. It would be a common language for use in beginner's events, individuals, and with pick-up partners. 3. The media would find it easier to explain what was going on in such events -- so it would be good for Bridge PR. 4. If you want to introduce "Wolff" penalties for forgetting your system, you could waive such penalties for beginners trying to learn the *standard system* OK Jaap, please criticise. [Frances] I'm not Jaap, but... I've seen you suggest this a few times. I cannot see how it could possibly save time unless you were playing something close to the 'standard' system. To take your points in reverse order 4. I'm not sure anyone wants to apply "Wolff" penalties for system forgets at anything other than serious competitive events. Beginners would never be involved anyway. 3. Don't really see why that is the case. It's easier to explain what's going on if people were to PLAY a standard system, but that's not what you are suggesting. 2. True. But you can have a 'standard system' without having to write your alert rules round it. There are a few 'standard systems' around at the moment (e.g. SAYC, BWS, 'Standard' English, standard French 5CM). Most of those playing in pick-up events or individuals already know the standard for their locality. 1. It could only really work at all for the first couple of rounds of the auction. Nobody is going to learn a 'standard' system that covers all possible uncontested & contested sequences in addition to their own system. 2. It would waste a huge amount of time if you were playing something conceptually different. Suppose a natural system were the standard and you played a fairly simple style of Precision. Now you'd have a=20 sequence like this: 1C (1) 1H(2) 1S (3) 2D(4) 2S (5) 3C(6) ..... (1) Alerted becuase a strong club (fair enough) (2) Alerted because shows 8+, game forcing (fair enough) (3) Alerted because it isn't non-forcing with clubs & spades (4) Alerted because it is natural, not fourth suit forcing (5) Alerted because it doesn't show at 5 spades and 5/6 clubs (6) Alerted not because it's FSF,but because it doesn't agree clubs as = trumps Or if the standard system were something like SA=20 and you played Acol weak NT. 1S (1) 1NT(2) 2C (3) .... (1) Alerted because you play 4-card majors (2) Alerted because it isn't forcing (3) Alerted because it promises at least 4 clubs Can you imagine persauding people that they have to alert natural bids = because they aren't conventional? From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 12:34:50 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:34:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > I am on the point of giving up but ..... > I'm also not yet convinced there is no hope of reconciliation. Or at least of understanding the other's point of view. > >>Herman De Wael > > ......... > > >>I have told you already that I do not agree with your assessment of >>this case. he does not believe his ten is high, he believes it is the >>last trump. IMO not the same thing. > > ......... > > >>No, it is the last trump, not the highest one. > > > You repeatedly seem to distinguish between the claimer's trump being the > only one left and the highest one left. > Yes, because I believe that distinction to be important. You refuse to see that there is such a distinction. Surely you must realize that the two are not the same. Maybe you can convince me that the cashing of the last trump must also be considered a normal line of play, but you cannot keep on stating that trumps always follow the same logic as non-trumps. > Of course there is a difference, but I cannot follow you when you say that > the only trump left is NOT the highest trump left? Can there be any > (nonexistent) higher trump left anywhere? > No of course there cannot. But the treatment, by a player, is different. This player "knows" that trumps have gone, and he "knows" that his other are high. He does not know how many other cards are left, something he does "know" about trumps. The fact that he is wrong in one of these "knowledges" is of course not important. When you know that your trump 10 is high, you play it, because you don't want to be ruled "forgotten a trump". When you know it is the last one, you claim. Now of course we never know what the player would normally play in such a case, because players never do, they claim. Which is why, in analogy with "suits are cashed top-down", the EBLAC has found it necessary to issue a (directive, I'm looking for a less strong wording) that says "last trumps are not cashed as winners, they are kept". You may or may not agree with that directive, but you cannot claim that last trumps are just high cards. They are not treated that way by any player I know. > > >> >>I know nothing about the claim. You have not told anything. I don't >>know why he claimed. Did he know there was a trump out and it was >>lower than his ten, or did he think all trumps had gone. Both are >>possible, and we cannot from you -hypothetical- deduce which is true. > > > You know (because that was part of the original example posted) that the > claimer said words to the effect that "rest is mine" and said nothing about > any outstanding trumps. > So we don't know if he thought his trump 10 was high, or last. Both are consistent with his statement. > Law 70 tells you in so many words this is to be taken for a fact that he > assumes there are no outstanding trumps left with opponents. > Yes, but that is not important. Law 70 tells me I must assume. That does not make it thus. If declarer tells me he knew there was a trump left, and he thought his 10 was higher, I will believe him (because I cannot rule 3 tricks otherwise). But as I said, this is not important. We are not discussing that case. We can assume, from now on, that we know claimer thought there were no more trumps out. > >>But of course only one case is interesting - the one in which he >>believes all trumps are gone. If he believes there is a lower trump >>out he will lose three tricks. We agree on that one. > > > > No we don't. And you keep surprising me. With one lower trump outstanding he > shall be ruled to play his Aces first allowing opponent one trick for his > smallest trump. The claimer shall not be allowed to pull that trump with his > own higher trump. > Yes, we agree on that one as well. Don't go changing the case into one in which again we don't disagree. > > >>> >>>>Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same >>>>as other suits. >>> >>> >>>Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife >> >>decision? It >> >>>appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. >>> >>> >> >>What laws? > > > Law 70 for Heaven's sake! You are familiar with that law I assume? > Of course I am. L70 just tells us to consider "normal" lines. How can a directive telling us that something is to be consider normal be in conflict with the laws. Besides, the claim laws themselves make many distinctions between trumps and non-trumps. Tenerife cannot be against the laws, any more than the directive "suits are cashed in any order" can be against the laws. It is just an interpretation. > ............. > >>>>Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really >>>>believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than to >>>>his 2 aces? >>> >>> >>>Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so >>>whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. >>> >> >>Well, it still is a trump. > > > Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually so he > believes). > No, he does not. It is the highest (if you want) in the trump suit. if you continue to say that trumps are not important, go play mixed tournaments. > ........ > >>I have told you seven times already that it is not the highest spade, >>it is the last trump. > > > And why is that not the highest spade left? > It is, but that is not important. I am not saying it is not a spade, you seem to be saying it is not a trump. It is. > ......... > > >>>Yes, not on how to judge as such but on the result of that judgment >> >>because >> >>>now there is a different line of play that leads to the less favorable >>>result. It doesn't matter for the logic to be applied for the ruling as >>>such. >>> >> >>No Sven, misanalysed. Your case had the 10 of trumps with the J in >>opponent. Change the case to the 2 of trumps with the 3 in opponent. >>Just the same case. Yet you may not be as willing to have this player >>"cash" his high spade. > > > Of course I shall, why not? It is (in his opinion) the only card left in > that suit. > Which happens to be trumps. > >>Trumps are not other suits. In trumps, you count how many are left, in >>other suits, you count if any higher remain. > > > Whether you count how many cards are left or whether any higher card remains > is immaterial when according to law 70 you have clearly stated you "know" > that all your own cards are high regardless of in which order you play your > suits. > And the directive "suits are cashed in any order" has been changed into "suits are cashed in any order except trumps which are cashed last". Why should the one interpretation be any better than the other? You fail to see that neither interpretation is "according to the laws". The laws just use a word "normal". We have to define what normal is, and we find a case here in which two TD's have a discussion about what constitutes normalcy. Why not accept some higher authority's verdict? > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 12:36:52 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:36:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <7952516.1062668323541.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <7952516.1062668323541.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F5723D4.5030504@hdw.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >>As to what "all belgians rule this way or that". It is just as > > important as whether all Norwegian TDs do or do not rule in the same manner. Totally irrelevant. > > If a senior official thinks it "irrelevant" whether or not other officials give consistent rulings, then the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum. > Sorry David. We are not talking Norway here, or Belgium. We are trying to get a world-wide consensus. If the Norwegians, or the Belgians, believe it is far better that all their TD's follow one line rather than a WBF line, that is up to them. But don't come to this discussion with the argument that since all Norwegians believe something, it must be true. (You are allowed the jibe "if all Belgians believe something, it must be false") > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 12:52:00 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:52:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F572760.1000004@hdw.be> OK Harald, fair enough. Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman keep saying that trumps last was laid down as a ruling guidance (not his words) by the Tenerife AC. Yes, and I don't know how to put it into words any better to show the level of "guidance" it portrays. "Precedent" is probably the best way. As in "Read the case and see for yourself of the principle therein confirms to the position you claimer is in". Nor do I particularly agree with the simple wording "trumps last". Again, read the case and decide for yourself if it applies. IMO, the case is similar enough to the one Sven put in this thread to merit the precedent to be of value. > > I quote from the appeal: > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." > > Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England). I don't think anyone can criticize the membership of that AC. > > I'm not inclined to accept that this decision, Well, then why are we discussing? There is a precedent, you may agree it has enough of the same characteristics, but you don't wish to follow it. contrary to "a well-established principle" can give presedence on how to rule similar cases. Well, the appeal describes a type of exception to the well-established principle. Is that impossible? The committee give us no background for going against the well-established principle. Yes, it says that it does not apply to the trump suit. Has anyone ever written up that the principle applies to the trump suit as well? Some other composition of the AC might have ruled 2 down instead of contract making. Yes it might. But I have to tell you that there was close to no doubt in the minds of any of the four members. There was no discussion whatsoever. None of the members has come out saying that the case ought not to be considered precedent because he does not agree with it's conclusion. I believe Grattan is adding this case to the Code of Practice. Are you Grattan? I believe it would be interesting to hear your perspective? > > If a well-established principle should change so drastically, a change of promulgated law is the desired procedure. > I don't believe it is a drastic change. I had never read before that the principle applied to the trump suit as well. If any of us had had any knowledge of previous precedent, I doubt if we would have gone so light over this one. We would have stated more clearly that we believed the previous principle to be wrong. As it was, we believed we were merely expanding on the principle, adding to it rather than changing it. > Failing that, the proper WBF body (WBFLC?) should make a decision concerning how "normal" and "irrational" in laws 69-71 should be understood and inform all NBO's of their decision. I second that feeling, but the WBFLC has often already stated that they prefer to let ACs create jurisprudence without them issueing verdicts. Anyway, Tenerife is two years ago, and many of the WBFLC have read the discussion since then on blml. I'd like to believe that the WBF would have acted if they had thought the Tenerife AC made an error. Two of the members of that AC are also members of the WBFLC. Don't you think that it is unlikely the WBF does not agree with this AC? As such, and for as far as it applies, I think the Tenerife case is a valid precedent. I believe it applies to the case Sven put forward. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 13:07:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:07:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002c01c372b7$7eb55320$5a72a63e@Default> <011801c372c2$29d5b880$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <006c01c372e0$23d7eca0$bf6a3b3e@Default> Nigel, this is a 'well known' approach to the problem. Just some thoughts about it, no real analysis. > Another refinement is that you need explain only > departures from the *WBF standard system*, assuming > that both you and opponents are familiar with it. WBF standard is silly. It doesn't exsist. Standards differ from place to place and most people play just local bridge. But it make sense say in Holland or France (where there are big scale education programs and material) to abolish alerts for people playing the local 'standard' (has been done in Holland already, ask Ton about details). But I guess the ACBL has quite some experience in this department. > Alternatively, before a set of boards, opponents > may place their explain card *face down* to prevent > you explaining from any of your partner's calls. > They do this if they think that you could have bidding > accidents, unless "woken up" by such explanations. This I don't like. So the opps have to decide beforehand who will benefit more. On the other hand you give players an option which doesn't exist right now. > Before a set of boards, if opponents face their > *explain card*, then you must explain your partner's > call as soon as he makes it. Since you must explain > all calls, opponents can't give UI by asking about > *particular* calls. You avoid possible opp UI but quite possibly you get other UI in return. > 1. "Explain" laws would be the same all over the world: > it would be the first step towards a universal law. > 2. It would be a common language for use in beginner's > events, individuals, and with pick-up partners. > 3. The media would find it easier to explain what was > going on in such events -- so it would be good for > Bridge > PR. I believe more in restictions on systems at lower levels of play. If only a limited set of conventions is legal then by implication you have a relatively simple alert procedure. At higher level I believe more in the concept of pre alerts. The things that are supposed to be on the front page of the CC. To keep pairs tournaments (in the sense of few boards a table) playable you probably have to limit the number of 'weird' conventions a pair can play. But the current alert rule should be way more restrictive. I remember silly things like you should not alert Stayman if it promises a major but alert if not. Or you should alert a jump overcall if it is weak but not if it is intermediate. An so on. This kind of detail is at this stage irrelevant for the opponents but kills the baic purpose of the alert procedure. Which is to protect the next opponent in a competitive situation. But what has happend in real life. When playing with sponsors they sometimes get mad at me because I alert something or not. Then they are afraid I haven't understood something. So it became clear to me that by now alerts are used as communication between partners (no intention or agreement or so) rather than to warn the opps. You will have the same problems with explains or the like. Apart from anything else the current alert should be split in two different kind of alerts. One for 'conventional', one for 'prone to be misunderstood'. Seems complicated but at least an alert (or double alert) has some real meaning. Suppose someone alerts 1NT pass 2C and you might bid something. You have no idea if he alerts just because it is a special case of Stayman or that he comes from a place where you have to alert Stayman anyway (in all those cases the alert is rather meaningless, 2C is just what you expect). OR that it is not Stayman in the first place (now you need to be told). In real life we already play like that with screens. Most (fair) players are very clear when an alert is just a legal formality or when an alert is serious. > 4. If you want to introduce "Wolff" penalties for > forgetting your system, you could waive such penalties > for beginners trying to learn the *standard system* Well, of course we are not going to bother beginners with that. I don't know exactly what are Wolff penalties but I hate this difference between good/bad bid versus bad/good explanation. All mistakes in say the first two rounds of bidding (or whatever limit plus maybe some list of conventions) should be ruled as misexplanation. I agree with Wolff that the opponents should be protected against you not knowing your system, specially when using destructive competitive conventions. In Holland we rule mistakes in competitive conventions that way since a couple of years. The legal trick; if you get a first round bid wrong (the main problem being two suited overcalls) you probably don't understand your system at all so you cann't explain it correctly anyway. Anyway there is a lot to be said to rule all mistakes in conventions as misexplanation. The opponents are hardly in a position to judge the likelyhood of you making mistakes in a convention they might not even know. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > [Jaap van der Neut] > > Sorry, Nigel, I do not know about "explain". > But I am curious if only because you mention you > and Grattan together. Given blml postings on these > and releated subjcts I have a rather opposite view > of the two of you. But I am rather sceptical about > alerts without screens. Hard to see how to balance > the payload (info to the opponents) with the trade > off (info for partner). > > [Nigel] > > Our suggestion is to *ban alerts* altogether and so > reduce all the UI problems inherent in disclosure. > > Grattan suggests that you "announce" the meanings > of each call that partner makes. > > A refinement of mine is to have an *explain card* > which works as follows... > > Before a set of boards, if opponents face their > *explain card*, then you must explain your partner's > call as soon as he makes it. Since you must explain > all calls, opponents can't give UI by asking about > *particular* calls. > > Alternatively, before a set of boards, opponents > may place their explain card *face down* to prevent > you explaining from any of your partner's calls. > They do this if they think that you could have bidding > accidents, unless "woken up" by such explanations. > > In the latter case, you must still offer to explain > your auction, after the bidding but before the play. > > Another refinement is that you need explain only > departures from the *WBF standard system*, assuming > that both you and opponents are familiar with it. > > IMO most players would quickly learn the basics of > the system > > They already have to learn what to alert -- and a > standard system would be more useful, and much > easier to learn. > > Not having to alert and ask would save time. Only > explaining differences from the *standard* would > save even more time. > > Some advantages of a standard system: > > 1. "Explain" laws would be the same all over the world: > it would be the first step towards a universal law. > 2. It would be a common language for use in beginner's > events, individuals, and with pick-up partners. > 3. The media would find it easier to explain what was > going on in such events -- so it would be good for > Bridge > PR. > 4. If you want to introduce "Wolff" penalties for > forgetting your system, you could waive such penalties > for beginners trying to learn the *standard system* > > OK Jaap, please criticise. > > > > --- > 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 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 13:27:07 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:27:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> <002901c3713c$f2790620$1a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F56EA89.6030206@hdw.be> <005a01c372be$fc16a100$5a72a63e@Default> <014801c372c7$5d0876c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <006d01c372e0$257a03e0$bf6a3b3e@Default> Nigel, > Jaap, please criticise the arguments of Ton, > Grattan, and Herman -- but please, please --- > don't criticise the men themselves. You are right. Sorry about that. But the two 'I attacked' recently have given cause. One. What Grattan did is silly. I get a public lecture to support his: '[you make] statements about things outwith your knowledge'. I don't mind in itself, I can easily be wrong, but you better make sure you get the facts right when trying such a lecture. Then Ton of all people takes my side at least when it comes to the facts in Grattan's lecture. And it turn's out I was more 'right' (it was not outwith my knowledge at all) than Grattan about those facts. Anyway the second version of those Grattan facts contradicts his first version. Yes I know I will get a lengthy explanation that the two versions are consistent after all. But then Campbell just got the sack. So maybe you Brits can change to plain speak again. Anyway, as far as I can tell I only attacked Grattans arguments not his person, at least no more than he attacked my person. But then I don't really mind people attacking me but they should not start crying when there is some retaliation. Anyway, I would never dream of using any remotely agressive word with you, because you are such a polite guy. I tend to adapt a little to whoever I am dealing with. Basically I am a nice guy, but when you like it rough you can get it rough. And for people like Grattan, Ton, DWS, Herman etc. I can be irritating because I am rather critical about 'facts' they present. Even more so because they tend to do so with a kind of authority. Now of course they don't like when some guy starts discussing the correctness of their facts let alone when that guy proves them wrong. This might explain quite some of the irritation and subsequent 'spicy' discussions. Two. Herman. Well I probably overdid it but Herman is out of touch with reality recently. And it is too tiresome to attack him on what he says (ask Sven or David or Harald or yourself or .......) . Because everytime you contradict one of his many statements he will say that he meant something else or that it is irrelevant anyway. Besides he is insulting everybody and anybody himself. And when looking at the total posts by Herman over the last week or so, it is quite normal to start discussing the guy who generates all that rather than to look at every individual statement. As long as there is a clear relation with the subject at hand I don't consider such to be a personal attack. Now I probably should have restrained myself. But when I hear Herman claiming things for all of Belgium I cannot help that according to the best of my info (I admit I can be wrong) Herman is in no position to do so. Next time I see my Belgian friends I will check the current opinion about certain officials. Last, maybe better to read David's most recent mail. He puts it better in one sentence than I in a couple of mails. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > Jaap, please criticise the arguments of Ton, > Grattan, and Herman -- but please, please --- > don't criticise the men themselves. > > > --- > 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 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 4 13:38:41 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 08:38:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F56EFDB.1080601@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> At 03:55 AM 9/4/03, Herman wrote: >Good argument, Eric, but this works both ways: > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 10:38 AM 9/1/03, Herman wrote: >> >>>OK, so what is it, reject or accept? How are we to judge whether it >>>is either? What is the standard? What is wrong with the legal >>>standard "rational"? And rational for who? >>>You wish to rule on Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim the same. But what is >>>the standard? How do you define any standard that can apply to both? >> >>What do you do when you are called upon to judge Mr. X, whom you have >>never seen before, and about whose level of play you know >>nothing? Do you refuse to rule, leave the room, and hide out for the >>rest of the event? Of course not. You apply your (implicit or >>explicit) standard, make a ruling, and get on with the game. That's >>your "standard". If you wish to act "impartially", you give the same >>ruling you would give to Mr. X to either Mr. Helgemo or Mrs. >>Guggenheim, or anyone else. WTP? > >In a tournament with both Helgemo and Mrs G., it may well be a problem >to class Mr X. Although if you don't know him, he's probably closer to >Mrs G. than to Helgemo. >But it's not fair to use Mr X. class in the final of a world >championship, where all players can be considered (almost) of >Helgemo's class, or in a tournament organised by Mrs G. for her >society friends. > >I don't consider it fair to judge anyone by a standard that is far >from his own. And there are just two ways out of that: judge him by >his own standards, or by a mechanical way. You know which one I prefer. There is a third way, and Herman has himself pointed it out indirectly. I have never met Mr. X, and know nothing of how well he plays. The standard I will use to rule, however, will, I admit, require some implicit assumption as to his level of play, so I must, in effect, guess. I shall "guess" rather differently if I encounter him in the finals of a world championship than I would if I encountered him in the under-20-masterpoint pairs. And if Mrs. Guggenheim makes it to the finals of a world championship, I shall judge her by the same standard when ruling for that event. I will judge her (as I would Mr. X) by a somewhat lesser standard in her society tournament. And if Mr. Helgemo chooses to play in Mrs. Guggenheim's society tournament, I shall judge him by the same standard. The middle ground between an invariant standard and one that varies based on the player's level is one that is based on the level of the event, which does not perforce compromise the impartiality of those applying it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Sep 4 13:43:26 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:43:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CD3F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >=20 >>>>Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really >>>>believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than = to >>>>his 2 aces? >>> >>> >>>Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; = so >>>whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. >>> >> >>Well, it still is a trump. >=20 >=20 > Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually = so he > believes). >=20 Herman: No, he does not. It is the highest (if you want) in the trump suit. if=20 you continue to say that trumps are not important, go play mixed=20 tournaments. Frances: Now you've said something that I really don't understand. What are you talking about? (I'm not being sarcastic, I truly have no idea what you are trying to say here). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 4 13:48:58 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:48:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard System References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CD3C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <01f701c372e2$eba5e8c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Frances] I'm not Jaap, but... I've seen you suggest this a few times. I cannot see how it could possibly save time unless you were playing something close to the 'standard' system. [Nigel] Thank you for taking the time to criticise the proposals. I know I keep repeating myself. Sorry. Jaap asked me to tell him again what "explain" meant. You make many good points in your email, which, of course, I will try to refute :) [Frances] To take your points in reverse order 4. I'm not sure anyone wants to apply "Wolff" penalties for system forgets at anything other than serious competitive events. Beginners would never be involved anyway. [Nigel] Nowadays, apartheid may be the rule, but people once had far less respect for their betters. Then, many players with less than 6 months experience of Bridge, played in major competitions like the Gold Cup, National Pairs, Guardian etc, sometimes even winning them. I hope those days will come again. [Frances] 3. Don't really see why that is the case. It's easier to explain what's going on if people were to PLAY a standard system, but that's not what you are suggesting. [Nigel] That is precisely what I was suggesting -- for example that players in an individual would all agree to *play* the standard system. Were it a world-championship individual, then it might merit TV highlights if news-readers could understand roughly what was happening. [Frances] 2. True. But you can have a 'standard system' without having to write your alert rules round it. There are a few 'standard systems' around at the moment (e.g. SAYC, BWS, 'Standard' English, standard French 5CM). Most of those playing in pick-up events or individuals already know the standard for their locality. [Nigel] My experience is different. Even at my local club, there are dozens of fundamentally different brands of Acol. If you play "Basic SAYC" on the net, you meet many different interpretations. Anyway, most players nowadays play in different places. Even I have played in several different countries. Years ago, I remember the first hand I played in a Deauville Individual. I handed my expert partner my system card. He refused it. "All natural" he said. I guessed that he meant prepared minors, five card majors, and a strong notrump. I opened 1C, LHO overcalled 1S, and I respected partner's double. Of course, it turned out to be the new "Sputnik", considered completely natural by my partner. ):Sigh:( ... if we were all playing WBF standard ... Anyway, if you are lucky enough to have a standard system, then it makes sense to write your "explain" rules around it. Of course you don't have to do so. But it deos make for simple universal rules. [Frances] 1. It could only really work at all for the first couple of rounds of the auction. Nobody is going to learn a 'standard' system that covers all possible uncontested & contested sequences in addition to their own system. [Nigel] Most basic systems have implicit "defaults" for # situations not covered explicity. I, myself, don't know *WBF standard* but I am sure it fits that mold. Anyway if you don't know whether a call is *standard* then you just have to explain it. [Frances] 2. It would waste a huge amount of time if you were playing something conceptually different. Suppose a natural system were the standard and you played a fairly simple style of Precision. Now you'd have a sequence like this: 1C (1) 1H(2) 1S (3) 2D(4) 2S (5) 3C(6) ..... (1) Alerted becuase a strong club (fair enough) (2) Alerted because shows 8+, game forcing (fair enough) (3) Alerted because it isn't non-forcing with clubs & spades (4) Alerted because it is natural, not fourth suit forcing (5) Alerted because it doesn't show at 5 spades and 5/6 clubs (6) Alerted not because it's FSF,but because it doesn't agree clubs as trumps Or if the standard system were something like SA and you played Acol weak NT. 1S (1) 1NT(2) 2C (3) .... (1) Alerted because you play 4-card majors (2) Alerted because it isn't forcing (3) Alerted because it promises at least 4 clubs [Nigel] Under our proposals, *alerts* are banned. Under my proposal, if an opponent has faced his "explain" card, you must *explain* your partner's calls when they depart from standard. But that is just quibbling -- You are right -- you would often have to explain what you deem to be perfectly natural calls. e.g. 1C (art 16+) 1H (Nat 5+H 8+HCP) 1S (Nat 5+S) 2D (Nat 4+D) 2S (Nat pref) 3C (4SF) .... e.g. 1S (Nat 4+S) 1NT (Nat 5-9 NF) 2C (Nat 4+C implies 5+S) ... Most of this is information that I, as your opponent may want to be told, especially if I am a beginner and the only system that I know is *WBF standard*. I have to concede that this would take a time. IMO, Overall, time would still be saved over the normal "alert", "yes", "explanation" exchanges. And opportunities for UI would be reduced. More time would be saved at many tables like mine where my "explain" card would normally remain face down; and at such tables the opportunities for UI would be negligible. [Frances] Can you imagine persuading people that they have to alert natural bids because they aren't conventional? [Nigel] Persuade? It is already quite normal to have to alert "natural" calls e.g. weak twos, pre-emptive raises, penalty doubles of pre-empts, and so on... Even worse, the precise list varies from year to year and country to country! OK, saving time is a moot point. Saving UI is not. For example, Richard Hill's "Catch 22" does not arise. There are always +s and -s, however. And you have ably drawn attention to many of the latter; but do you really think the balance of argument is for the status quo? Is there no BLML support for such proposals? --- 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 13:46:06 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:46:06 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F572760.1000004@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008101c372e2$862d58c0$bf6a3b3e@Default> > I don't think anyone can criticize the membership of that AC. The hell you can. This AC applied some bridge judgement at the EC level. Now Jens is a player at this level. What about the others ? I have said a couple of times before that this kind of AC's is no good. There should be more players and less officials (yes I know all officials are also players and by serving on an AC a player becomes an official).You might not agree with me, but your statement that the memebership of this AC is above discussion, is insane. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > OK Harald, fair enough. > > Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > > Herman keep saying that trumps last was laid down as a ruling guidance (not his words) by the Tenerife AC. > > Yes, and I don't know how to put it into words any better to show the > level of "guidance" it portrays. "Precedent" is probably the best way. > As in "Read the case and see for yourself of the principle therein > confirms to the position you claimer is in". > > Nor do I particularly agree with the simple wording "trumps last". > Again, read the case and decide for yourself if it applies. > IMO, the case is similar enough to the one Sven put in this thread to > merit the precedent to be of value. > > > > > I quote from the appeal: > > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." > > > > Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England). > > I don't think anyone can criticize the membership of that AC. > > > > > I'm not inclined to accept that this decision, > > Well, then why are we discussing? > There is a precedent, you may agree it has enough of the same > characteristics, but you don't wish to follow it. > > contrary to "a well-established principle" can give presedence on how > to rule similar cases. > > Well, the appeal describes a type of exception to the well-established > principle. Is that impossible? > > The committee give us no background for going against the > well-established principle. > > Yes, it says that it does not apply to the trump suit. Has anyone ever > written up that the principle applies to the trump suit as well? > > Some other composition of the AC might have ruled 2 down instead of > contract making. > > Yes it might. But I have to tell you that there was close to no doubt > in the minds of any of the four members. There was no discussion > whatsoever. None of the members has come out saying that the case > ought not to be considered precedent because he does not agree with > it's conclusion. > I believe Grattan is adding this case to the Code of Practice. Are you > Grattan? I believe it would be interesting to hear your perspective? > > > > > If a well-established principle should change so drastically, a change of promulgated law is the desired procedure. > > > > I don't believe it is a drastic change. I had never read before that > the principle applied to the trump suit as well. If any of us had had > any knowledge of previous precedent, I doubt if we would have gone so > light over this one. We would have stated more clearly that we > believed the previous principle to be wrong. As it was, we believed we > were merely expanding on the principle, adding to it rather than > changing it. > > > Failing that, the proper WBF body (WBFLC?) should make a decision concerning how "normal" and "irrational" in laws 69-71 should be understood and inform all NBO's of their decision. > > I second that feeling, but the WBFLC has often already stated that > they prefer to let ACs create jurisprudence without them issueing > verdicts. > Anyway, Tenerife is two years ago, and many of the WBFLC have read the > discussion since then on blml. I'd like to believe that the WBF would > have acted if they had thought the Tenerife AC made an error. > > Two of the members of that AC are also members of the WBFLC. Don't you > think that it is unlikely the WBF does not agree with this AC? > > As such, and for as far as it applies, I think the Tenerife case is a > valid precedent. I believe it applies to the case Sven put forward. > > > > > -- > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 4 13:54:08 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 08:54:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <011801c372c2$29d5b880$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F51D480.1020208@hdw.be> <002f01c36fc4$4604d1e0$58e87f50@Default> <002301c36ff1$5401a020$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002c01c372b7$7eb55320$5a72a63e@Default> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904084500.01f188e0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:54 AM 9/4/03, Nigel wrote: >Another refinement is that you need explain only >departures from the *WBF standard system*, assuming >that both you and opponents are familiar with it. > >IMO most players would quickly learn the basics of >the system > >They already have to learn what to alert -- and a >standard system would be more useful, and much >easier to learn. > >Not having to alert and ask would save time. Only >explaining differences from the *standard* would >save even more time. > >Some advantages of a standard system: > >1. "Explain" laws would be the same all over the world: >it would be the first step towards a universal law. >2. It would be a common language for use in beginner's >events, individuals, and with pick-up partners. >3. The media would find it easier to explain what was >going on in such events -- so it would be good for >Bridge >PR. >4. If you want to introduce "Wolff" penalties for >forgetting your system, you could waive such penalties >for beginners trying to learn the *standard system* I could list the advantages of world peace and universal love, too, but that doesn't mean we can legislate them. The ACBL started to work towards a "standard system" by developing SAYC more than a decade ago. Today there are lots and lots of players who write "SAYC" at the top of their convention cards, but no two of them play exactly the same thing. Nobody knows exactly what SAYC is, and everyone has their own idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes a "deviation" from it. IMO, this was a valuable experiment, and it failed. All that happened is that "SAYC" became the replacement for "Standard American" as the term used by the majority of ACBL players to describe their somewhat similar, but in no cases identical, systems. Everyone knowing and understanding a single "standard" system is a wonderful ideal state, with all sorts of advantages, but it is one of those overwhelmingly attractive ideals that we simply cannot achieve in reality. 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 Sep 4 14:06:52 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:06:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And References: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <020301c372e5$696af3c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same as other suits. And the directive "suits are cashed in any order" has been changed into "suits are cashed in any order except trumps which are cashed last". [Nigel] Where in TLFB does it say that a controversial, obscure AC decision creates a precedent with the force of law? If such a decision can make a radical change to the law, why is it never publicised? Why not publish regular TFLB revisions on the Net, first, as proposals, so that the volume of support/ objection can be guaged? Oh dear!... what a bore!... Sorry again. --- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 14:06:18 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:06:18 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <008101c372e2$862d58c0$bf6a3b3e@Default> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F572760.1000004@hdw.be> <008101c372e2$862d58c0$bf6a3b3e@Default> Message-ID: <3F5738CA.4000606@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: >>I don't think anyone can criticize the membership of that AC. > > > The hell you can. This AC applied some bridge judgement at the EC level. Now > Jens is a player at this level. What about the others ? I have said a couple > of times before that this kind of AC's is no good. There should be more > players and less officials (yes I know all officials are also players and by > serving on an AC a player becomes an official).You might not agree with me, > but your statement that the memebership of this AC is above discussion, is > insane. > Jaap, the problem was not one of bridge judgment, but about a legal issue as tow whether or not some line of play must be included in "normal" or not. If you believe that people laike Jens, Grattan and myself are not up to that task ... > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 14:12:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:12:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CD3F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CD3F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <3F573A31.6020302@hdw.be> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: >>>> >>>>Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so >>>>whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. >>>> >>> >>>Well, it still is a trump. >> >> >>Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually so he >>believes). >> > > > Herman: > > No, he does not. It is the highest (if you want) in the trump suit. if > you continue to say that trumps are not important, go play mixed > tournaments. > > Frances: > > Now you've said something that I really don't understand. What are you > talking about? (I'm not being sarcastic, I truly have no idea what you > are trying to say here). > What I am trying to express is that there is a difference between the trump suit and some other suit. Harald and Sven are apparently of the opinion that trumps is a suit like any other. That is maifestly untrue. The principle "suits in any order" does not apply, because I believe this only applies among non-trump suits. The question that needs to be answered is what are the normal lines play when a declarer thinks his trumps are last and his other suits are high. I am not stating that there must necessarily be a different answer, I am merely contesting the Norwegians' position that there is a "guideline" that says that "suits are played in any order". I am saying that the situation is different when this is trumps or no-trumps. Only after Sven has agreed that this is a special case, can we go on to dealing with this special case. Stressing that the trump is believed to be high as well serves no purpose. It is also thought to be last, and I happen to believe that this matters. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Sep 4 14:17:57 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:17:57 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB81@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: OK Harald, fair enough. Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman keep saying that trumps last was laid down as a ruling guidance (n= ot his words) by the Tenerife AC. Yes, and I don't know how to put it into words any better to show the=20 level of "guidance" it portrays. "Precedent" is probably the best way.=20 As in "Read the case and see for yourself of the principle therein=20 confirms to the position you claimer is in". Nor do I particularly agree with the simple wording "trumps last". Again, read the case and decide for yourself if it applies. IMO, the case is similar enough to the one Sven put in this thread to=20 merit the precedent to be of value. ----- As you must be aware, I've read the case. It surely is equal to Sven's: After cashing the spade ten you've got one tr= ump and only high cards in other suits. The opponente hold a higher trump t= han your own, of which you are unaware. ----- >=20 > I quote from the appeal: > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has = high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view o= f the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include th= e trump suit, which is cashed last." >=20 > Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,= Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England). I don't think anyone can criticize the membership of that AC. ----- Nor did I. Though I've got no idea who Naki Bruni is. ----- >=20 > I'm not inclined to accept that this decision,=20 Well, then why are we discussing? There is a precedent, you may agree it has enough of the same=20 characteristics, but you don't wish to follow it. contrary to "a well-established principle" can give presedence on how=20 to rule similar cases. Well, the appeal describes a type of exception to the well-established=20 principle. Is that impossible? ----- The AC's view is that it's an exception. ----- The committee give us no background for going against the=20 well-established principle. Yes, it says that it does not apply to the trump suit. Has anyone ever=20 written up that the principle applies to the trump suit as well? ----- Surely, since it is a well-established principle, if the trump suit was bei= eved to be an exception to the principle, it would have been established a = long time ago. ----- Some other composition of the AC might have ruled 2 down instead of=20 contract making. Yes it might. But I have to tell you that there was close to no doubt=20 in the minds of any of the four members. There was no discussion=20 whatsoever. None of the members has come out saying that the case=20 ought not to be considered precedent because he does not agree with=20 it's conclusion. I believe Grattan is adding this case to the Code of Practice. Are you=20 Grattan? I believe it would be interesting to hear your perspective? >=20 > If a well-established principle should change so drastically, a change of= promulgated law is the desired procedure. >=20 I don't believe it is a drastic change. I had never read before that=20 the principle applied to the trump suit as well. If any of us had had=20 any knowledge of previous precedent, I doubt if we would have gone so=20 light over this one. We would have stated more clearly that we=20 believed the previous principle to be wrong. As it was, we believed we=20 were merely expanding on the principle, adding to it rather than=20 changing it. ----- As I've been along as a TD for more than 20 years, and have been educated b= y TD's with far longer experience, I know for sure that at least in the Sca= ndinavian countries, the principle has been applied to the trump suit as we= ll. And, frankly, I can see no logical reason why it shouldn't. To me, the = Tenerife case drastically changes a well-established principle. And should = therefore have been elaborated more clearly. -----=20 > Failing that, the proper WBF body (WBFLC?) should make a decision concern= ing how "normal" and "irrational" in laws 69-71 should be understood and in= form all NBO's of their decision. I second that feeling, but the WBFLC has often already stated that=20 they prefer to let ACs create jurisprudence without them issueing=20 verdicts. Anyway, Tenerife is two years ago, and many of the WBFLC have read the=20 discussion since then on blml. I'd like to believe that the WBF would=20 have acted if they had thought the Tenerife AC made an error. Two of the members of that AC are also members of the WBFLC. Don't you=20 think that it is unlikely the WBF does not agree with this AC? ----- Most probably, it is unlikely. I agree on that. But I don't know that. ----- As such, and for as far as it applies, I think the Tenerife case is a=20 valid precedent. I believe it applies to the case Sven put forward. ----- But then, it should be made known to TD's world wide. To accomlish that the= WBF must furnish the NBO's with the neccesary information. If the WBF told= me to rule in such a way, I would of course comply, although still believi= ng it to be wrong. If the Tenerife case is a valid precendet, of course it applies to Sven's c= ase. 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 14:15:35 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:15:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F573AF7.7060809@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > There is a third way, and Herman has himself pointed it out indirectly. > > I have never met Mr. X, and know nothing of how well he plays. The > standard I will use to rule, however, will, I admit, require some > implicit assumption as to his level of play, so I must, in effect, > guess. I shall "guess" rather differently if I encounter him in the > finals of a world championship than I would if I encountered him in the > under-20-masterpoint pairs. > > And if Mrs. Guggenheim makes it to the finals of a world championship, I > shall judge her by the same standard when ruling for that event. > > I will judge her (as I would Mr. X) by a somewhat lesser standard in her > society tournament. And if Mr. Helgemo chooses to play in Mrs. > Guggenheim's society tournament, I shall judge him by the same standard. > > The middle ground between an invariant standard and one that varies > based on the player's level is one that is based on the level of the > event, which does not perforce compromise the impartiality of those > applying it. > But the point is that you are still applying a different standard. Which is what the Norwegians were argueing against. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 14:13:03 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:13:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And References: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <009401c372e6$50474b40$bf6a3b3e@Default> Herman: > I'm also not yet convinced there is no hope of reconciliation. > Or at least of understanding the other's point of view. I think there is no hope because you don't want to understand Sven's point of view. Sven basically says that when someone claims the rest in the well know 'all winners' way then trumps ceases to have any serious meaning. Of course we assume that declarer made no statement about drawing trumps (and it is not obvious ....), and of course we assume declarers claim doesn't include ruffing out a suit. A borderline case is where declarers side remaining trump is the only entry to other winners (this will influence the rational order of cashing tricks). But it doesn't really matter. When someone claims the rest and the remaining trumps have no special function anymore then any order of cashing winners is rational whatever this Tenerife AC decides. It is their freedom to decide what they want and who knows, there might be some special considerations in this specific case. We all can come up dozens of crazy AC decisions (or contradictory decisions in the same event) also at the EBL/WBF level. For this reason alone is is ridiculous to claim this (or any) decision is a precedent. Come on, the main goal of a tournament AC is to make sure there is a decision so there is a final result. Promoting something to a precedent should be a seperate decision. But well, for the time being the law is still the law and to me this Tenerife decision is against the law as it is written. But than the value of words like 'normal' and 'rational' changes over time. And I am quite sure in Holland we would rule this thing two down (or whatever is the minimum). Ton might oppose it (I am far from sure on this one, Ton ?) but he has been outvoted before on this type of claim problems. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And > Hello Sven, > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > I am on the point of giving up but ..... > > > > I'm also not yet convinced there is no hope of reconciliation. > Or at least of understanding the other's point of view. > > > > >>Herman De Wael > > > > ......... > > > > > >>I have told you already that I do not agree with your assessment of > >>this case. he does not believe his ten is high, he believes it is the > >>last trump. IMO not the same thing. > > > > ......... > > > > > >>No, it is the last trump, not the highest one. > > > > > > You repeatedly seem to distinguish between the claimer's trump being the > > only one left and the highest one left. > > > > Yes, because I believe that distinction to be important. > You refuse to see that there is such a distinction. Surely you must > realize that the two are not the same. > Maybe you can convince me that the cashing of the last trump must also > be considered a normal line of play, but you cannot keep on stating > that trumps always follow the same logic as non-trumps. > > > Of course there is a difference, but I cannot follow you when you say that > > the only trump left is NOT the highest trump left? Can there be any > > (nonexistent) higher trump left anywhere? > > > > No of course there cannot. But the treatment, by a player, is > different. This player "knows" that trumps have gone, and he "knows" > that his other are high. He does not know how many other cards are > left, something he does "know" about trumps. The fact that he is wrong > in one of these "knowledges" is of course not important. > When you know that your trump 10 is high, you play it, because you > don't want to be ruled "forgotten a trump". When you know it is the > last one, you claim. Now of course we never know what the player would > normally play in such a case, because players never do, they claim. > Which is why, in analogy with "suits are cashed top-down", the EBLAC > has found it necessary to issue a (directive, I'm looking for a less > strong wording) that says "last trumps are not cashed as winners, they > are kept". > You may or may not agree with that directive, but you cannot claim > that last trumps are just high cards. They are not treated that way by > any player I know. > > > > > > >> > >>I know nothing about the claim. You have not told anything. I don't > >>know why he claimed. Did he know there was a trump out and it was > >>lower than his ten, or did he think all trumps had gone. Both are > >>possible, and we cannot from you -hypothetical- deduce which is true. > > > > > > You know (because that was part of the original example posted) that the > > claimer said words to the effect that "rest is mine" and said nothing about > > any outstanding trumps. > > > > So we don't know if he thought his trump 10 was high, or last. Both > are consistent with his statement. > > > Law 70 tells you in so many words this is to be taken for a fact that he > > assumes there are no outstanding trumps left with opponents. > > > > Yes, but that is not important. Law 70 tells me I must assume. That > does not make it thus. If declarer tells me he knew there was a trump > left, and he thought his 10 was higher, I will believe him (because I > cannot rule 3 tricks otherwise). > But as I said, this is not important. We are not discussing that case. > We can assume, from now on, that we know claimer thought there were no > more trumps out. > > > > >>But of course only one case is interesting - the one in which he > >>believes all trumps are gone. If he believes there is a lower trump > >>out he will lose three tricks. We agree on that one. > > > > > > > > No we don't. And you keep surprising me. With one lower trump outstanding he > > shall be ruled to play his Aces first allowing opponent one trick for his > > smallest trump. The claimer shall not be allowed to pull that trump with his > > own higher trump. > > > > Yes, we agree on that one as well. Don't go changing the case into > one in which again we don't disagree. > > > > > > >>> > >>>>Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same > >>>>as other suits. > >>> > >>> > >>>Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife > >> > >>decision? It > >> > >>>appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>What laws? > > > > > > Law 70 for Heaven's sake! You are familiar with that law I assume? > > > > Of course I am. L70 just tells us to consider "normal" lines. How can > a directive telling us that something is to be consider normal be in > conflict with the laws. > Besides, the claim laws themselves make many distinctions between > trumps and non-trumps. > Tenerife cannot be against the laws, any more than the directive > "suits are cashed in any order" can be against the laws. It is just an > interpretation. > > > ............. > > > >>>>Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really > >>>>believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than to > >>>>his 2 aces? > >>> > >>> > >>>Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so > >>>whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. > >>> > >> > >>Well, it still is a trump. > > > > > > Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually so he > > believes). > > > > No, he does not. It is the highest (if you want) in the trump suit. if > you continue to say that trumps are not important, go play mixed > tournaments. > > > ........ > > > >>I have told you seven times already that it is not the highest spade, > >>it is the last trump. > > > > > > And why is that not the highest spade left? > > > > It is, but that is not important. I am not saying it is not a spade, > you seem to be saying it is not a trump. It is. > > > ......... > > > > > >>>Yes, not on how to judge as such but on the result of that judgment > >> > >>because > >> > >>>now there is a different line of play that leads to the less favorable > >>>result. It doesn't matter for the logic to be applied for the ruling as > >>>such. > >>> > >> > >>No Sven, misanalysed. Your case had the 10 of trumps with the J in > >>opponent. Change the case to the 2 of trumps with the 3 in opponent. > >>Just the same case. Yet you may not be as willing to have this player > >>"cash" his high spade. > > > > > > Of course I shall, why not? It is (in his opinion) the only card left in > > that suit. > > > > Which happens to be trumps. > > > > >>Trumps are not other suits. In trumps, you count how many are left, in > >>other suits, you count if any higher remain. > > > > > > Whether you count how many cards are left or whether any higher card remains > > is immaterial when according to law 70 you have clearly stated you "know" > > that all your own cards are high regardless of in which order you play your > > suits. > > > > And the directive "suits are cashed in any order" has been changed > into "suits are cashed in any order except trumps which are cashed last". > Why should the one interpretation be any better than the other? > You fail to see that neither interpretation is "according to the > laws". The laws just use a word "normal". We have to define what > normal is, and we find a case here in which two TD's have a discussion > about what constitutes normalcy. Why not accept some higher > authority's verdict? > > > Sven > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 14:24:27 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:24:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <020301c372e5$696af3c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> <020301c372e5$696af3c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F573D0B.9010607@hdw.be> Sorry Nigel, but this is not funny. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump > suit is not the same as other suits. And the directive > "suits are cashed in any order" has been changed > into "suits are cashed in any order except trumps which > are cashed last". > > [Nigel] > > Where in TLFB does it say that a controversial, > obscure AC decision creates a precedent with the > force of law? > Obscure? Controversial? Force of Law? Precedent - yes. > If such a decision can make a radical change to the > law, why is it never publicised? > Change? Radical? > Why not publish regular TFLB revisions on the Net, > first, as proposals, so that the volume of support/ > objection can be guaged? > Revisions? Net? (what are we doing here, you think?) > Oh dear!... what a bore!... Sorry again. > Oh dear. Just to clarify some of my remarks above. We all know what the law says. If any of you can point me to the passage in the law that tells us if we must award 1 trick or 3 to the opponents, let him go hang himself. It's simply not there. The law speaks, ultimately, of the word irrational. If anyone can give me a clear indication how this applies to this case, let him join the other one on that same tree. The law simply does NOT cater for this borderline case. And I am from now on deleting any simpleton who tells me that it does. So this is not a change of law. Sven and I both have clear ideas about how we judge a particular line to be normal. Sven believes it is rational to play the S10 first, I don't. And there is no letter of law which either of us can use to "prove" our point. Does that mean that the law is unworkable? Maybe, if that is the definition you want to give of unworkable. I believe all alternative laws to be inferior. Anyway, this is the law and we have to rule. Now in this case Sven will rule 3 tricks to the defence and I will rule one. OK, that's not a bad problem, IMO. But still, Sven and I would prefer it if we both arrived at the same solution. So we start discussing the case. Now at some point Sven will see the light and agree with me that this is too borderline to judge other than by precedent. And that is what Tenerife is- a precedent, nothing more nor less. As to your other qualifiers (obscure, radical, controversial), the less said the better. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Sep 4 14:37:05 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:37:05 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB82@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: >>>> >>>>Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so >>>>whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. >>>> >>> >>>Well, it still is a trump. >> >> >>Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually so= he >>believes). >> >=20 >=20 > Herman: >=20 > No, he does not. It is the highest (if you want) in the trump suit. if=20 > you continue to say that trumps are not important, go play mixed=20 > tournaments. >=20 > Frances: >=20 > Now you've said something that I really don't understand. What are you > talking about? (I'm not being sarcastic, I truly have no idea what you > are trying to say here). >=20 What I am trying to express is that there is a difference between the=20 trump suit and some other suit. Harald and Sven are apparently of the=20 opinion that trumps is a suit like any other. That is maifestly untrue. ----- We believe that when it comes to cashing winners, winners in the trums suit= i like any other "high cards". The face value is of no importans, the suit= is of no importance. If you know your hand contains only winners, we belie= ve playing them in any sequence is "normal" and not "irrational". -----=20 The principle "suits in any order" does not apply, because I believe=20 this only applies among non-trump suits. ----- That you believe this only applies among non-trump suits is not a deciding = factor. ----- The question that needs to be answered is what are the normal lines=20 play when a declarer thinks his trumps are last and his other suits=20 are high. I am not stating that there must necessarily be a different answer, I=20 am merely contesting the Norwegians' position that there is a=20 "guideline" that says that "suits are played in any order". I am saying that the situation is different when this is trumps or=20 no-trumps. ----- We hear what you say, We've got no idea where your notion comes from. It go= es against what we've learned and practised for years and years. ----- Only after Sven has agreed that this is a special case, can we go on=20 to dealing with this special case. Stressing that the trump is believed to be high as well serves no=20 purpose. It is also thought to be last, and I happen to believe that=20 this matters. ----- I can't see what makes this a special case. As Sven said, it's quite common= in claim cases that the claimer believes he's got the only trump(s) left a= nd is mistaken. What varies is if the outstanding trump is the highest rema= ining trump or not. But as the claimer believes there's no outstanding trum= p, it doesn't matter much. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo >=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 _______________________________________________ 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Sep 4 14:39:23 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:39:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB7F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F572760.1000004@hdw.be> <008101c372e2$862d58c0$bf6a3b3e@Default> <3F5738CA.4000606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a801c372ea$1bd89b80$bf6a3b3e@Default> Herman > Jaap, the problem was not one of bridge judgment, but about a legal > issue as tow whether or not some line of play must be included in > "normal" or not. Whether or not some line of play must be included in 'normal' is (also) bridge judgement because it requires an assessment of that line of play. > If you believe that people laike Jens, Grattan and myself are not up > to that task ... I have been quite clear on that one. Since most if not all AC work is about bridge judgements at the level of the event, AC's members should be mainly players of the level of the event at hand. This AC, like Oostende, seems to have only one member who qualifies. Now nothing wrong with one member (probably the chair) being less of a player and more of a TD/law expert/official, but one is more than enough. But to even clearer, I do think that someone with your limited bridge skills has no business whatsoever deciding on the normality of a line of play, let alone when it is about an EC case. The fact that you claim it to be unanimous doesn't change anything. Big deal, a guy like you will follow whatever the big shot on the committee says because you know he knows more about bridge than you do. This way Jens gets to make decisions alone (even if he doesn't want that). To prevent this you need at least three independent bridge skill qualified members on a AC who are not overimpressed when Jens (or Rodwell or Zia) gives his first opinion. I would have made plenty of crazy decisions if there was not someone around to criticise my first or second thoughts (and the other way round). You need serious opposition to have a change to get the decision right. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >>I don't think anyone can criticize the membership of that AC. > > > > > > The hell you can. This AC applied some bridge judgement at the EC level. Now > > Jens is a player at this level. What about the others ? I have said a couple > > of times before that this kind of AC's is no good. There should be more > > players and less officials (yes I know all officials are also players and by > > serving on an AC a player becomes an official).You might not agree with me, > > but your statement that the memebership of this AC is above discussion, is > > insane. > > > > Jaap, the problem was not one of bridge judgment, but about a legal > issue as tow whether or not some line of play must be included in > "normal" or not. > > If you believe that people laike Jens, Grattan and myself are not up > to that task ... > > > > > -- > 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 4 15:04:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:04:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And References: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> <020301c372e5$696af3c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F573D0B.9010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <026f01c372ed$84a00100$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] Sorry Nigel but this is not funny [Nigel] It is not amusing but it is peculiar. [Herman] Obscure? Controversial? Force of Law? Precedent - yes. Change? Radical? [Nigel] Well, I'm only a player and the ruling went against all my previous understandings about claims. [Herman] Revisions? Net? (what are we doing here, you think? [Nigel] Not a small discussion group for *TDs* like BLML but on a WBF laws web page for *players* with links to all site with local jurisdiction. The best place for changes is in TFLB itself, not in minutes or AC reports. [Herman] And that is what Tenerife is- a precedent, nothing more nor less. [Nigel] I have no fundamental objection to the new rule - "trumps last" -- I just think that it should be agreed by WBFLC, inserted into TFLB, and publicised. --- 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@ripe.net Thu Sep 4 15:01:14 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:01:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Warning: moderator offline. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, Just a warning that I'll be completely OFFLINE from Saturday 6, +/- noon until Monday 15(!), and will only rarely be able to read email during the week of the 15-19. And, yes, there are still places in the world without Internet connectivity... 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 nancy@dressing.org Thu Sep 4 15:00:52 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy Dressing) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:00:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double mail In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B1C@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <001201c372ec$f6ea3ba0$0200a8c0@un> I am having the same problem only I was getting three copies. Two went to my BLML file and one in my inbox. Yuk!!! How do I solve this? My trash bin gets very full!!! Nancy -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sinot Martin Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 4:19 AM To: Bridge Laws (E-mail) Subject: RE: [blml] Double mail Hmm, seems that a new spam rule caused the problem (not created by me :) ); it caused all BLML messages to be moved to the Junk folder AND the BLML folder. A slight change in the rule seems to have solved the problem. Sorry for the trouble. -- Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sinot Martin > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:32 > To: Bridge Laws (E-mail) > Subject: [blml] Double mail > > > Hello, > > I seem to get everything twice at the moment. Does anyone else notice > this problem? > > -- > Martin Sinot > martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 4 15:09:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:09:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <009401c372e6$50474b40$bf6a3b3e@Default> References: <000301c372cd$f69e7db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> <009401c372e6$50474b40$bf6a3b3e@Default> Message-ID: <3F5747B4.3090803@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>I'm also not yet convinced there is no hope of reconciliation. >>Or at least of understanding the other's point of view. > > > > I think there is no hope because you don't want to understand Sven's point > of view. > Oh, I understand Sven's point all right. Does he understand mine? > Sven basically says that when someone claims the rest in the well know 'all > winners' way then trumps ceases to have any serious meaning. And why should that be true? Of course we > assume that declarer made no statement about drawing trumps (and it is not > obvious ....), and of course we assume declarers claim doesn't include > ruffing out a suit. A borderline case is where declarers side remaining > trump is the only entry to other winners (this will influence the rational > order of cashing tricks). > So you see that trumps are still trumps. > But it doesn't really matter. When someone claims the rest and the remaining > trumps have no special function anymore then any order of cashing winners is > rational That is one point of view. whatever this Tenerife AC decides. It is their freedom to decide > what they want and who knows, there might be some special considerations in > this specific case. We all can come up dozens of crazy AC decisions (or > contradictory decisions in the same event) also at the EBL/WBF level. For > this reason alone is is ridiculous to claim this (or any) decision is a > precedent. Come on, the main goal of a tournament AC is to make sure there > is a decision so there is a final result. Promoting something to a precedent > should be a seperate decision. > Agreed. But when we don't get to a particular agreement, is not precedent one way of achieving consensus? > But well, for the time being the law is still the law and to me this > Tenerife decision is against the law as it is written. But than the value of > words like 'normal' and 'rational' changes over time. > And that is exactly the kind of statement that irates me no end. We are talking about the law among experts in it, and after we've discussed for 3 weeks how the law applies to a particular case and not reaching an agreement, someone -and not the most expert- has the audacity to claim that one side's point of view is "against the law as it is written". Sorry Jaap, but that is going just too far. > And I am quite sure in Holland we would rule this thing two down (or > whatever is the minimum). Ton might oppose it (I am far from sure on this > one, Ton ?) but he has been outvoted before on this type of claim problems. > It's one or three, but who's counting. One less than what Herman says ought to be right for Jaap. > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And > > > >>Hello Sven, >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>I am on the point of giving up but ..... >>> >> >>I'm also not yet convinced there is no hope of reconciliation. >>Or at least of understanding the other's point of view. >> >> >>>>Herman De Wael >>> >>>......... >>> >>> >>> >>>>I have told you already that I do not agree with your assessment of >>>>this case. he does not believe his ten is high, he believes it is the >>>>last trump. IMO not the same thing. >>> >>>......... >>> >>> >>> >>>>No, it is the last trump, not the highest one. >>> >>> >>>You repeatedly seem to distinguish between the claimer's trump being the >>>only one left and the highest one left. >>> >> >>Yes, because I believe that distinction to be important. >>You refuse to see that there is such a distinction. Surely you must >>realize that the two are not the same. >>Maybe you can convince me that the cashing of the last trump must also >>be considered a normal line of play, but you cannot keep on stating >>that trumps always follow the same logic as non-trumps. >> >> >>>Of course there is a difference, but I cannot follow you when you say > > that > >>>the only trump left is NOT the highest trump left? Can there be any >>>(nonexistent) higher trump left anywhere? >>> >> >>No of course there cannot. But the treatment, by a player, is >>different. This player "knows" that trumps have gone, and he "knows" >>that his other are high. He does not know how many other cards are >>left, something he does "know" about trumps. The fact that he is wrong >>in one of these "knowledges" is of course not important. >>When you know that your trump 10 is high, you play it, because you >>don't want to be ruled "forgotten a trump". When you know it is the >>last one, you claim. Now of course we never know what the player would >>normally play in such a case, because players never do, they claim. >>Which is why, in analogy with "suits are cashed top-down", the EBLAC >>has found it necessary to issue a (directive, I'm looking for a less >>strong wording) that says "last trumps are not cashed as winners, they >>are kept". >>You may or may not agree with that directive, but you cannot claim >>that last trumps are just high cards. They are not treated that way by >>any player I know. >> >> >>> >>>>I know nothing about the claim. You have not told anything. I don't >>>>know why he claimed. Did he know there was a trump out and it was >>>>lower than his ten, or did he think all trumps had gone. Both are >>>>possible, and we cannot from you -hypothetical- deduce which is true. >>> >>> >>>You know (because that was part of the original example posted) that the >>>claimer said words to the effect that "rest is mine" and said nothing > > about > >>>any outstanding trumps. >>> >> >>So we don't know if he thought his trump 10 was high, or last. Both >>are consistent with his statement. >> >> >>>Law 70 tells you in so many words this is to be taken for a fact that he >>>assumes there are no outstanding trumps left with opponents. >>> >> >>Yes, but that is not important. Law 70 tells me I must assume. That >>does not make it thus. If declarer tells me he knew there was a trump >>left, and he thought his 10 was higher, I will believe him (because I >>cannot rule 3 tricks otherwise). >>But as I said, this is not important. We are not discussing that case. >>We can assume, from now on, that we know claimer thought there were no >>more trumps out. >> >> >>>>But of course only one case is interesting - the one in which he >>>>believes all trumps are gone. If he believes there is a lower trump >>>>out he will lose three tricks. We agree on that one. >>> >>> >>> >>>No we don't. And you keep surprising me. With one lower trump > > outstanding he > >>>shall be ruled to play his Aces first allowing opponent one trick for > > his > >>>smallest trump. The claimer shall not be allowed to pull that trump with > > his > >>>own higher trump. >>> >> >>Yes, we agree on that one as well. Don't go changing the case into >>one in which again we don't disagree. >> >> >>> >>>>>>Tenerife has (clearly) established that the trump suit is not the same >>>>>>as other suits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife >>>> >>>>decision? It >>>> >>>> >>>>>appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>What laws? >>> >>> >>>Law 70 for Heaven's sake! You are familiar with that law I assume? >>> >> >>Of course I am. L70 just tells us to consider "normal" lines. How can >>a directive telling us that something is to be consider normal be in >>conflict with the laws. >>Besides, the claim laws themselves make many distinctions between >>trumps and non-trumps. >>Tenerife cannot be against the laws, any more than the directive >>"suits are cashed in any order" can be against the laws. It is just an >>interpretation. >> >> >>>............. >>> >>> >>>>>>Change your example and give claimer the 2 of trumps. Do you really >>>>>>believe the player does not look at his trump suit differently than to >>>>>>his 2 aces? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Certainly not, he is convinced that his trump is the last remaining; so >>>>>whether it is the 2 or the Ace or any card in between is immaterial. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Well, it still is a trump. >>> >>> >>>Immaterial; it is the highest remaining card in that suit (or actually > > so he > >>>believes). >>> >> >>No, he does not. It is the highest (if you want) in the trump suit. if >>you continue to say that trumps are not important, go play mixed >>tournaments. >> >> >>>........ >>> >>> >>>>I have told you seven times already that it is not the highest spade, >>>>it is the last trump. >>> >>> >>>And why is that not the highest spade left? >>> >> >>It is, but that is not important. I am not saying it is not a spade, >>you seem to be saying it is not a trump. It is. >> >> >>>......... >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Yes, not on how to judge as such but on the result of that judgment >>>> >>>>because >>>> >>>> >>>>>now there is a different line of play that leads to the less favorable >>>>>result. It doesn't matter for the logic to be applied for the ruling as >>>>>such. >>>>> >>>> >>>>No Sven, misanalysed. Your case had the 10 of trumps with the J in >>>>opponent. Change the case to the 2 of trumps with the 3 in opponent. >>>>Just the same case. Yet you may not be as willing to have this player >>>>"cash" his high spade. >>> >>> >>>Of course I shall, why not? It is (in his opinion) the only card left in >>>that suit. >>> >> >>Which happens to be trumps. >> >> >>>>Trumps are not other suits. In trumps, you count how many are left, in >>>>other suits, you count if any higher remain. >>> >>> >>>Whether you count how many cards are left or whether any higher card > > remains > >>>is immaterial when according to law 70 you have clearly stated you > > "know" > >>>that all your own cards are high regardless of in which order you play > > your > >>>suits. >>> >> >>And the directive "suits are cashed in any order" has been changed >>into "suits are cashed in any order except trumps which are cashed last". >>Why should the one interpretation be any better than the other? >>You fail to see that neither interpretation is "according to the >>laws". The laws just use a word "normal". We have to define what >>normal is, and we find a case here in which two TD's have a discussion >>about what constitutes normalcy. Why not accept some higher >>authority's verdict? >> >> >>>Sven >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 4 15:38:39 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:38:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <02b801c372f2$3badbdc0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap] Nigel, this is a 'well known' approach to the problem. Just some thoughts about it, no real analysis. [Nigel] Few simple ideas are original. [Jaap] WBF standard is silly. It doesn't exsist.... [Nigel] I'm told it does; but any universally agreed system would do at a pinch. [Jaap] This [preventing explanations with a face-down explain card] I don't like. So the opps have to decidebeforehand who will benefit more. On the other hand you give players an option which doesn't exist right now. [Nigel] You may opt this way to reduce UI between opponents if you think they don't know their system. What is so wrong with reducing UI? [Jaap] [by facing the explain card] You avoid possible opp UI but quite possibly you get other UI in return. [Nigel] Whenever you ask for an explanation of an alerted bid you take this same risk. [Jaap] I believe more in restrictions on systems at lower levels of play. If only a limited set of conventions is legal then by implication you have arelatively simple alert procedure. At higher level I believe more in the concept of pre alerts. The things that are supposed to be on the front page of the CC. To keep pairs tournaments (in the sense of few boards a table) playable you probably have to limit the number of 'weird' conventions a pair can play. But the current alert rule should be way more restrictive. I remember silly things like you should not alert Stayman if it promises a major but alert if not. Or you should alert a jump overcall if it is weak but not if it is intermediate. An so on. This kind of detail is at this stage irrelevant for the opponents but kills the baic purpose of the alert procedure. Which is to protect the next opponent in a competitive situation. But what has happend in real life. When playing with sponsors they sometimes get mad at me because I alert something or not. Then they are afraid I haven't understood something. So it became clear to me that by now alerts are used as communication between partners (no intention or agreement or so) rather than to warn the opps. You will have the same problems with explains or the like. Apart from anything else the current alert should be split in two different kind of alerts. One for 'conventional', one for 'prone to be misunderstood'. Seems complicated but at least an alert (or double alert) has some real meaning. Suppose someone alerts 1NT pass 2C and you might bid something. You have no idea if he alerts just because it is a special case of Stayman or that he comes from a place where you have to alert Stayman anyway (in all those cases the alert is rather meaningless, 2C is just what you expect). OR that it is not Stayman in the first place (now you need to be told). [Nigel] I agree that alert laws are complex, arbitrary, and change from country to country and year to year. A *standard system* evolves much more slowly. I also agree that some pairs use alerts in the way you describe to wake up their partner's to system bids and to confirm that they recognise a convention. By turning your "explain card" face-down you prevent all that UI. [Jaap] In real life we already play like that with screens. Most (fair) players are very clear when an alert is just a legal formality or when an alert is serious. [Nigel] I wasn't talking about screens. [Jaap] Well, of course we are not going to bother beginners with that. I don't know exactly what are Wolff penalties but I hate this difference between good/bad bid versus bad/good explanation. All mistakes in say the first two rounds of bidding (or whatever limit plus maybe some list of conventions) should be ruled as misexplanation. I agree with Wolff that the opponents should be protected against you not knowing your system, specially when using destructive competitive conventions. In Holland we rule mistakes in competitive conventions that way since a couple of years. The legal trick; if you get a first round bid wrong (the main problem being two suited overcalls) you probably don't understand your system at all so you cann't explain it correctly anyway. Anyway there is a lot to be said to rule all mistakes in conventions as misexplanation. The opponents are hardly in a position to judge the likelyhood of you making mistakes in a convention they might not even know. [Nigel] I agree. Recently in BLML, I argued at length that even if you don't know you should have to guess; and if you guess wrong you should be penalised for MI. But I still feel that if you are a beginner trying to learn the standard system, such sanctions should not apply. Even if you are playing in a highly rated competition. --- 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 svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 4 17:00:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:00:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F57235A.2010304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c372fd$b617a0c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........ > >>>Isn't that exactly why so many of us do not accept the Tenerife > >> > >>decision? It > >> > >>>appears to be fundamentally in conflict with the laws. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>What laws? > > > > > > Law 70 for Heaven's sake! You are familiar with that law I assume? > > >=20 > Of course I am. L70 just tells us to consider "normal" lines.=20 Law 70C requires the Director to make his ruling as if the claimer = "knows" that there is no outstanding trump with either opponent unless the = claimer with his claim statement shows that he obviously is aware of such = trump(s). In this thread we are bound by the fact that the claimer has forgotten = the outstanding trump. Thus any discussion on whether he might believe that opponent's trump is higher or lower than his own is completely = irrelevant. He doesn't believe or suspect that any of the opponents has any trump at all. He is not even allowed to get that idea as a result of opponents objecting to his claim. Therefore the Director is inhibited from allowing any line of play = involving some kind of "insurance" against a forgotten trump whether that = forgotten trump should happen to be the highest remaining trump or not. The moment you as a director (or on the AC) argue that you must = establish whether the claimer suspects that there could be an outstanding trump = and let this consideration influence your ruling you have made a serious violation of Laws 70C and 82C. You "know" that the claimer "knows" that there is no outstanding trump = so he has absolutely no logical alternative insuring himself against it. You "know" that the claimer "knows" that he holds the highest cards in = every suit where he has a card. Therefore the sequence in which he selects (or happens) to play his = suits (trump or not trump) is immaterial and as a director you are bound by = Law 70 to rule that he plays his suits in the most unlucky sequence; trump as = well as side suits. The reference to "normal" play in Law 70 must be read as depending upon = the condition that the claimer "knows" that neither opponent has any trump. When this knowledge happens to be wrong; sorry for him. Finito. Sven =20 From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 4 17:17:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:17:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F573D0B.9010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c37300$0c4dded0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > Sven and I both have clear ideas about how we judge a particular line > to be normal. Sven believes it is rational to play the S10 first, I > don't. And there is no letter of law which either of us can use to > "prove" our point. I have never said that. I have said that playing S10 first is one logical alternative among several, neither of which is "irrational". Remember that because the claimer shall be ruled to have forgotten any outstanding trump with opponents (according to Law 70C); he is now not allowed to select for his line of play any logical alternative based on a suspicion that there could be an outstanding trump which he might have forgotten. ........ > Now at some point Sven will see the light and agree with me that this > is too borderline to judge other than by precedent. You are flattering! I'm afraid that I shall never "see the light" if this means that I shall allow the claimer who demonstrably does not know that there is an outstanding trump with either opponent to select any successful line of play which takes the possibility of such trump into consideration while there are other lines of play still available. He shall be allowed to change his line of play from the moment that outstanding trump is actually played, not before. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 4 19:39:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:39:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard System In-Reply-To: <01f701c372e2$eba5e8c0$429468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <0EBD4A96-DF07-11D7-A0D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003, at 08:48 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > That is precisely what I was suggesting -- for example > that players in an individual would all agree to *play* > the standard system. This, it seems to me, obviates one of the most interesting aspects of the game - the ability to define and play a system that is different, to whatever degree, than the "standard". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 4 19:45:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:45:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F573A31.6020302@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003, at 09:12 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > The principle "suits in any order" does not apply, because I believe > this only applies among non-trump suits. Not to be too nit-picky, but I think you mean rather "I believe the principle "suits in any order does not apply because..." The construct you have above parses to: "I believe X, therefore X is true, and *therefore* Y is true". The first part of that is logically insupportable. :) From bbickford@charter.net Thu Sep 4 19:46:42 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:46:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard System References: <0EBD4A96-DF07-11D7-A0D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005501c37314$e3a5cd20$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard System > > On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003, at 08:48 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > That is precisely what I was suggesting -- for example > > that players in an individual would all agree to *play* > > the standard system. > > This, it seems to me, obviates one of the most interesting aspects of > the game - the ability to define and play a system that is different, > to whatever degree, than the "standard". > > Ed, I think you missed that the tournament in question would be an individual where you play a smaal number (usually one) of boards with each partner. Cheers........................./Bill Bickford > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Sep 3 10:57:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:57:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Shrewd or screwed? References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c37315$86af51d0$d429e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Herman wrote (extracts): > There are two separate cases: > > 1) declarer thinks his S10 is high, but not last. > he will of course play it and lose 3 tricks - easy. > > 2) declarer thinks his S10 is last. > > This is a difficult situation, and we need guidance. > Tenerife has provided this - last trumps are not > cashed but kept, one trick to opponents. > > What we need is for every TD to rule the same > way. Why should that be this way and not another > one. I said that this is the grey area. wherever the > boundary lies, there will be grey areas, except in > the extreme Burn rule - least of all legal plays. > > We might well have as guideline that the trump > ace is always cashed, because that cannot lose, > and that the trump two is never cashed, because > that cannot win. So what about the trump ten? > You cannot present an example that is very close, > and then say that you always rule in comparable > situations. > +=+ In the above I think Herman appraises the position accurately. The Tenerife precedent is all we have on the principle at this time. Let me say that, for my class of player (hmmm...) to play out the trump would be unthinkable, so imprudent as to be irrational. My opinion is that if a player does not either (a) draw trump before claiming, or (b) include a reference to trumps in his statement of claim, the inference to be drawn is that he believes either that there is no trump to be drawn or that his may not be the higher trump. He has no thought of playing his trump. I think, therefore, that he should probably not be permitted to play trump until the other suits are exhausted, in all such circumstances whatever cards opponents may hold, and that the law should say this. I recognize that the 'Pound of Flesh' school of thought does not share this view, but that school tries to ignore, as ineffectual, the existence in Law 46 of the words "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" whilst the fact is that those words stand there as bold as life at this time and have to be applied. Application of the given meaning of the law to cases is precisely the prerogative of Appeals Committees. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 4 19:52:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:52:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <000001c372fd$b617a0c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003, at 12:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > The reference to "normal" play in Law 70 must be read as depending > upon the > condition that the claimer "knows" that neither opponent has any trump. > > When this knowledge happens to be wrong; sorry for him. > > Finito. FWIW, Sven's argument makes sense to me. From freedomains-now@yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 4 19:35:38 2003 From: freedomains-now@yahoo.co.uk (relevant domain names) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:35:38 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) email with a difference Message-ID: WERGVWERGVREV
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 rwilley@mit.edu Thu Sep 4 20:08:23 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:08:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard System In-Reply-To: <0EBD4A96-DF07-11D7-A0D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <0EBD4A96-DF07-11D7-A0D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1062702503.3f578da758af8@webmail.mit.edu> Nigel I approve of the idea that alert structures should be based on a "standard" system. However, I think that the particular implementation that you are suggesting is badly flawed. Experience has shown that individual National organizations have enormous difficulty deciding what is "standard". You are advocating defining a world wide "standard" system that will apply to a much larger and more diverse user base. If a system like the one you advocate is going to succeed (and I hope that it will), then it needs to be adopted locally and diffuse upwards rather than be imposed using the top down approach that you advocate. My own belief is that online bridge provides the best venue to adopt this type of model. The ability to automate anouncments and the ability to transmit information to the opponents without providing UI to partner eliminates many of the traditional arguments against the system that you propose. In short, while I like your agenda, I think that there are more appropriate venues where you should be pursuing it. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 20:36:14 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:36:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <000101c37300$0c4dded0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c37300$0c4dded0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F57942E.1030800@hdw.be> Sven raises a very interesting point and I shall have to look it up. See below. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>Sven and I both have clear ideas about how we judge a particular line >>to be normal. Sven believes it is rational to play the S10 first, I >>don't. And there is no letter of law which either of us can use to >>"prove" our point. > > > I have never said that. I have said that playing S10 first is one logical > alternative among several, neither of which is "irrational". > Ehm, Sven, do you simply want to contradict me? I write: "Sven believes it is rational to play the S10" And you reply: I have never said that. "I believe that playing the S10 is not irrational" Ehm - I don't think I've ever quoted someone so accurately ever before. > Remember that because the claimer shall be ruled to have forgotten any > outstanding trump with opponents (according to Law 70C); he is now not > allowed to select for his line of play any logical alternative based on a > suspicion that there could be an outstanding trump which he might have > forgotten. > Interesting - see below. > ........ > >>Now at some point Sven will see the light and agree with me that this >>is too borderline to judge other than by precedent. > > > You are flattering! I'm afraid that I shall never "see the light" if this > means that I shall allow the claimer who demonstrably does not know that > there is an outstanding trump with either opponent to select any successful > line of play which takes the possibility of such trump into consideration > while there are other lines of play still available. He shall be allowed to > change his line of play from the moment that outstanding trump is actually > played, not before. > Let's see what the point is Sven is trying to make. I admit that it sounds like something new and might shed new light to it. Sven refers to a claimer who has forgotten a trump. Let's read L70C: 1) and 2) apply, but alas for you, Sven: 3) a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. Sorry but we're back where we started. Is the S10 (cashing a last trump) a normal line or not. Sorry Sven - can't help you there. > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 4 20:39:14 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:39:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <000001c372fd$b617a0c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c372fd$b617a0c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F5794E2.1010702@hdw.be> No Sorry Sven. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > > Law 70C requires the Director to make his ruling as if the claimer "knows" > that there is no outstanding trump with either opponent unless the claimer > with his claim statement shows that he obviously is aware of such trump(s). > exactly. > In this thread we are bound by the fact that the claimer has forgotten the > outstanding trump. Thus any discussion on whether he might believe that > opponent's trump is higher or lower than his own is completely irrelevant. > He doesn't believe or suspect that any of the opponents has any trump at > all. He is not even allowed to get that idea as a result of opponents > objecting to his claim. > exactly. > Therefore the Director is inhibited from allowing any line of play involving > some kind of "insurance" against a forgotten trump whether that forgotten > trump should happen to be the highest remaining trump or not. > As long as we are talking insurance, you are right. But we are not - we are talking about normal lines. > The moment you as a director (or on the AC) argue that you must establish > whether the claimer suspects that there could be an outstanding trump and > let this consideration influence your ruling you have made a serious > violation of Laws 70C and 82C. > > You "know" that the claimer "knows" that there is no outstanding trump so he > has absolutely no logical alternative insuring himself against it. > > You "know" that the claimer "knows" that he holds the highest cards in every > suit where he has a card. > > Therefore the sequence in which he selects (or happens) to play his suits > (trump or not trump) is immaterial and as a director you are bound by Law 70 > to rule that he plays his suits in the most unlucky sequence; trump as well > as side suits. > > The reference to "normal" play in Law 70 must be read as depending upon the > condition that the claimer "knows" that neither opponent has any trump. > Yes, but there is alos the insurance against declarer being wrong in some other suit being high. It is "normal" to keep your trump for that eventuality. > When this knowledge happens to be wrong; sorry for him. > > Finito. > Sorry, not yet. Good try though, and I'm glad for the extra argumentation. > 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 Sep 4 21:48:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:48:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F57942E.1030800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c37325$d58715d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven raises a very interesting point and I shall have to look it up. > See below. >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Herman De Wael > > > > ............ > > > >>Sven and I both have clear ideas about how we judge a particular = line > >>to be normal. Sven believes it is rational to play the S10 first, I > >>don't. And there is no letter of law which either of us can use to > >>"prove" our point. > > > > > > I have never said that. I have said that playing S10 first is one > logical > > alternative among several, neither of which is "irrational". > > >=20 > Ehm, Sven, do you simply want to contradict me? No, but I want to emphasize that there is a real difference between a = play being *the* normal play and a play being one among several normal plays. In your words what I have said is that playing the S10 is normal and = *not* playing the S10 is also normal, ......... > > Remember that because the claimer shall be ruled to have forgotten = any > > outstanding trump with opponents (according to Law 70C); he is now = not > > allowed to select for his line of play any logical alternative based = on > a > > suspicion that there could be an outstanding trump which he might = have > > forgotten. > > >=20 > Interesting - see below. >=20 > > ........ > > > >>Now at some point Sven will see the light and agree with me that = this > >>is too borderline to judge other than by precedent. > > > > > > You are flattering! I'm afraid that I shall never "see the light" if > this > > means that I shall allow the claimer who demonstrably does not know = that > > there is an outstanding trump with either opponent to select any > successful > > line of play which takes the possibility of such trump into > consideration > > while there are other lines of play still available. He shall be = allowed > to > > change his line of play from the moment that outstanding trump is > actually > > played, not before. > > >=20 > Let's see what the point is Sven is trying to make. I admit that it > sounds like something new and might shed new light to it. >=20 > Sven refers to a claimer who has forgotten a trump. > Let's read L70C: >=20 > 1) and 2) apply, but alas for you, Sven: >=20 > 3) a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. >=20 > Sorry but we're back where we started. Is the S10 (cashing a last > trump) a normal line or not. If the player has the highest heart, the highest diamond and the only remaining trump it doesn't matter in which order he plays them. It may = be considered careless or even inferior to cash his high trump first, but = any sequence in which he plays his three cards is equally "normal" in the = sense that none of the six possible different sequences is "irrational" = whatever class of player we have involved. Remember: He *does* know that all his three cards are "high" and he *does* know that neither opponent has any trump left. Maybe it is you who eventually might see the light? There is nothing borderline with the rank of your trump when you know = that it is the only trump left. Sven From walt1@verizon.net Thu Sep 4 21:49:02 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:49:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Shrewd or screwed? In-Reply-To: <000a01c37315$86af51d0$d429e150@endicott> References: <000101c37128$b6aff040$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3F54635F.4040505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030904164527.02226e10@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:57 AM 3/09/2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott(alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " There spoke up a brisk little somebody, > Critic and whippersnapper, in a rage > To set things right," > ['Balaustion's Adventure'] >================================== > > My opinion is that if a player does not either >(a) draw trump before claiming, or (b) include a >reference to trumps in his statement of claim, >the inference to be drawn is that he believes >either that there is no trump to be drawn or that >his may not be the higher trump. He has no >thought of playing his trump. I think, therefore, >that he should probably not be permitted to play >trump until the other suits are exhausted, in all >such circumstances whatever cards opponents >may hold, and that the law should say this. > > ~ G ~ +=+ Grattan I hope that this makes it into the next edition of the laws. Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 4 22:26:29 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:26:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F573AF7.7060809@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904171148.01f45640@pop.starpower.net> At 09:15 AM 9/4/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>There is a third way, and Herman has himself pointed it out indirectly. >>I have never met Mr. X, and know nothing of how well he plays. The >>standard I will use to rule, however, will, I admit, require some >>implicit assumption as to his level of play, so I must, in effect, >>guess. I shall "guess" rather differently if I encounter him in the >>finals of a world championship than I would if I encountered him in >>the under-20-masterpoint pairs. >>And if Mrs. Guggenheim makes it to the finals of a world >>championship, I shall judge her by the same standard when ruling for >>that event. >>I will judge her (as I would Mr. X) by a somewhat lesser standard in >>her society tournament. And if Mr. Helgemo chooses to play in Mrs. >>Guggenheim's society tournament, I shall judge him by the same standard. >>The middle ground between an invariant standard and one that varies >>based on the player's level is one that is based on the level of the >>event, which does not perforce compromise the impartiality of those >>applying it. > >But the point is that you are still applying a different standard. >Which is what the Norwegians were argueing against. OK. I wasn't arguing against the Norwegians, or any other national or ethnic group in particular; I was arguing against the use of "class of player" as an element of the legal standard for ruling on disputed claims. I accept that the standard may vary; I do not accept that it may vary solely as a function of the "class of player involved". What I want is a standard that permits me to make impartial rulings. I imagine myself directing an event (at any level; it doesn't matter). Mr. Helgemo bids to 7NT, his LHO leads a heart, he says "the rest are mine on a double squeeze", and his opponents contest. When the change is called, he passes the board to the next table, where Mrs. Guggenheim, in the same seat as Mr. Helgemo, bids to 7NT, her LHO leads a heart, she says "the rest are mine on a double squeeze", and her opponents contest. To be impartial, the standard -- whatever it is -- *must* require that I give the same ruling to both Mr. Helgemo and Mrs. Guggenheim. If it permits me to take "class of player" into account, it perforce permits me not to be impartial, by definition. If it requires me to take "class of player" into account, it perforce requires me not to be impartial, by definition. That's not my opinion; that is a logical consequence of the definition of "impartial". Based on experience with players at all levels, I am convinced that the vast majority of bridge players want rules that produce impartial rulings. That, admittedly, is merely my opinion, but I'm convinced I'm right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Sep 4 21:09:31 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:09:31 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Shrewd or screwed? In-Reply-To: <000a01c37315$86af51d0$d429e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > My opinion is that if a player does not either > (a) draw trump before claiming, or (b) include a > reference to trumps in his statement of claim, > the inference to be drawn is that he believes > either that there is no trump to be drawn or that > his may not be the higher trump. Let me add one further inference here: if a player claims all the rest of the tricks in a trump contract, said player is most confident that there is not a master trump outstanding in his opponents' hands. Combining those two: if a player claims all the rest of the tricks, and neither pulls trump nor includes a reference to trumps in his claim statement, he believes there is no trump to be drawn. Period. I am amazed how many people on this list think that "I know I have all the rest, but obviously I will save one trump in case I was wrong" makes sense. The opposite idea, "I know I have all the rest, but I will pull an extra round just to make sure I didn't miscount," is one I have at least heard spoken at the table occasionally (though usually by beginners.) > I recognize that the 'Pound of Flesh' school > of thought does not share this view, but that > school tries to ignore, as ineffectual, the existence > in Law 46 of the words "except when declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible" whilst the > fact is that those words stand there as bold as life > at this time and have to be applied. Application of > the given meaning of the law to cases is precisely > the prerogative of Appeals Committees. Not at all. I recognize the existence of that sentence in Law 46. But saying "these are all winners" is compelling evidence a player intends to make no further use of the trump suit, and saying "play anything" as opposed to "pitch anything" is compelling evidence declarer is paying no attention to what is in dummy. It would be very, very hard (not impossible, but almost!) to convince me that incontrovertibly wasn't his intention. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 4 22:47:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:47:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H Double ? You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 What call do you make? (Yes, of course this is a trick question.) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Sep 4 21:34:45 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:34:45 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F56E779.30709@hdw.be> Message-ID: I indulged in a little experiment last evening. It doesn't prove anything about the rest of the world, of course, but it may shed a little light on how our game is perceived. I gave four rubber bridge players, who have played duplicate just a few times each and have no great experience with the laws, the "ST HA DA claim" we have been discussing in this thread. I asked them, "if, in your regular rubber game, declarer spreads his hand and says he has the rest, how will you score it up?" They all (knowing I was a director) asked what the law said, but I refused to tell them anything further until after they decided how they would resolve it among themselves. Declarer said, "oh... well... I guess I am going to lose all three of them, aren't I." The defenders were inclined to agree. Dummy spoke up and said "but if you lead an ace first you might do better." From there the discussion turned to the philosophy of the game. Declarer said, "well, it seems like every time I do anything wrong, it costs at least two tricks" (apparently in reference to the revoke penalty, and to some very bad luck after leading out of turn once) "so probably losing all three tricks is still right. I sort of expect to be punished every time something goes wrong, now." Everyone at the table nodded in agreement at the general belief that mistakes were routinely punished. They did wonder aloud if there were other, 'friendlier', games where this wasn't the case, but they didn't personally know of any. Then I asked them another question: would it make a difference to you whether declarer conceded three and was offered two of them back by the defenders, or whether declarer insisted that winning two tricks was the only right outcome? There was a general sense that it would be incredibly rude for declarer to *insist* on two tricks if he didn't know what was in his opponents' hands when they claimed. They wondered if perhaps there was a general rule that directors were supposed to be more generous to humble players than arrogant ones, if he was called in a tournament? I didn't torture them with any more hypotheticals. I did share my personal opinion (if I were declarer, it wouldn't occur to me to ask for a trick back, and would be mildly uneasy about accepting a gift of two tricks from the defenders) and also commented on what the laws said. In rubber bridge, it is crystal clear that the defense consciously chooses whether to to take all the rest or give two of them back (Law 69(b) in the rubber laws, "if declarer may have been unaware, at the time of his claim or concession, that a trump remained in a defender's hand, either defender may require him to draw or not to draw the outstanding trump.") In duplicate, I explained that it all depended on what plays were considered "normal" had the hand been played out, and that there was a difference of opinion about it. They found it a bit odd that the duplicate laws weren't clearer, but all subscribed to the view that if declarer didn't say, declarer had three supposedly equally good cards and might play them in any order. I don't know if I biased them into that view from my discussion or whether they all felt that way all along. On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > Thanks for your support Nigel, but then you go ... > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > And "equity" laws are among the worst offenders. > > > > Completely the opposite, I believe. This one seems to just be a he-says-she-says type of question with no clear answer. All I can add is that it's a lot easier to explain the mechanical laws than to attempt to explain this slippery concept called "equity" and guess how the play might have gone had an infraction not occurred. I can also add that, at least among the pool of rubber bridge players I polled, the unanimous opinion is that the laws currently are intended to punish mistakes, the sentence in the preface notwithstanding. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 4 23:28:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:28:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie pinned: >>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! Herman De Wael king-side pawn stormed: >Come on, Nigel, use serious arguments. >What TD has ever given such a silly ruling? >If you want to criticise the laws, at least do so from >real rulings, that have some basis in law. Richard James checkmates: A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: LHO void Declarer Dummy ATxxx KQ9xx RHO Jxxx The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the standard expert safety play in trumps. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 4 23:38:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:38:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904171148.01f45640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <84537DED-DF28-11D7-A0D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003, at 17:26 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > I imagine myself directing an event (at any level; it doesn't matter). > Mr. Helgemo bids to 7NT, his LHO leads a heart, he says "the rest are > mine on a double squeeze", and his opponents contest. When the change > is called, he passes the board to the next table, where Mrs. > Guggenheim, in the same seat as Mr. Helgemo, bids to 7NT, her LHO > leads a heart, she says "the rest are mine on a double squeeze", and > her opponents contest. > > To be impartial, the standard -- whatever it is -- *must* require that > I give the same ruling to both Mr. Helgemo and Mrs. Guggenheim. If it > permits me to take "class of player" into account, it perforce permits > me not to be impartial, by definition. If it requires me to take > "class of player" into account, it perforce requires me not to be > impartial, by definition. That's not my opinion; that is a logical > consequence of the definition of "impartial". Suppose you say to Mr. Helgemo "okay, explain to me how this double squeeze thing works" - and he correctly explains it, as he is quite likely to do. Now suppose you ask Mrs. Guggenheim the same question. Do you really think she'll give you anything *close* to Mr. Helgemo's (or any other correct) answer? I don't. And if she doesn't, then I'm ruling the claim at his table valid (assuming the squeeze actually works), and at hers not - and I don't think either of these rulings is not impartial. Please show me where I'm wrong. > Based on experience with players at all levels, I am convinced that > the vast majority of bridge players want rules that produce impartial > rulings. That, admittedly, is merely my opinion, but I'm convinced > I'm right. I 'spect you probably are. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 4 23:53:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:53:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >>I don't play tournament chess, but I'd be willing to be >>that there is a de facto (if not explicit) exception to >>the touch rule "when the player's intent is >>incontrovertable". Imagine an elderly chess player with >>severe palsy. He reaches for a piece to move it. It is >>absolutely clear to everyone watching, including his >>opponent, that he intends to move that piece. But his >>shaking hand inadvertantly grazes another piece on the >>way to it. Would he really be required to move the >>piece that he touched first by accident? I'd be >>surprised and disappointed to learn that he would. [snip] The Laws of Chess reply: >Article 7: The Touched Piece [snip] >[Note that the clause "deliberately touches" protects a >player from having to move a piece accidentally touched by >his elbow/wrist etc] Richard James notes: Even in a game as objective as Chess, its Laws use the word "deliberately" with an equivalent meaning to "when the player's intent is incontrovertable". Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 5 00:21:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:21:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard American Message-ID: Was the thread - The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational". Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >And if Mrs. Guggenheim makes it to the finals of a >world championship, I shall judge her by the same >standard when ruling for that event. > >I will judge her (as I would Mr. X) by a somewhat >lesser standard in her society tournament. And if >Mr. Helgemo chooses to play in Mrs. Guggenheim's >society tournament, I shall judge him by the same >standard. > >The middle ground between an invariant standard and >one that varies based on the player's level is one >that is based on the level of the event, which does >not perforce compromise the impartiality of those >applying it. Richard James asks: So Bud Reinhold's bridge ability mysteriously tripled when he played in the 1981 Bermuda Bowl? He was a sponsor so weak that he was benched for the entire Final, despite the USA having a huge lead towards the end of the match. :-) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 5 02:48:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:48:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard American Message-ID: Jaap, in the thread The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational", wrote: >I believe more in restictions on systems at lower >levels of play. If only a limited set of conventions >is legal then by implication you have a relatively >simple alert procedure. > >At higher level I believe more in the concept of pre >alerts. The things that are supposed to be on the >front page of the CC. To keep pairs tournaments (in >the sense of few boards a table) playable you >probably have to limit the number of 'weird' >conventions a pair can play. > >But the current alert rule should be way more >restrictive. I remember silly things like you should >not alert Stayman if it promises a major but alert if >not. Or you should alert a jump overcall if it is >weak but not if it is intermediate. And so on. This >kind of detail is at this stage irrelevant for the >opponents but kills the basic purpose of the alert >procedure. Which is to protect the next opponent in a >competitive situation. [snip] Richard James replies: Thank you Jaap, for a posting without rodomontades. I agree with all three points that you made. I personally believe that declarer, just before the opening lead is selected, should ask the defenders, "Would you like an explanation of the auction?", if it contains any unexplained subtleties - for example, such as Stayman not necessarily guaranteeing a major. The ABF has intelligently enshrined such a policy in its current Alert regulations. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Sep 5 07:45:19 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:45:19 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Nigel Guthrie pinned: >>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! Herman De Wael king-side pawn stormed: >Come on, Nigel, use serious arguments. >What TD has ever given such a silly ruling? >If you want to criticise the laws, at least do so from >real rulings, that have some basis in law. Richard James checkmates: A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: LHO void Declarer Dummy ATxxx KQ9xx RHO Jxxx The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the standard expert safety play in trumps. ----- If you remove a trump from declarer og dummy you'll come down to the normal= 13 trumps and still have a valid problem. The danish laws expert Bent Keith Hansen gave this exapmle in his "Commente= d Bridge Laws" (in danish, 1981). His ruling was: If you played the trump k= ing or indicated doing so in your claim statement, you'll get no loser. If = you didn't, you'll lose a trick to the jack. The 1975 laws applied at the time.=20 It's obvious that starting with ace is inferior and careless for the class = of player involved. An awake expert will never get this one wrong. So with = the wording of the law, I believe the TD was right. I'm not so sure I'm com= fortable with this, though. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- Best wishes Richard James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This emai= l, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Priva= cy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------- _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 5 07:50:19 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:50:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F58322B.6020202@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard James checkmates: > > A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer > merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: > > LHO > void > Declarer Dummy > ATxxx KQ9xx > RHO > Jxxx > > The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would > be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the > standard expert safety play in trumps. > Sorry Richard, but even I would play this trump suit correctly. Especially when one claims before looking well, I rule that in actual play, claimer would look well, count his trumps and that he cannot fail to conclude that one must start from the king or queen in order to guard against the 4-0 split either way. Yes, class of player involved. Someone even less talented than I might not get this one. But Richard, this is a quite different case. Nigel was talking of a player who miscounts trumps. By your account, this player has done nothing wrong (except claim before checking if it really is 100%). > Best wishes > > Richard James > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or > copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any > views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view > of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs > (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy > Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Sep 5 08:02:04 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 09:02:04 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F5834EC.8030702@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > Richard James checkmates: > > A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer > merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: > > LHO > void > Declarer Dummy > ATxxx KQ9xx > RHO > Jxxx > > The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would > be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the > standard expert safety play in trumps. > ----- > If you remove a trump from declarer og dummy you'll come down to the normal 13 trumps and still have a valid problem. > The danish laws expert Bent Keith Hansen gave this exapmle in his "Commented Bridge Laws" (in danish, 1981). His ruling was: If you played the trump king or indicated doing so in your claim statement, you'll get no loser. If you didn't, you'll lose a trick to the jack. > The 1975 laws applied at the time. > It's obvious that starting with ace is inferior and careless for the class of player involved. An awake expert will never get this one wrong. So with the wording of the law, I believe the TD was right. I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with this, though. > This is the kind of claim ruling that I'm fairly confident on. And again, the circumstances matter. Let's distinguish two cases. A) This is a side suit. Declarer first plays trumps, then some second suit, loses a trick, gets back the lead, thinks for some more and says "all mine", without any reference to the safety play. I might rule against this player. B) This is the trump suit. Dummy hits the table, declarer looks at it and says "you stupid fool, you misbid again, another grand slam missed, I have 13 tricks", and shows his hand. This declarer has not looked at the problems, but I have no doubt that he will not play a card without checking all the hands and see the potential problem in trump, and know what to do about it. I will not rule against this player. The laws of bridge allow us to award the "normal" result of a hand. The laws are quite poorly worded in defining what "normal" is, but IMO, the "normal" result of this last hand is 13 tricks. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 5 13:32:06 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:32:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <84537DED-DF28-11D7-A0D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904171148.01f45640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030905082129.01f2bec0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 PM 9/4/03, Ed wrote: >On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003, at 17:26 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >>To be impartial, the standard -- whatever it is -- *must* require >>that I give the same ruling to both Mr. Helgemo and Mrs. >>Guggenheim. If it permits me to take "class of player" into account, >>it perforce permits me not to be impartial, by definition. If it >>requires me to take "class of player" into account, it perforce >>requires me not to be impartial, by definition. That's not my >>opinion; that is a logical consequence of the definition of "impartial". > >Suppose you say to Mr. Helgemo "okay, explain to me how this double >squeeze thing works" - and he correctly explains it, as he is quite >likely to do. Now suppose you ask Mrs. Guggenheim the same question. >Do you really think she'll give you anything *close* to Mr. Helgemo's >(or any other correct) answer? I don't. And if she doesn't, then I'm >ruling the claim at his table valid (assuming the squeeze actually >works), and at hers not - and I don't think either of these rulings is >not impartial. Please show me where I'm wrong. Mr. Helgemo replies by enumerating the possible cases: "When I play my last heart, if LHO is down to... then if RHO discards a..., or if he discards a...; if LHO is down to..." etc. Mrs. Guggenheim says, "I'll play off all my hearts, and see which one of my low cards is good at the end." If we accept Mr. Helgemo's claim and reject Mrs. Guggenheim's, have we not transgressed L70D? There's a fine line here between accepting a clarification of the language of the claim and accepting a clarification of the line of play; if Mrs. Guggenheim says, "Duh, I don't know, but it sounded good"... Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 5 13:42:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:42:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard American In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030905083433.01f37120@pop.starpower.net> At 07:21 PM 9/4/03, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >[snip] > > >And if Mrs. Guggenheim makes it to the finals of a > >world championship, I shall judge her by the same > >standard when ruling for that event. > > > >I will judge her (as I would Mr. X) by a somewhat > >lesser standard in her society tournament. And if > >Mr. Helgemo chooses to play in Mrs. Guggenheim's > >society tournament, I shall judge him by the same > >standard. > > > >The middle ground between an invariant standard and > >one that varies based on the player's level is one > >that is based on the level of the event, which does > >not perforce compromise the impartiality of those > >applying it. > >Richard James asks: > >So Bud Reinhold's bridge ability mysteriously tripled >when he played in the 1981 Bermuda Bowl? He was a >sponsor so weak that he was benched for the entire >Final, despite the USA having a huge lead towards the >end of the match. >:-) So if Richard were called to rule on Mr. Reinhold's dubious claim in the Bermuda Bowl, knowing Mr. Reinhold and holding clear ideas about his level of play, he would presumably take that into account in his ruling, even though he knows that the result would be different from what would have happened had the director two rows over, who doesn't know anything about Mr. Reinhold's level of play except that here he is in the Bermuda Bowl, gotten to the table first. Is this what we want? I am offended by the notion that a director might make an official "finding" that Mr. Reinhold isn't good enough to be playing in the Bermuda Bowl when Mr. Reinhold is obviously good enough to be playing in the Bermuda Bowl, because there he is. 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 Fri Sep 5 16:18:18 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:18:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F57942E.1030800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2DD97AE0-DFB4-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 08:36 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > Let's see what the point is Sven is trying to make. I admit that it > sounds like something new and might shed new light to it. > > Sven refers to a claimer who has forgotten a trump. > Let's read L70C: > > 1) and 2) apply, but alas for you, Sven: > > 3) a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. > > Sorry but we're back where we started. Is the S10 (cashing a last > trump) a normal line or not. Wrong question. Is *doing other than cashing S10* a normal play? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Sep 5 16:49:29 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:49:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F58322B.6020202@hdw.be> Message-ID: <88DD7381-DFB8-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 07:50 am, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Richard James checkmates: >> A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer >> merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: >> LHO >> void >> Declarer Dummy >> ATxxx KQ9xx >> RHO >> Jxxx >> The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would >> be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the >> standard expert safety play in trumps. > > Sorry Richard, but even I would play this trump suit correctly. > Especially when one claims before looking well, If you claim without looking well, might you not also play without looking well? > I rule that in actual play, claimer would look well, count his trumps > and that he cannot fail to conclude that one must start from the king > or queen in order to guard against the 4-0 split either way. > Yes, class of player involved. Someone even less talented than I might > not get this one. And someone even more talented than you might, on occasion, get this one wrong. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Sep 5 17:37:12 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:37:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <2DD97AE0-DFB4-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <2DD97AE0-DFB4-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F58BBB8.7030906@hdw.be> Sorry Gordon, but no: Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> Sorry but we're back where we started. Is the S10 (cashing a last >> trump) a normal line or not. > > > Wrong question. Is *doing other than cashing S10* a normal play? > Of course it is. That's how we arrive at one trick to the opponents. Only by "cashing" the S10 (and losing to the jack) do the opponents get the 3 tricks that the norwegians want to give them. My opinion is "trumps last". IMO, cashing the trump first is not normal. This IS the correct question. Sorry to have to put you straight, Gordon. > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Sep 5 18:06:32 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:06:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <88DD7381-DFB8-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <88DD7381-DFB8-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F58C298.7030001@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> Especially when one claims before looking well, > > > If you claim without looking well, might you not also play without > looking well? > No, one might not. And that is a give in claims resolution. Like putting an ace when a king appears. Sometimes one does not do it, but in claims one is judged to do it. >> I rule that in actual play, claimer would look well, count his trumps >> and that he cannot fail to conclude that one must start from the king >> or queen in order to guard against the 4-0 split either way. >> Yes, class of player involved. Someone even less talented than I might >> not get this one. > > > And someone even more talented than you might, on occasion, get this one > wrong. > On occasion, yes, but that is not to be considered in claims resolution. Everything goes wrong "sometimes". Sometimes people revoke, but claims don't take that into account either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 5 18:22:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:22:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"And In-Reply-To: <3F58BBB8.7030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c373d2$44ae8400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > > Wrong question. Is *doing other than cashing S10* a normal play? > > >=20 > Of course it is. > That's how we arrive at one trick to the opponents. > Only by "cashing" the S10 (and losing to the jack) do the opponents > get the 3 tricks that the norwegians want to give them. >=20 > My opinion is "trumps last". IMO, cashing the trump first is not = normal. >=20 > This IS the correct question. And the questions (both of them) we Norwegians want to ask are: Is it normal (not "irrational") to play your trump first when it is the = only remaining trump?=20 Is it normal (not "irrational") to play your trump last when it is the = only remaining trump? We respond "yes" to both these questions regardless of the rank of that = last and only trump. The Director (and the AC) does not do his job if not asking both = questions and I (for one) simply cannot understand how anybody can consider "no" = as the answer to any of them. Remember: You do know that neither opponent = has any trump left! Sven =20 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 5 18:39:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:39:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <2F37C7F4-DDCE-11D7-BB92-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030903080629.01f16890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c373d4$cf74b8a0$1eb6193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > At 03:00 AM 9/3/03, Grattan wrote: > > > As an aside, I have a personal distaste for the > >undefined inclusion of absolute terms like > >'incontrovertible'/'irrational' in the laws. What I think > >is possibly intended (and should be said) is "which the > >Director considers it is incredible the player > >would do" or something like that. > > ISTM that the writers used those particular words > because they wanted to define certain exception-like > cases (we allow these plays even though they weren't > explicitly stated, we don't consider those lines even > though they're consistent with a player's statement) as > narrowly as possible. And ISTM that most of the > discussion about them in this forum has been about > cases where they were (arguably) interpreted too > broadly. If we change language to eliminate them, > we should be very careful not to do so in a way that > would lead to even broader interpretations. > +=+ Hmmm... I think you are kind. There were discussions and one was sometimes surprised to see the ensuing text representing "what was agreed". As the token rest-of-the-world representative sitting with the drafting committee I had to accept that, as he had explained to me privately, EK was obliged to produce words that his masters at home would accept. The current drafting subcommittee has no such limitations and if we find that there is a determined pursuit of alternative lines I personally see no choice except to provide the options - as Edgar and I agreed to do in earlier years. The word 'veto' is not to be found in my working vocabulary. However, before looking for language in which to express a law one has to discover what the intention of that law is to be. First things first. It may or may not be decided to widen the choices for decision makers but whatever is negotiated I wish it (and any options) put in words that are unarguable, which is some task, I agree. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Fri Sep 5 18:58:50 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:58:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <7952516.1062668323541.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <7952516.1062668323541.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: In article <7952516.1062668323541.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1>, dalburn@btopenworld.com writes >>As to what "all belgians rule this way or that". It is just as >important as whether all Norwegian TDs do or do not rule in the same manner. >Totally irrelevant. > >If a senior official thinks it "irrelevant" whether or not other officials give >consistent rulings, then the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum. David, you have taken this sentence so far out of context and then heaved ordure on it that even I am surprised. > >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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Sep 6 01:13:43 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:13:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F58C298.7030001@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:06 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> Especially when one claims before looking well, >> If you claim without looking well, might you not also play without >> looking well? > > No, one might not. > And that is a give in claims resolution. It appears to be so in ones judged by you. Others, reading the 'careless or inferior' words of Law 70 might be less generous than you to those who make poor claims. > Like putting an ace when a king appears. Sometimes one does not do it, > but in claims one is judged to do it. I think most of us would be happy to accept that to fail to cover in this sort of situation would fall into the "irrational" rather than "careless or inferior" category. > >>> I rule that in actual play, claimer would look well, count his >>> trumps and that he cannot fail to conclude that one must start from >>> the king or queen in order to guard against the 4-0 split either >>> way. I think a player who is going to do this might well have indicated something about it in the claim statement. Failure to do so might be due to a number of things, including miscounting the trump suit - which might well cause the trumps to be drawn starting with the ace of trumps. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Sep 6 03:20:01 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:20:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> References: <3F56EFDB.1080601@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030905221326.00b61838@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:38 AM 9/4/2003, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:55 AM 9/4/03, Herman wrote: > >>I don't consider it fair to judge anyone by a standard that is far from >>his own. And there are just two ways out of that: judge him by his own >>standards, or by a mechanical way. You know which one I prefer. > >There is a third way, and Herman has himself pointed it out indirectly. > >I have never met Mr. X, and know nothing of how well he plays. The >standard I will use to rule, however, will, I admit, require some implicit >assumption as to his level of play, so I must, in effect, guess. I shall >"guess" rather differently if I encounter him in the finals of a world >championship than I would if I encountered him in the under-20-masterpoint >pairs. > >And if Mrs. Guggenheim makes it to the finals of a world championship, I >shall judge her by the same standard when ruling for that event. > >I will judge her (as I would Mr. X) by a somewhat lesser standard in her >society tournament. And if Mr. Helgemo chooses to play in Mrs. >Guggenheim's society tournament, I shall judge him by the same standard. > >The middle ground between an invariant standard and one that varies based >on the player's level is one that is based on the level of the event, >which does not perforce compromise the impartiality of those applying it. OK, but what do you do in an open or stratified event that has players of all levels? In one round, there are four experts at the table. In a later round, an unknown Flight C pair is facing expert opponents. In still another round, both pairs are in Flight C. Which standard do you apply? The standards of play apply not only to claims but also to rulings on adjusted scores. If Flight A and C players in the same event both balance after a slow pass, and every expert would balance but many Flight C players would not, how do you rule? From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Sep 6 11:02:06 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:02:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F59B09E.1050106@hdw.be> Hello Gordon, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> >>> If you claim without looking well, might you not also play without >>> looking well? >> >> >> No, one might not. >> And that is a give in claims resolution. > > > It appears to be so in ones judged by you. > Yes, and I suppose others. > Others, reading the 'careless or inferior' words of Law 70 might be > less generous than you to those who make poor claims. > That depends on what you are judging. Is it "careless" or "irrational" to start playing a contract without first looking at all 26 cards? I believe it is irrational. >> Like putting an ace when a king appears. Sometimes one does not do it, >> but in claims one is judged to do it. > > > I think most of us would be happy to accept that to fail to cover in > this sort of situation would fall into the "irrational" rather than > "careless or inferior" category. > Indeed we are. >> >>>> I rule that in actual play, claimer would look well, count his >>>> trumps and that he cannot fail to conclude that one must start from >>>> the king or queen in order to guard against the 4-0 split either >>> >>>> way. > > > I think a player who is going to do this might well have indicated > something about it in the claim statement. Failure to do so might be due > to a number of things, including miscounting the trump suit - which > might well cause the trumps to be drawn starting with the ace of trumps. > Indeed it might. And the job of the TD is to find out why the player failed to indicate something. Now it is my belief that, if the reason is that the player just did not think before claiming, we cannot consider it rational for him to also not think before playing. Which is why in cases like this (claiming immediately after dummy appears), I am quite willing to judge normal lines without reference to a hypothetical "claimer might fail to notice that he has 9 trumps without the jack". And of course, for a claimer who does think before claiming, and then says nothing, the reverse. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Sep 6 11:13:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:13:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] My own claims Message-ID: <3F59B364.8000902@hdw.be> I had a lousy tournament yesterday. I claimed four times, always wrong. In one 3NT, after opponents had cleared their long suit, I asked for just my four top tricks. That was four down, when just waiting for them to bring me something it would have been -2. In another one, I claimed 6NT - 2 after the lead. Well, with four aces, four kings and QJclubs, 10 tricks is all. Apparently some people in the room managed an 11th trick, I still don't know which one. And then this one: dummy: - AKxx AQ7xx KJxx me: QTxx xx Kxx Axxx LHO leads the ace of spades and switches to a heart. I come to hand in diamonds and finesse the clubs. After they are cleared (4 tricks to me), I say to my LHO: "why did you not continue spades, then I could have made all other tricks, with the D7 at the end? Now I have eleven tricks and you get the last." "Play on", says LHO, which of course I don't do. "are diamonds 4-1?" I ask. They are. So I write down 9 tricks. "You're always making 10", says RHO. "Not after I've claimed". You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Sep 6 11:25:08 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 11:25:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F59B09E.1050106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <63F9AC36-E054-11D7-BAEB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 11:02 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > Indeed it might. And the job of the TD is to find out why the player > failed to indicate something. > Now it is my belief that, if the reason is that the player just did > not think before claiming, we cannot consider it rational for him to > also not think before playing. > > Which is why in cases like this (claiming immediately after dummy > appears), I am quite willing to judge normal lines without reference > to a hypothetical "claimer might fail to notice that he has 9 trumps > without the jack". > > And of course, for a claimer who does think before claiming, and then > says nothing, the reverse. Do you find your approach leads to you having to deal with more poor claims than other directors? I can't see anything here that would encourage players to take care with their claims. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Sat Sep 6 11:28:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 12:28:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] My own claims In-Reply-To: <3F59B364.8000902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c37461$960dea90$6900a8c0@WINXP> I don't remember what attitude you have expressed previously Herman: Are you among those who consider it a violation of Law 74B4 when a player never claims but insists on playing it out, not for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent but simply in order to avoid bad "surprises" for himself? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 6. september 2003 12:14 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] My own claims > > I had a lousy tournament yesterday. > > I claimed four times, always wrong. > > In one 3NT, after opponents had cleared their long suit, I asked for > just my four top tricks. That was four down, when just waiting for > them to bring me something it would have been -2. > > In another one, I claimed 6NT - 2 after the lead. > Well, with four aces, four kings and QJclubs, 10 tricks is all. > Apparently some people in the room managed an 11th trick, I still > don't know which one. > > And then this one: > > dummy: - AKxx AQ7xx KJxx > > me: QTxx xx Kxx Axxx > > LHO leads the ace of spades and switches to a heart. I come to hand in > diamonds and finesse the clubs. After they are cleared (4 tricks to > me), I say to my LHO: "why did you not continue spades, then I could > have made all other tricks, with the D7 at the end? Now I have eleven > tricks and you get the last." "Play on", says LHO, which of course I > don't do. "are diamonds 4-1?" I ask. They are. So I write down 9 tricks. > "You're always making 10", says RHO. "Not after I've claimed". > > You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I > have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that > includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. > But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to > give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Sep 6 11:45:02 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 11:45:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] My own claims In-Reply-To: <3F59B364.8000902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2B5D669B-E057-11D7-BAEB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 11:13 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > I had a lousy tournament yesterday. > > I claimed four times, always wrong. > > In one 3NT, after opponents had cleared their long suit, I asked for > just my four top tricks. That was four down, when just waiting for > them to bring me something it would have been -2. > > In another one, I claimed 6NT - 2 after the lead. > Well, with four aces, four kings and QJclubs, 10 tricks is all. > Apparently some people in the room managed an 11th trick, I still > don't know which one. These just seem like claims that you judged poorly to make - not what we usually mean by "bad claims". > And then this one: > > dummy: - AKxx AQ7xx KJxx > > me: QTxx xx Kxx Axxx > > LHO leads the ace of spades and switches to a heart. I come to hand in > diamonds and finesse the clubs. After they are cleared (4 tricks to > me), I say to my LHO: "why did you not continue spades, then I could > have made all other tricks, with the D7 at the end? Now I have eleven > tricks and you get the last." "Play on", says LHO, which of course I > don't do. "are diamonds 4-1?" I ask. They are. So I write down 9 > tricks. > "You're always making 10", says RHO. "Not after I've claimed". > > You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I > have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that > includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. > But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to > give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. In what sense did you not impose on yourself the line that includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds? You have awarded yourself nine tricks, which is what you would get with that line. With another line the diamond break would have been revealed in time for you to deal with it and make a tenth trick *unless you had miscounted the diamonds*! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sat Sep 6 15:48:48 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:48:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: Message-ID: <003201c37486$0ded48c0$f5f27f50@Default> Richard A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: LHO void Declarer Dummy ATxxx KQ9xx RHO Jxxx The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the standard expert safety play in trumps. This is a great example because it has 14 trumps. Well let's suppose declarer has a 54 fit. I would rule one down. Because he has to announce the safety play or at least to put the K or Q on the table. One of the reasons for his claim might be that he miscounted his trumps like you did (on purpose ?). Anyway playing the A first is no more irrational as claiming this without statement. Players make this kind of mistakes. Even the best of players when they are tired. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Nigel Guthrie pinned: >>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! Herman De Wael king-side pawn stormed: >Come on, Nigel, use serious arguments. >What TD has ever given such a silly ruling? >If you want to criticise the laws, at least do so from >real rulings, that have some basis in law. Richard James checkmates: A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: LHO void Declarer Dummy ATxxx KQ9xx RHO Jxxx The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the standard expert safety play in trumps. Best wishes Richard James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sat Sep 6 16:29:10 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 17:29:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] My own claims References: <3F59B364.8000902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006401c3748b$a4302280$f5f27f50@Default> Herman, Given the way you claim one might wonder if you like playing bridge. I can imagine someone who claims like a fool like you do is in favour of very friendly rules for sloppy claims. 1. Claiming for 4 down. Ridiculous. As long as you cannot count an easy 9 defensive toptricks (and even then) you always have a change of making some tricks. 2. Claiming 10 tricks with 10 toptricks (including enough control). Ridiculous. These hands often offer legitimate squeeze chances, and if handled correctly you might induce a defensive error. This is were that 11th trick you don't understand often comes from. 3. You claim in this position for 5 tricks: - , Ax , AQxx, - Q10x , x , xx , - > LHO leads the ace of spades and switches to a heart. I come to hand in > diamonds and finesse the clubs. After they are cleared (4 tricks to > me), I say to my LHO: "why did you not continue spades, then I could > have made all other tricks, with the D7 at the end? Now I have eleven > tricks and you get the last." "Play on", says LHO, which of course I > don't do. "are diamonds 4-1?" I ask. They are. So I write down 9 tricks. > > "You're always making 10", says RHO. "Not after I've claimed". > You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I > have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that > includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. > But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to > give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. This is complete nonsense. The moment you claim for 5 tricks you assume the diamonds are good. So I don't care if you later claim to have counted the diamonds (or not). What about giving you a PP if you claimed this knowing that the diamond split was relevant (this kind of silly claims often leads to TD calls, emotions, time lost). So if playing three rounds of diamonds (discard spade) leads to only two tricks (possible if LHO started with AKJ of spades) I will rule you 1 down. And there is another issue, I don't know the bidding but if you get a spade through you might have to guess (not likely but possibly). Besides you cannot count anyway, during play and after play. You say: = So I write down 9 tricks. = So I won't impose on myself a line that includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. Actually that line that you don't impose on yourself, is the line you claimed because it is the line that gives you your 9 toptricks. Another weird statement: = "You're always making 10", says RHO. Nonsense. Your RHO is as poor a player as you are. Suppose you give up a diamond to RHO what do you discard on the fourth round (yes I know you should duck the third round). If you discard a spade the opponents have the rest if the SJ is wrong. But if you discard a heart (as a safety play) you will always lose two spades in the ending. So only when the SJ is onside and you make the technical (I guess well beyond your ability) play of ducking the third diamond you make 10 tricks. Not exactly the 'always' of your RHO. So dear Herman. As a player you are close kin of Mrs. G. So please claim like she does. She does not. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: [blml] My own claims > I had a lousy tournament yesterday. > > I claimed four times, always wrong. > > In one 3NT, after opponents had cleared their long suit, I asked for > just my four top tricks. That was four down, when just waiting for > them to bring me something it would have been -2. > > In another one, I claimed 6NT - 2 after the lead. > Well, with four aces, four kings and QJclubs, 10 tricks is all. > Apparently some people in the room managed an 11th trick, I still > don't know which one. > > And then this one: > > dummy: - AKxx AQ7xx KJxx > > me: QTxx xx Kxx Axxx > > LHO leads the ace of spades and switches to a heart. I come to hand in > diamonds and finesse the clubs. After they are cleared (4 tricks to > me), I say to my LHO: "why did you not continue spades, then I could > have made all other tricks, with the D7 at the end? Now I have eleven > tricks and you get the last." "Play on", says LHO, which of course I > don't do. "are diamonds 4-1?" I ask. They are. So I write down 9 tricks. > "You're always making 10", says RHO. "Not after I've claimed". > > You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I > have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that > includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. > But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to > give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. > > -- > 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 Sat Sep 6 17:06:20 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:06:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Shrewd or screwed? References: Message-ID: <001401c37490$d27b1460$f5f27f50@Default> So the guy says: "The rest is mine." Well if you want to put in the law that (unmentioned) trumps are always played first or last after a claim, why not. It will let through some crazy claims because the forced line of play might by chance be the right line (do we want that ?). But at least it stops this discussion. Anyway, for me it is far more natural for declarer to play trumps first rather than last. In the end it is quite common in high contracts that after the lead declarer tables his hand showing his 13 (or whatever) top tricks including his AKQJ10xxx or so of trumps without explicitly stating drawing trumps. Of course I know he should state 'drawing trumps' but there is a explicit loophole in the law about this one (and in real life these claims are not challenged). Which in a way contradicts Grattan's argument and the Tenerife decision. So it boils down to: You play trump first if you might have forgotten a small one. You play trump last if you might have forgotten a big one. Hmmm. Someone who claims the rest is not very likely to make some kind of safetyplay just in case there is still a master trump outstanding, but might well cash a 'master' trump just in case he miscounted and there is still a lurker out. So for the moment this Tenerife ruling doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Lets hear Grattan. > > My opinion is that if a player does not either > > (a) draw trump before claiming, or (b) include a > > reference to trumps in his statement of claim, > > the inference to be drawn is that he believes > > either that there is no trump to be drawn or that > > his may not be the higher trump. I really cannot believe the above. You say (option 1) that someone who doesn't mention trumps believes that there is no more trump to be drawn. I agree. But then you say (option 2) that someone who doesn't mention trumps might believe that there might still be a higher trump outstanding. I don't agree. I am a simple guy. When claiming you have to make a clear statement about your line of play preferably including the number of tricks you intend to take. Not mentioning an outstanding master trump in the above seems rather weird to me. But maybe for Grattan this is normal practice. Anyway if I take this line of reasoning seriously it is no longer necessary to mention an outstanding high trump when claiming because the EBLAC (and WBFLC !?) will protect me. They will let me play the hand carefully just in case I have forgotten about this master trump (but will expect me to play uncarefully just in case I have forgotten about a small trump). Or do they think (given my class of player !?) that I cannot possibly have forgotten about this master trump (but I could have forgotten about a small one !?). Hmmmmmm. Time to train my claiming skill I guess. All kind of new interesting options with claiming rules like that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Shrewd or screwed? > > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > My opinion is that if a player does not either > > (a) draw trump before claiming, or (b) include a > > reference to trumps in his statement of claim, > > the inference to be drawn is that he believes > > either that there is no trump to be drawn or that > > his may not be the higher trump. > > Let me add one further inference here: if a player claims > all the rest of the tricks in a trump contract, said player > is most confident that there is not a master trump outstanding > in his opponents' hands. > > Combining those two: if a player claims all the rest of the tricks, > and neither pulls trump nor includes a reference to trumps in his claim > statement, he believes there is no trump to be drawn. Period. > > I am amazed how many people on this list think that "I know I have all the > rest, but obviously I will save one trump in case I was wrong" makes > sense. The opposite idea, "I know I have all the rest, but I will pull an > extra round just to make sure I didn't miscount," is one I have at least > heard spoken at the table occasionally (though usually by beginners.) > > > I recognize that the 'Pound of Flesh' school > > of thought does not share this view, but that > > school tries to ignore, as ineffectual, the existence > > in Law 46 of the words "except when declarer's > > different intention is incontrovertible" whilst the > > fact is that those words stand there as bold as life > > at this time and have to be applied. Application of > > the given meaning of the law to cases is precisely > > the prerogative of Appeals Committees. > > Not at all. I recognize the existence of that sentence in Law 46. But > saying "these are all winners" is compelling evidence a player intends to > make no further use of the trump suit, and saying "play anything" as > opposed to "pitch anything" is compelling evidence declarer is paying no > attention to what is in dummy. It would be very, very hard (not > impossible, but almost!) to convince me that incontrovertibly wasn't his > intention. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Sep 7 03:01:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 12:01:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard American Message-ID: [big snip] >Mr. Reinhold is obviously good enough to be >playing in the Bermuda Bowl, because there he is. > >Eric Landau Mr. Reinhold is obviously rich enough to be playing in the Bermuda Bowl, otherwise there he won't be. :-) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Sep 7 10:17:10 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:17:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <63F9AC36-E054-11D7-BAEB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <63F9AC36-E054-11D7-BAEB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F5AF796.2050200@hdw.be> Hello Gordon, a direct question deserves a considered answer: Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> Which is why in cases like this (claiming immediately after dummy >> appears), I am quite willing to judge normal lines without reference >> to a hypothetical "claimer might fail to notice that he has 9 trumps >> without the jack". >> >> And of course, for a claimer who does think before claiming, and then >> says nothing, the reverse. > > > Do you find your approach leads to you having to deal with more poor > claims than other directors? I can't see anything here that would > encourage players to take care with their claims. > This is the trap most of you have fallen into. Since I don't react to all the claims where there is no problem (and who don't come up on blml anyway), you don't see all the claims I solve by giving tricks away that the claimer might have made if he had been a bit more careful. It is only when I don't take from an uncareful claimer some trick that a hawk might also want to take, that you meet my claim handling. And you get the impression I am soft on claims. I can assure you that I may be 1% softer than some of you, but no more than that. So no, I don't believe that I see more "bad" claims than other TD's. What I also don't see is claimers who are disgruntled because I have taken away from them tricks that they would make 100% of the time, or even 95%. I do meet claimers who are mad at themselves for losing tricks they would have made 80% of the time. OTOH my reply should be a little bit more honest. I might go so far as saying that in my surrounding areas, there is a bit more claiming than perhaps in Norway. I don't think players anywhere are more or less inclined to say a lot when claiming. They'd rather play on until it is really obvious. And since I (and to my knowledge, Belgian directors and -more importantly- Belgian opponents) am a bit more lenient in accepting what is normal, perhaps there is a bit more claiming in Belgium than elsewhere. Perhaps, I say. I have no real knowledge of local bridge in other areas. And to be honest, I can't remember when I last had to deal with a contested claim in my club. I don't believe my players don't claim, or always claim correctly. I think most incorrect claims are dealt with at the table by opponents. And I don't believe this is a bad thing. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Sep 7 10:24:38 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:24:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] My own claims In-Reply-To: <2B5D669B-E057-11D7-BAEB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <2B5D669B-E057-11D7-BAEB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F5AF956.2050407@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I >> have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that >> includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. >> But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to >> give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. > > > In what sense did you not impose on yourself the line that includes > cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds? > In the sense that this might lead to even less tricks. Maybe I forgot to say that I still had a fourth club trick to cash when I claimed. I consider it "careless" to claim without checking (or even thinking of) diamonds being 4-1, but I consider it irrational to not notice the discard on the second diamond, and realize that the fourth diamond won't cash. As it was a Butler tournament, simply cashing 9 tricks seemed like a "normal" line to me. But cashing a stopper in one suit and then playing the fourth diamond does not meet my criteria for a normal line. > You have awarded yourself nine tricks, which is what you would get with > that line. With another line the diamond break would have been revealed > in time for you to deal with it and make a tenth trick *unless you had > miscounted the diamonds*! > Exactly. But the line I did not consider was the one in which I play the hearts and then give the hand up in diamonds. I still have to cash my last club winner to make 9 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Sep 7 10:55:47 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:55:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] My own claims In-Reply-To: <3F5AF956.2050407@hdw.be> Message-ID: <74B0F421-E119-11D7-86E4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Sunday, September 7, 2003, at 10:24 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> >>> You see, I may have failed to consider diamonds when claiming, but I >>> have not miscounted them. So I won't impose on myself a line that >>> includes cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds. >>> But neither will I allow myself the consideration that it is safe to >>> give the diamond (to LHO) since I still stop all suits. >> In what sense did you not impose on yourself the line that includes >> cashing hearts and then playing a fourth round of diamonds? > > In the sense that this might lead to even less tricks. > Maybe I forgot to say that I still had a fourth club trick to cash > when I claimed. Not maybe. You specifically told us otherwise. "I come to hand in diamonds and finesse the clubs. After they are cleared (4 tricks to me), I say to my LHO..." > I consider it "careless" to claim without checking (or even thinking > of) diamonds being 4-1, but I consider it irrational to not notice the > discard on the second diamond, and realize that the fourth diamond > won't cash. And what would you consider it to be to miscount the diamonds? > As it was a Butler tournament, simply cashing 9 tricks seemed like a > "normal" line to me. But cashing a stopper in one suit and then > playing the fourth diamond does not meet my criteria for a normal > line. > >> You have awarded yourself nine tricks, which is what you would get >> with that line. With another line the diamond break would have been >> revealed in time for you to deal with it and make a tenth trick >> *unless you had miscounted the diamonds*! > > Exactly. But the line I did not consider was the one in which I play > the hearts and then give the hand up in diamonds. I still have to cash > my last club winner to make 9 tricks. You knew you hadn't miscounted the diamonds. How would you (the director) have known this if the player had been a different person from the director? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 7 11:13:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 12:13:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F5AF796.2050200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c37528$b9ac6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > So no, I don't believe that I see more "bad" claims than other TD's. > What I also don't see is claimers who are disgruntled because I have > taken away from them tricks that they would make 100% of the time, or > even 95%. I do meet claimers who are mad at themselves for losing > tricks they would have made 80% of the time. >=20 > OTOH my reply should be a little bit more honest. I might go so far as > saying that in my surrounding areas, there is a bit more claiming than > perhaps in Norway. I don't think players anywhere are more or less > inclined to say a lot when claiming. They'd rather play on until it is > really obvious. And since I (and to my knowledge, Belgian directors > and -more importantly- Belgian opponents) am a bit more lenient in > accepting what is normal, perhaps there is a bit more claiming in > Belgium than elsewhere. As far as Norway is concerned I believe I am in a position to elaborate = a bit on this. My impression (from more than 20 years of directing at high level as = well as "ordinary" level) is that we have very few claims which result in = summoning the director, and I believe this is mainly because all players are accustomed to our ruling principles: If you fail in your claim statement then anything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong except that you = will not be forced into a directly "irrational" play. (Murphy's Law = simplified). (But we are very restrictive on what we exclude as "irrational" play; an example is that we never rule the Queen to be played under a King which = must come from LHO when playing a small towards Ace-Queen).=20 Does this practice result in our games being prolonged? On the contrary = I believe we save a lot of wasted time because we avoid lengthy = explanations, not to mention lengthy discussions and appeals. Our players generally = only claim when absolutely everybody around the table (regardless of their "class" as player) can immediately see without any explanation that the = game is over. Sven =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Sep 7 12:51:02 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:51:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000101c37528$b9ac6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c37528$b9ac6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F5B1BA6.4060406@hdw.be> There is nothing in this post to suggest that there is any difference between Norway and Belgium. I still maintain that in real life, there are so few claims that will be ruled differently by Sven and myself, that this discussion is really of blml interest only. I've said it before: there is no problem with the claim law except the existence of blml. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>So no, I don't believe that I see more "bad" claims than other TD's. >>What I also don't see is claimers who are disgruntled because I have >>taken away from them tricks that they would make 100% of the time, or >>even 95%. I do meet claimers who are mad at themselves for losing >>tricks they would have made 80% of the time. >> >>OTOH my reply should be a little bit more honest. I might go so far as >>saying that in my surrounding areas, there is a bit more claiming than >>perhaps in Norway. I don't think players anywhere are more or less >>inclined to say a lot when claiming. They'd rather play on until it is >>really obvious. And since I (and to my knowledge, Belgian directors >>and -more importantly- Belgian opponents) am a bit more lenient in >>accepting what is normal, perhaps there is a bit more claiming in >>Belgium than elsewhere. > > > As far as Norway is concerned I believe I am in a position to elaborate a > bit on this. > > My impression (from more than 20 years of directing at high level as well as > "ordinary" level) is that we have very few claims which result in summoning > the director, and I believe this is mainly because all players are > accustomed to our ruling principles: If you fail in your claim statement > then anything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong except that you will > not be forced into a directly "irrational" play. (Murphy's Law simplified). > > (But we are very restrictive on what we exclude as "irrational" play; an > example is that we never rule the Queen to be played under a King which must > come from LHO when playing a small towards Ace-Queen). > > Does this practice result in our games being prolonged? On the contrary I > believe we save a lot of wasted time because we avoid lengthy explanations, > not to mention lengthy discussions and appeals. Our players generally only > claim when absolutely everybody around the table (regardless of their > "class" as player) can immediately see without any explanation that the game > is over. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Sep 7 12:54:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:54:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] My own claims In-Reply-To: <74B0F421-E119-11D7-86E4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <74B0F421-E119-11D7-86E4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F5B1C71.5070005@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > You knew you hadn't miscounted the diamonds. How would you (the > director) have known this if the player had been a different person from > the director? > The player would have told me and the opponents would not have objected. The manner in which I (the player) told the table "I would have made the D7 at the last trick" was indicative of me not having forgot to count diamonds, just to consider that they might be 4-1. As it was, had my opponents had any doubt about my "slip of mind", I might well have written up 8 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 7 13:36:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:36:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <3F5B1BA6.4060406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c3753c$b8ddb150$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > There is nothing in this post to suggest that there is any difference > between Norway and Belgium. >=20 Well, no Director in Norway would rule "trump played last" if "trump = first" will give less tricks to a claimer who has said nothing about an = outstanding trump.=20 That is probably why none of those I have asked in Norway consent to the Tenerife appeal decision. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 7 19:31:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:31:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <000101c37528$b9ac6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <797742AE-E161-11D7-931C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 06:13 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Our players generally only claim when absolutely everybody around the > table (regardless of their > "class" as player) can immediately see without any explanation that > the game > is over. Heh. In some of the games in which I play, that would result in no claims. Ever. I've had opponents complain they were unable to see a simple line of play even after I laid the cards out one by one and explained it in detail. God forbid I should ever claim on a squeeze. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 7 19:33:17 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:33:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] My own claims In-Reply-To: <3F5B1C71.5070005@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 07:54 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > As it was, had my opponents had any doubt about my "slip of mind", I > might well have written up 8 tricks. How the *(*& can an opponent possibly know whether you have miscounted a suit, unless you have already made a play that clearly indicates that you have? From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Sep 7 19:57:18 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 20:57:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] My own claims References: Message-ID: <007301c37571$efd3df60$6af37f50@Default> > How the *(*& can an opponent possibly know whether you have miscounted > a suit, unless you have already made a play that clearly indicates that > you have? Come on Ed. By now you should have realised that Herman has his own private ideas about both claiming and ruling on claims. There might be a relation between the two. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] My own claims > > On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 07:54 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > As it was, had my opponents had any doubt about my "slip of mind", I > > might well have written up 8 tricks. > > How the *(*& can an opponent possibly know whether you have miscounted > a suit, unless you have already made a play that clearly indicates that > you have? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Sep 7 19:57:48 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 20:57:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <797742AE-E161-11D7-931C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007401c37571$f0528540$6af37f50@Default> > Heh. In some of the games in which I play, that would result in no > claims. Ever. I've had opponents complain they were unable to see a > simple line of play even after I laid the cards out one by one and > explained it in detail. God forbid I should ever claim on a squeeze. :-) Like it or not, this depends on the level of play. I have learned to claim completely different when playing top level competition (just showing your cards will do 95% of the time even in non trivial endings because those opps are also counting your tricks and distribution during the play), and when playing at the local club level (you only claim things like the rest in plain winners and you announce that clearly when showing your remaining winners). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 06:13 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Our players generally only claim when absolutely everybody around the > > table (regardless of their > > "class" as player) can immediately see without any explanation that > > the game > > is over. > > Heh. In some of the games in which I play, that would result in no > claims. Ever. I've had opponents complain they were unable to see a > simple line of play even after I laid the cards out one by one and > explained it in detail. God forbid I should ever claim on a squeeze. :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Steve Willner" > From: "Grattan Endicott" > As an aside, I have a personal distaste for the > undefined inclusion of absolute terms like > 'incontrovertible'/'irrational' in the laws. What I think > is possibly intended (and should be said) is "which the > Director considers it is incredible the player > would do" or something like that. The trouble with that last is that it gets back to mind reading or at least falls foul of Eric's objection that in general, the TD will not know an individual player's skill level. On the other hand, "irrational" is an absolute standard. (Sorry, Herman, "rational for someone who..." does not exist. In judging rational and irrational, having beliefs that are irrational is itself irrational. A rational person can be mistaken about facts but cannot believe something impossible.) Although I personally don't think "irrational" needs a special definition, it should be possible to create one if need be. We might start with something like "showing unawareness of cards face up on the table," and of course we need to rule out being ignorant basic rules of the game such as the rank of cards and the requirement to follow suit. Being rational does not, of course, require that a player necessarily remember all pertinent facts. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Sep 7 22:48:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:48:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H Double ? You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 What call do you make? * * * At the table, South bid a routine 4H. When the smoke had cleared, the penalty was 1400, because the winning call was not 4H, but rather: "Could I have an explanation of the auction?" WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C(1) 1H(2) Double(3) ? (1) Strong club. East forgot to Alert. (2) Wonder Bid. Hearts OR the other three suits. (3) Self-Alerting. In this case, a game force with a heart suit. ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred." South was a regular opponent of East-West, normally well aware that they played a strong club, but when East forgot to alert, South then forgot what system he was playing against. Fortunately, the TD and AC sensibly decided that ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 was not applicable in this case, so adjusted the score to a sane result. Pity. While I applaud in theory any decision to limit the scope of 11.2, in practice I was sitting West. :-) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Sep 7 23:17:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:17:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] I'm a believer Message-ID: Was the thread, The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational". [big snip] >I think most incorrect claims are dealt >with at the table by opponents. And I don't >believe this is a bad thing. > >Herman DE WAEL Yes, I'm a believer too. Unfortunately, such actions by opponents are currently contrary to Law 68D: "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately..." Therefore, when I am an opponent of a player who has made an easily rectified false claim, I must either waste time summoning the TD, or knowingly infract Law 68D. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 7 23:16:33 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 08:16:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030908081442.027ee698@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> At 07:48 AM 8/09/2003 +1000, you wrote: >Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C 1H Double ? > >You, South, hold: > >32 >KJ8632 >64 >J32 > >What call do you make? > >* * * > >At the table, South bid a routine 4H. When the >smoke had cleared, the penalty was 1400, because >the winning call was not 4H, but rather: >"Could I have an explanation of the auction?" > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C(1) 1H(2) Double(3) ? > >(1) Strong club. East forgot to Alert. >(2) Wonder Bid. Hearts OR the other three suits. Ah, how often have I wished to be allowed to ask for an explanation of my partner's bidding? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 8 00:31:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 01:31:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] I'm a believer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c37598$33c9d550$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills > >I think most incorrect claims are dealt > >with at the table by opponents. And I don't > >believe this is a bad thing. > > > >Herman DE WAEL >=20 > Yes, I'm a believer too. Unfortunately, such > actions by opponents are currently contrary > to Law 68D: >=20 > "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy > included), the Director must be summoned > immediately..." >=20 > Therefore, when I am an opponent of a player > who has made an easily rectified false claim, > I must either waste time summoning the TD, or > knowingly infract Law 68D. And so what? Do you similarly argue that it is OK not to summon the Director when = your RHO makes an insufficient bid? - or when someone makes a lead out of = turn? - or when a revoke is revealed?=20 Most experienced directors will normally be able to handle such cases = off hand as well as (or maybe even better than) they are able to handle an incorrect claim, but I certainly do hope you accept the principle that = the players at the table shall always summon the director in case of irregularities and refrain from making any ruling themselves regardless = of their competence? It is not uncommon to violate this principle at informal events with a playing director when the irregularity is a straight forward one to rule = and you notice that the director is not exactly easily available at the = moment. But in any serious event I never deviate or accept any deviation from = Law 68D or more generally from Law 9B. Regards Sven=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 8 01:32:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:32:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] I'm a believer Message-ID: I wrote: [snip] >>Therefore, when I am an opponent of a player >>who has made an easily rectified false claim, >>I must either waste time summoning the TD, or >>knowingly infract Law 68D. Sven replied: >And so what? > >Do you similarly argue that it is OK not to >summon the Director when your RHO makes an >insufficient bid? - or when someone makes a >lead out of turn? - or when a revoke is >revealed? [snip] I continue: No. I waste time, and abide by Law 68D as it is currently written. My argument is rather that Law 68D should be rewritten in the 2005 edition of the Laws. For example, below is a suggested Hillsian version of the 2005 Law 68D - "After any claim or concession, play usually ceases. Usually all play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must usually be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and usually no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. Exception: Opponents of the claimer may, at their own risk, adopt the alternative procedure of not summoning the Director, and instead requiring that the deal be played out." Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 8 03:23:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:23:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] NABC Casebook Summaries Message-ID: http://66.147.103.154/casebooks/Phoenix_Fall02.pdf In the Closing Remarks of the Phoenix 2002 Casebook, Ron Gerard wrote: [snip] >the Go-Ahead-and-Bid-It-and-Let-the-Committee-Take- >It-Away-From-Me mentality of CASE TWO is wrong. That >is, players have an obligation to recognize those >situations when the action that they have convinced >themselves they would have taken might be only one >of different LAs. This isn't such an alien concept, >since every now and then you read about mid-level >consultants who express outrage that anyone could >consider a certain action in the face of UI >generated by partner. Maybe the experts need to >catch up to the lower flights in this regard. Case Two deal, (matchpoint pairs) - Bd: 22 Dan Gerstman Dlr: East Q Vul: E/W AKT8743 AK8 74 Alan Myerson Ted Gibbs 2 KJ764 Q2 6 92 QT73 KQT98532 AJ6 Alan Graves AT9853 J95 J654 --- West North East South Pass 2S Pass 3H(1) Pass 4C(2) Dbl 4D(2) Pass 5C(2) Pass 5H(3) Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Natural, game-forcing (2) Cue-bid in support of hearts (3) Break in tempo I rant: I, too, am outraged that some ACBL experts have not yet caught up to lower flights in being meticulous in obeying Law 73C - ".....must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." In my personal view, experts should be *especially* meticulous in avoiding advantage in borderline cases, since they serve as role models to lower flights. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 8 07:01:09 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:01:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] I'm a believer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c375ce$9e99acd0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 8 September 2003 12:33 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] I'm a believer >=20 >=20 >=20 > I wrote: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>Therefore, when I am an opponent of a player > >>who has made an easily rectified false claim, > >>I must either waste time summoning the TD, or > >>knowingly infract Law 68D. >=20 > Sven replied: >=20 > >And so what? > > > >Do you similarly argue that it is OK not to > >summon the Director when your RHO makes an > >insufficient bid? - or when someone makes a > >lead out of turn? - or when a revoke is > >revealed? >=20 > [snip] >=20 > I continue: >=20 > No. I waste time, and abide by Law 68D as it > is currently written. My argument is rather > that Law 68D should be rewritten in the 2005 > edition of the Laws. For example, below is a > suggested Hillsian version of the 2005 Law > 68D - >=20 > "After any claim or concession, play usually > ceases. Usually all play subsequent to a claim > or concession shall be voided by the Director. > If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law > 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy > included), the Director must usually be summoned > immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and usually > no action may be taken pending the Director's > arrival. > Exception: Opponents of the claimer may, at their > own risk, adopt the alternative procedure of not > summoning the Director, and instead requiring that > the deal be played out." How about "...the opponents may make a counter claim that=20 the claimer may acquiesce in." Wayne Burrows >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error,=20 > please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, legally=20 > privileged and/or > copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is=20 > prohibited. Any > views expressed in this email are those of the individual=20 > sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them=20 > to be the view > of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and=20 > Indigenous Affairs > (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations=20 > under the Privacy > Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Sep 8 07:23:00 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:23:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB85@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > Herman De Wael ............. > So no, I don't believe that I see more "bad" claims than other TD's. > What I also don't see is claimers who are disgruntled because I have > taken away from them tricks that they would make 100% of the time, or > even 95%. I do meet claimers who are mad at themselves for losing > tricks they would have made 80% of the time. >=20 > OTOH my reply should be a little bit more honest. I might go so far as > saying that in my surrounding areas, there is a bit more claiming than > perhaps in Norway. I don't think players anywhere are more or less > inclined to say a lot when claiming. They'd rather play on until it is > really obvious. And since I (and to my knowledge, Belgian directors > and -more importantly- Belgian opponents) am a bit more lenient in > accepting what is normal, perhaps there is a bit more claiming in > Belgium than elsewhere. As far as Norway is concerned I believe I am in a position to elaborate a bit on this. My impression (from more than 20 years of directing at high level as well as "ordinary" level) is that we have very few claims which result in summoning the director, and I believe this is mainly because all players are accustomed to our ruling principles: If you fail in your claim statement then anything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong except that you will not be forced into a directly "irrational" play. (Murphy's Law simplified). ----- I might elaborate some more than Sven here. At the top level, there's a lot= of claims. Often without a claim statement. Not only in straight forward c= laim cases, but also in squeeze positons. But then there's 'always' acquies= cence. If the defenders immedeately agree, the claimer elaborates, and ther= e's no problem. The TD never hear about these claims. I don't approve of th= is procedure, but I've never seen it cause troble.=20 Top players also claim as defenders. I do it myself, especially when I know= declarer could (should) have claimed already. (Helgemo might even as a def= ender claim for declarer when he can see a squeeze or endplay coming, when = declarer is still thinking.) Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- (But we are very restrictive on what we exclude as "irrational" play; an example is that we never rule the Queen to be played under a King which must come from LHO when playing a small towards Ace-Queen).=20 Does this practice result in our games being prolonged? On the contrary I believe we save a lot of wasted time because we avoid lengthy explanations, not to mention lengthy discussions and appeals. Our players generally only claim when absolutely everybody around the table (regardless of their "class" as player) can immediately see without any explanation that the game is over. Sven =20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Sep 8 11:17:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] I'm a believer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Yes, I'm a believer too. Unfortunately, such > actions by opponents are currently contrary > to Law 68D: > > "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy > included), the Director must be summoned > immediately..." > > Therefore, when I am an opponent of a player > who has made an easily rectified false claim, > I must either waste time summoning the TD, or > knowingly infract Law 68D. Are you sure? I am of the opinion that a claim may be questioned (rather than formally disputed) without the need to call the TD. EG "Do I not get a trick with my DA?". Declarer explains the claim again (the same explanation but slower) and the opp realises he won't get a trick and now acquiesces. Alternatively declarer realises the opponent is right and makes a second claim for one trick fewer which is accepted by both opps. And yes I realise that there is little legal basis for my opinion but this is exactly how 98% of claims not involving immediate acquiescence are dealt with in real life. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 8 11:33:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:33:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] I'm a believer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c375f4$9c26e2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ....... > > Therefore, when I am an opponent of a player > > who has made an easily rectified false claim, > > I must either waste time summoning the TD, or > > knowingly infract Law 68D. >=20 > Are you sure? I am of the opinion that a claim may be questioned = (rather > than formally disputed) without the need to call the TD. EG "Do I not = get > a trick with my DA?". Declarer explains the claim again (the same > explanation but slower) and the opp realises he won't get a trick and = now > acquiesces. Alternatively declarer realises the opponent is right and > makes a second claim for one trick fewer which is accepted by both = opps. Agreed! > And yes I realise that there is little legal basis for my opinion but = this > is exactly how 98% of claims not involving immediate acquiescence are > dealt with in real life. If it should be ruled that this practice is against Law 68D (or any = other law in the book) we do need a change of the law(s)! Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 8 13:23:55 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 08:23:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030905221326.00b61838@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030904081906.01f23a30@pop.starpower.net> <3F56EFDB.1080601@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000301c37089$feff71d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030902102334.00ac7970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030908081009.01fbcd90@pop.starpower.net> At 10:20 PM 9/5/03, David wrote: >At 08:38 AM 9/4/2003, Eric Landau wrote: > >>The middle ground between an invariant standard and one that varies >>based on the player's level is one that is based on the level of the >>event, which does not perforce compromise the impartiality of those >>applying it. > >OK, but what do you do in an open or stratified event that has players >of all levels? In one round, there are four experts at the table. In >a later round, an unknown Flight C pair is facing expert >opponents. In still another round, both pairs are in Flight C. Which >standard do you apply? > >The standards of play apply not only to claims but also to rulings on >adjusted scores. If Flight A and C players in the same event both >balance after a slow pass, and every expert would balance but many >Flight C players would not, how do you rule? Let me change David's question a bit: Two players in the same event both balance after a slow pass. This particular event has players of all levels, including both A and C players, but you don't know the ability of either of the two players involved. How would you rule? To say that if you did know their levels of ability you would be required by law to give them different rulings is to say that it is impossible to rule legally when you don't know. But I'm confident that everyone reading this would manage to make some ruling and let the game continue. My view is that that is the ruling you should give to any player, whether they are known to you or not -- that the one thing you should be particularly careful *not* to do is let your personal opinions about the individuals involved affect the rulings you will make at their tables. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ilqzakqtgpjd@msn.com Mon Sep 8 14:55:23 2003 From: ilqzakqtgpjd@msn.com (mets) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:55:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) hahaha Message-ID: <20030908135228.B523A2C059@rhubarb.custard.org> PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwOTkiIHRleHQ9Inll bGxvdyIgbGluaz0iI0NDQ0NDQyIgdmxpbms9IiNDQ0NDQ0MiIGFsaW5rPSIjQ0NDQ0NDIiBsZWZ0 bWFyZ2luPSIwIiB0b3BtYXJnaW49IjAiIG1hcmdpbndpZHRoPSIwIiBtYXJnaW5oZWlnaHQ9IjAi Pg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBib3JkZXI9IjAiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiIGNlbGxwYWRk aW5nPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMSI+DQo8dHI+DQo8dGQgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyI+PGI+PGJyPjxicj5IRVkgWU9VITxicj48YnI+U1RPUCBX QVM8aWlpPlRJTkcgTU9ORVkgT04gWU9VUiBDVVJSRU5UIE1PUlQ8aWlpPkdBR0U8ZmZhPiE8YnI+ PGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjMiIGNvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+PGI+aGV5IGl0cyBtZSBhZ2FpbiwgaSB3 YXMgd29uZGVyaW5nIGlmIHlvdSdkIGJlIGludGVyZXN0ZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBzaXRlPGJyPjxCUj5F dmVyeSBkYXkgdGhvdXNhbmRzIG9mIEFtZXJpPHAxMWI+Y2FucyBhcmUgc2F2aW5nIG1vbmV5LCBk b24ndCBiZSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGZldyB3aG8gbWlzcyBvdXQhPEJSPjxicj48L3RkPg0KPC90cj4N Cjx0cj48dGQgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3RvcHNAd2F5aGVyZS5jb20v aW5kZXguYXNwP1JlZklEPTE5ODQ3OCI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGI+ PHU+SSBob3BlIHlvdXIgcmVhPHBwYWFzc2RvMzIyPmR5IGZvciBsb3dlciBtb3J0Z2FnZSByZXBh eW1lbnRzITwvYT48YnI+PGJyPjwvdGQ+PC90cj4NCjwvdGFibGU+DQo8YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+ DQo8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vdG9hc0B3YXloZXJlLmNvbS9hdXRvL2luZGV4Lmh0bSI+PGZvbnQg Y29sb3I9IndoaXRlIiBzaXplPSIxIj48Yj48dT5ub3QgaW50ZXJlc3RlZD8gPC9hPjxicj4NCjwv Ym9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCjxocj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmFkbWluc3lzdGVtLm5ldCI+ QU5TTVRQIENPTVBPTkVOVCBCVUlMRCBWNS4wPC9hPjxicj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmFk bWluc3lzdGVtLm5ldCI+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hZG1pbnN5c3RlbS5uZXQ8L2E+IChUcmlhbCBWZXJz aW9uIE9ubHkp From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Mon Sep 8 15:36:47 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:36:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double mail In-Reply-To: Sinot Martin's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:32:02 +0200 Message-ID: > Hello, > > I seem to get everything twice at the moment. Does anyone > else notice this problem? > > Martin Sinot Why does everything on BLML this month bring us back to Catch 22? You'll remember Yossarian trying to stay in the Hospital rather than return to flying missions: "I see everything twice!" "How many fingers am I holding up?" asked the doctor, holding up one finger. "Two!" "And now?" holding up one. "Two!" "How about now?", holding up four fingers. "Two!" "He`s right! He sees everything twice!" --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From adam@tameware.com Mon Sep 8 17:19:02 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:19:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #2 (was NABC Casebook Summaries) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:23 PM +1000 9/8/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In my personal view, experts should be *especially* meticulous in >avoiding advantage in borderline cases, since they serve as role >models to lower flights. I don't agree. I think experts ought to act in their own rational self-interest, as all players should. I expect experts to be better at it, as they are by definition better at most aspects of the game, but I see no special obligation as role models. By failing to follow the law South earned a score adjustment from the TD, the same adjustment from the AC, and an appeal without merit warning. In addition he'd have kept his score had the slam gone down. Here South was able to educate and inform many more players through his transgression -- had he acted ethically it would likely have been forgotten moments later. If you were to argue that that TD and the AC ought to have assessed a procedural penalty in addition to the score adjustment I'd agree with you. It did not occur to me when I wrote my casebook comments -- in fact no panelist mentioned it. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From josephinezaza@netscape.net Mon Sep 8 07:15:04 2003 From: josephinezaza@netscape.net (josephinezaza@netscape.net) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:15:04 GMT Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) INVESTMENTS FUNDS FROM THE NETHERLANDS. Message-ID: JOSEPHINE ZAZA TEL:+ 31-630 55 84 60 Fax:+31 64 756 09 08 Amsterdam- The Netherlands. josephinezaza@netscape.net Dear sir, You may be surprise to receive this letter from me, since you don't know me personally, I am Josephine Zaza. The Daughter of Sir WADI K.ZANNA, Who was recently murdered in the land dispute in Zimbabwe. I got your contact as I was searching for reliable and reputable person to handle a very confidential business which involve a transfer of fund to a foreign account and i decided to write you. My late father was among the few black Zimbabwean opposition party rich farmers murdered by the agents of the ruling Government of president Robert mugabe,for his alleged support and sympathy for the Zimbabwean opposition party controlled by the white minority. Before my father's death, he had taken to Johannesburg and deposited the sum of Twenty million united state dollars (US$20,000,000)with a security and financial company, The money right now is in NETHERLAND(EUROPE), as if he foreseen the looming danger in Zimbabwe. The money was deposited in a box as valuable items to avoid over taxed custom clearance. This money was allocated for the purchase of new machinery and chemical product for Agro-allied farms and for establishment of new farms in Lesotho and Swaziland. This land problems arose when president Robert mugabe introduced a new land act that wholly affected the rich white farmers and some blacks vehemently condemned the "modus operandi"adopted by the government. This result to rampant killings and mob action by the war veterans and some political thugs, precisely more than three thousand( 3,000) people have so far been killed. Heads of government from the west, especially Britain and united states have voice their condemnation of Mugabe's plans. Subsequently, south Africa have development community(S.A.D.C)has continuously supported mugabe's new land act, it is against this background that my entire family who are currently residing in South Africa have decided to ! transfer my father's wealth and south Africa's government seems to be playing along with them. I am face with the dilemma of investing this money in south Africa for fear of Encountering the same experience in the future, since both Countries have almost the same political history. Moreso, the south African foreign exchange policy does not allow such investment, Hence I am seeking for(political asylum) here in the Netherlands. I am presently in Amsterdam. AS a business person whom I entrusted my future and that of my family into his hands, I must let you know that this transaction is 100% risk free and the nature of your business does not necessarily matter. For your assistance we are offering you 30% of the sum ,70% for me and my family, We wish to invest our money on commercial properties based on your advice. Finally, i will demand for assurance that you will not sit on the money when it gets to your personally account or comp! any account in your country, If this proposal is accepted please confirm your interest by sending email or fax. Josephine Zaza Mr Robert Zaza- This is my brother's name. Tel:+ 31-630 55 84 60 Fax:+31 64 756 09 08. I will send you more details once you offer to help me, the family investment agreement will be sent for you to sign and the relevant power of attorney etc. Our area of investment will be real estate and buying shares in reputable companies. You advice and support is highly needed for this. From john@asimere.com Mon Sep 8 20:53:36 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:53:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" In-Reply-To: <88DD7381-DFB8-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3F58322B.6020202@hdw.be> <88DD7381-DFB8-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <88DD7381-DFB8-11D7-B2C8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 07:50 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> Richard James checkmates: >>> A real ruling - opponents cashed an ace, then declarer >>> merely claimed 6S, with the trump distribution being: >>> LHO >>> void >>> Declarer Dummy >>> ATxxx KQ9xx >>> RHO >>> Jxxx >>> The (silly?) TD allowed the claim, ruling that it would >>> be irrational for the expert declarer to miss the >>> standard expert safety play in trumps. >> >> Sorry Richard, but even I would play this trump suit correctly. >> Especially when one claims before looking well, > >If you claim without looking well, might you not also play without >looking well? > >> I rule that in actual play, claimer would look well, count his trumps >> and that he cannot fail to conclude that one must start from the king >> or queen in order to guard against the 4-0 split either way. >> Yes, class of player involved. Someone even less talented than I might >> not get this one. > >And someone even more talented than you might, on occasion, get this >one wrong. and someone who really counts trumps would just play them from the top, after all, he has got 10 of them :) However, this is the hand where I rule that a careless player will cash the top trump on its own. (when he has only 9 cards of course.) It is the example I always use. cheers john > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Sep 8 20:59:13 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:59:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C 1H Double ? > >You, South, hold: > >32 >KJ8632 >64 >J32 > >What call do you make? 3 spades seems fairly obvious as long as it's natural and forcing. > >(Yes, of course this is a trick question.) > >Best wishes > >Richard James >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please adv= ise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This e= mail, >including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/= or >copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any >views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except >where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the vi= ew >of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affair= s >(DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Pr= ivacy >Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 8 00:53:34 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:53:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000701c37580$a45b0cc0$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <000e01c37647$a065fd60$9e4687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 9:43 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > As an aside, I have a personal distaste for the > > undefined inclusion of absolute terms like > > 'incontrovertible'/'irrational' in the laws. What I think > > is possibly intended (and should be said) is "which > > the Director considers it is incredible the player > > would do" or something like that. > > The trouble with that last is that it gets back to mind > reading < +=+ Not 'back to' - it is here and now, and will remain in the future. No point in wasting my time on what is not going to happen. +=+ From ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sun Sep 7 16:12:32 2003 From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:12:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Another mi(multiple infraction!) ruling Message-ID: <200309071512.h87FCWI10268@freenet10.carleton.ca> South opens 1C at partner's turn to call (L31(b)), not accepted. Both L23 and L26 are explained. North passes, East bids 1C (sayc natural) followed by 3 passes. South leads the DA then DK, all follow; heart switch, heart from dummy, North ruffs CT: South asks, "no hearts? (ACBL L61 election)". North wakes up, and plays the HA. Now the CT is a major penalty card, but East has yet to exercise the lead penalty for the first infraction. Do we take the penalties in order of occurance, or does the "must" of L50(d)1 trump L26(a)2? At the table, I ruled that East can insist on or refuse the lead of a club: if yes, CT must be played, if no, CT remains a MPC. Is this correct? How would you rule? As it happens, whatever you rule is irrelevant. N/S miss an easy 4H game, and East can take no more nor less than 6 tricks in 1C. Thanks for your advice, Tony (aka ac342) From jnichols@midtechnologies.com Mon Sep 8 21:51:47 2003 From: jnichols@midtechnologies.com (John Nichols) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:51:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another mi(multiple infraction!) ruling Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD22F3@al21.minfod.com> You are correct. The order of the infractions is not a factor. From L50D1: "The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity." John Nichols > -----Original Message----- > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca [mailto:ac342@freenet.carleton.ca] > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 10:13 AM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Another mi(multiple infraction!) ruling > > South opens 1C at partner's turn to call (L31(b)), not accepted. > Both L23 and L26 are explained. North passes, East bids 1C (sayc natural) > followed by 3 passes. > South leads the DA then DK, all follow; heart switch, heart from > dummy, North ruffs CT: South asks, "no hearts? (ACBL L61 election)". > North wakes up, and plays the HA. > Now the CT is a major penalty card, but East has yet to exercise > the lead penalty for the first infraction. Do we take the penalties > in order of occurance, or does the "must" of L50(d)1 trump L26(a)2? > At the table, I ruled that East can insist on or refuse the lead of > a club: if yes, CT must be played, if no, CT remains a MPC. Is this > correct? How would you rule? > As it happens, whatever you rule is irrelevant. N/S miss an easy > 4H game, and East can take no more nor less than 6 tricks in 1C. > Thanks for your advice, > Tony (aka ac342) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 9 06:52:46 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:52:46 -0700 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #2 (was NABC Casebook Summaries) References: Message-ID: <001501c37696$9af18f80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Richard Hills wrote: > >In my personal view, experts should be *especially* meticulous in > >avoiding advantage in borderline cases, since they serve as role > >models to lower flights. > > I don't agree. I think experts ought to act in their own rational > self-interest, as all players should. I expect experts to be better > at it, as they are by definition better at most aspects of the game, > but I see no special obligation as role models. I hope Adam agrees with the first clause in Richard's comment. Taking advantage of UI when there is an LA is an infraction of L16, surely not something that Objectivism's "self-interest" should excuse. > > By failing to follow the law South earned a score adjustment from the > TD, the same adjustment from the AC, and an appeal without merit > warning. In addition he'd have kept his score had the slam gone down. > > Here South was able to educate and inform many more players through > his transgression -- had he acted ethically it would likely have been > forgotten moments later. Not an admirable action, despite its good indirect results. Or was that tongue-in-cheek? > > If you were to argue that that TD and the AC ought to have assessed a > procedural penalty in addition to the score adjustment I'd agree with > you. It did not occur to me when I wrote my casebook comments -- in > fact no panelist mentioned it. The ACBL ACs tend to assess (or approve of) PPs only when no damage resulted from an irregularity, feeling perhaps that a score adjustment is sufficient "punishment." Also, when assessing an Appeal Without Merit Warning (AWMW), which is documented, no accompanying PP is assessed even if the circumstances of the case might justify one. Some further comments: UI/MI-related infractions carry their own remedies in the Laws. No damage, no adjustment, and there is no cross-reference to L90. This does not sit well with TDs/ACs, who feel that the Laws treat such things too lightly. Accordingly, they stretch the purpose of PPs to punish offenders when in their opinion the Laws do not provide sufficient punishment. PPs are thus being used for disciplinary purposes, which is wrong. Consider that the title of the law was changed (in 1975) from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural Penalties in recognition of that fact. I believe that was Kaplan's doing. Discipline, except the sort of thing described and treated in L91, should be applied outside the game, not within the game. One cannot imagine a rubber bridge "Arbiter" subtracting points from the score of a pair who has taken advantage of UI. Isn't it odd that the long list of example offenses in L90B do not include any offenses unrelated to procedures that are peculiar to duplicate bridge? Not surprising, because the list was created when rubber bridge laws were modified for duplicate bridge. Part of the modification was to add the possibility of a penalty for offenses that are not encountered in rubber bridge. Now we will see a reference to L90A by those who wish to include all irregularities as "violations of correct procedure," and to L90B's "not limited to..." Well, it seems pretty obvious that L90A is addressing violations to correct *duplicate bridge* procedures, and "not limited to" is a phrase used merely to point out that such a list that cannot be exhaustive. There is an implied "and the like" for all lists that start with "not limited to." Rich Colker points out that writing up offenses that merit discipline, instead of assessing PPs, would entail too much paperwork. And yet the burden of documenting AWMWs is readily taken up by him, the ACBL Recorder. Egregious MI infractions and misuse of UI are C&E matters that should be documented, and PPs are not documented. If an offender only needs a slap on the wrist, make that a lecture by the TD, not a score penalty (PPs are normally 1/4 board or 3 IMPS) that could affect the outcome of an event. If an irregularity causes no harm in the game, how can changing the score be right? No, you only change the score for offenses that affect the game, such as those listed in L90B, unless the draconian L91 (including "disciplinary penalties"!) must be invoked. If it is okay to use PPs for disciplinary purposes, how come this wasn't done for the first 60 years of duplicate bridge? What happened in the 90s that changed things? The wording of L90 hasn't changed significantly over the years, so what was it? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 9 07:02:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:02:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #2 (was NABC Casebook Summaries) Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >I don't agree. I think experts ought to act in their own rational >self-interest, as all players should. I expect experts to be better >at it, as they are by definition better at most aspects of the game, >but I see no special obligation as role models. Richard James Hills: The problem is, is that it is always in your "rational self-interest" to decide to act unActively unEthical in ethically grey, borderline situations. This is not the way I play bridge, or I want to be required by Law to play bridge. Adam Wildavsky: >By failing to follow the law South earned a score adjustment from the >TD, the same adjustment from the AC, and an appeal without merit >warning. In addition he'd have kept his score had the slam gone down. Richard James Hills: No, by failing to follow the Law, some of the time South would keep his slam when the opponents did not summon the TD, some further of the time South would keep his slam when the TD misjudged to rule that there was no logical alternative, and some still further of the time South would keep his slam when an AC misjudged to overrule a sensible TD. Adam Wildavsky: >Here South was able to educate and inform many more players through >his transgression -- had he acted ethically it would likely have been >forgotten moments later. Richard James Hills: The only education that South's actions provided was that the worst tha= t happens to unActively unEthical players in today's ACBL is to be slappe= d with a feather of an Appeal Without Merit Warning. In my humble opinion, the lack of atonement for unActive unEthics is a retrogressive= step encouraging That Ole Black Magic prevalent in the ACBL in the 1950= s. Adam Wildavsky: >If you were to argue that that TD and the AC ought to have assessed a >procedural penalty in addition to the score adjustment I'd agree with >you. It did not occur to me when I wrote my casebook comments -- in >fact no panelist mentioned it. Right on! Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 9 07:32:50 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:32:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" References: <000001c36fa3$3e209160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <004a01c36fb5$baa75cc0$5e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000f01c3769d$054bc2a0$27e5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational" > > ... How could a TD justify ruling in favour of > his friends or countrymen, but against strangers > or foreigners, in identical circumstances? > +=+ This, Nigel, is unfair. TDs make every effort to apply the law fairly and without discrimination. And I do know many TDs prepared to allow that they are no doubt subject to tinges of partiality (of which they are not conscious)out of their cultural background, race, nationality, affinities or whatever. It must be so, for "everyone is prisoner of his own experiences" (Ed Murrow) and "no prejudice so strong as that which arises from a fancied exemption from all prejudices". (Hazlitt). Let me take you back to early history when the Hittites were playing the Philistines. In an auction a Hittite made a suit bid which was not alerted and taken by Philistines to show the suit. In defence a Philistine clung to a four card holding in this suit and this yielded the slam. The TD, a Hittite, adjudged that the Phillistines were damaged and awarded an artificial 60%:40% adjusted score in their favour. So no sign of bias, there........ except, well, there were some Philistines who noted that the TD was under a directive (in those ancient times) to rule in favour of the NOS after an infraction and, said they, s/he should have given the NOS defeat of the slam, not an AAS. Also, said the Philistines, that would have made the Hittites appeal rather than the Philistines. We think, said certain of the Philistines, the TD has done the least s/he could do, and, they asked, could this possibly be because s/he has a subconscious pro-Hittite inclination? ~ G ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Mon Sep 8 16:54:07 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:54:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature Message-ID: I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any country or Zone. Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is based on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, and the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to names. Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the certificate?" However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? -- 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 Bausback@gmx.net Tue Sep 9 14:02:50 2003 From: Bausback@gmx.net (Nikolas Bausback) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:02:50 +0200 Subject: AW: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c376d2$ac814ab0$0100a8c0@gandalf> This sound like a very good Idee! OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? How about OTD (online tested director) OTCD club or OCD (online certified ... director) or Club Director (OT) Club Director (OC) Nikolas -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bbickford@charter.net Tue Sep 9 14:36:26 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:36:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature References: Message-ID: <03a701c376d7$5e38c1d0$85a4bbd1@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:54 AM Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature > > OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? > Depending on the group for whom you creating this, how about (WBF) Club Director, etc., Cheers............................../Bill Bickford > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@tameware.com Tue Sep 9 15:40:59 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:40:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #2 In-Reply-To: <001501c37696$9af18f80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001501c37696$9af18f80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 10:52 PM -0700 9/8/03, Marvin French wrote: >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >> Richard Hills wrote: > >> >In my personal view, experts should be *especially* meticulous in >> >avoiding advantage in borderline cases, since they serve as role >> >models to lower flights. >> >> I don't agree. I think experts ought to act in their own rational >> self-interest, as all players should. I expect experts to be better >> at it, as they are by definition better at most aspects of the game, >> but I see no special obligation as role models. > >I hope Adam agrees with the first clause in Richard's comment. I do. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think South ought to Pass 5H here, because the laws require him too. Perhaps I didn't choose the best example to write about, because I don't consider this a borderline case. > > Here South was able to educate and inform many more players through >> his transgression -- had he acted ethically it would likely have been >> forgotten moments later. > >Not an admirable action, despite its good indirect results. Or was that >tongue-in-cheek? I did not consider South's action admirable, nor was my comment tongue-in-cheek. I noted the effect of South's action, not his intent. > > If you were to argue that that TD and the AC ought to have assessed a >> procedural penalty in addition to the score adjustment I'd agree with >> you. It did not occur to me when I wrote my casebook comments -- in >> fact no panelist mentioned it. > >The ACBL ACs tend to assess (or approve of) PPs only when no damage resulted >from an irregularity, feeling perhaps that a score adjustment is sufficient >"punishment." I think the PP is appropriate here because otherwise there is little downside for South in bidding on. With the hesitation it seems almost certain that the slam will make, so unless he risks a PP a misguided South might decide to go ahead and bid it even though he knows, or should know, that the bid would be illegal. >Also, when assessing an Appeal Without Merit Warning (AWMW), >which is documented, no accompanying PP is assessed even if the >circumstances of the case might justify one. There's no regulation on the books to that affect. The AWMW replaces earlier monetary and score penalties, but a PP may still be warranted for the reasons I set out above. Recently I sat on a Regional AC where an auction like this came up: 1H 2H! X 3D X 4C The 2H bidder heard his partner explain the cue-bid as showing diamonds and hearts, which was in fact their agreement. He held the black suits. The TD adjusted to 3DX down 1400. I still don't know why the cue-bidder appealed. We made the same adjustment and also assessed a half-board PP. If I'd thought of it I'd have pushed for an additional quarter-board penalty for an AWM. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 9 15:46:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:46:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F5DE7C1.8060409@hdw.be> Well, you could of course start with club director. ... And then move on to diamond director, heart and spade director. With Kojak as the only No-Trump director. David Stevenson wrote: > I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test > Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any > country or Zone. > > Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the > current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or > national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. > > The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is based > on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, and > the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to > names. > > Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' > because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call > yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the certificate?" > However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong > impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is > ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I > also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, > without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. > > OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue Sep 9 16:10:41 2003 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:10:41 -0300 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature References: Message-ID: <0c0601c376e4$88d0c430$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> You should create a name for the issuing authority (ie:you) for example: Stevenson school of directors. (SCD) Then just use: SCD certified club director SCD school certified international director SCD school certified director that can also play bridge ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature > > I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test > Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any > country or Zone. > > Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the > current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or > national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. > > The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is based > on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, and > the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to > names. > > Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' > because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call > yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the certificate?" > However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong > impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is > ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I > also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, > without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. > > OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? > > -- > 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 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/5/2003 From rwilley@mit.edu Tue Sep 9 16:54:36 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:54:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: <0c0601c376e4$88d0c430$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <0c0601c376e4$88d0c430$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <1063122876.3f5df7bc99afc@webmail.mit.edu> Luis's suggestion is dead on accurate. There are well established business models focusing on "certification". In almost all of these models, the critical parameter that determines whether the certification carries any weight is branding the certification authority. I am not suggesting in any way that David is considering a commercial venture, but rather that there are obvious parallels which hold true regardless of the revenue model being considered. I will, however, note, that there is a related issue that is going to have an very significant impact on the whatever system gets designed: Why do you believe that directors are planning to participate in your course? I can see to different motivating forces. The first assumes that directors are primarily interested in external validation. By this I mean that directors expect that passing your exam with high marks provides a mechanism by whivh they can validate their skill before a third party. The second motivating force is internal validation. Players primarily motivated by internal validation will be interested in using the course for self improvement. Note that issuing certifications and/or titles is primarily designed to fulfill the needs of the former group. My own belief is that you would be best served focusing on the latter set of director's during the early stages of the project. Tring to build certification in from the get go introduces a whole new layer of complexity that you really don't necessarily want to deal with during the short run. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Sep 9 19:14:21 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:14:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6F28D192-E2F1-11D7-8C94-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 04:54 pm, David Stevenson wrote: > > I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test > Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to > any > country or Zone. > > Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the > current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or > national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. > > The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is > based > on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, > and > the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to > names. > > Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' > because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call > yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the > certificate?" > However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong > impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is > ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I > also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, > without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. > > OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? International Assessment of TD Competence International TD Competence Training International Certificate of TD Competence - Club/Regional/National Director -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Tue Sep 9 21:00:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:00:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: <3F5DE7C1.8060409@hdw.be> References: <3F5DE7C1.8060409@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3F5DE7C1.8060409@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Well, > >you could of course start with club director. > > >... > > >And then move on to diamond director, heart and spade director. > >With Kojak as the only No-Trump director. and we could have a special class for clueless TD's of which I elect myself a founder member - a No-Brain Director. > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test >> Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any >> country or Zone. >> >> Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the >> current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or >> national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. >> >> The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is based >> on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, and >> the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to >> names. >> >> Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' >> because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call >> yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the certificate?" >> However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong >> impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is >> ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I >> also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, >> without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. >> >> OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Tue Sep 9 21:18:34 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:18:34 +0400 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F5E359A.5050802@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: > The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is based > on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, and > the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to > names. > > Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' > because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call > yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the certificate?" > However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong > impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is > ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I > also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, > without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. > > OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? > It is David's ideas. It may become quite useful - it depends on activity and numbers of possible pupils (I will try:)). There are a lot of terms like WBF... So I guess that the proper name of courses and certificates is "DWS courses", "DWS certificate", "DWS TD club level" etc. Best wishes Vitold From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 9 23:20:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:20:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Away from it all. Message-ID: <000601c37720$fa19a7b0$4f34e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott <3F5E359A.5050802@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: <004c01c37723$b9872b70$4f34e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature > It is David's ideas. It may become quite useful - it depends on > activity and numbers of possible pupils (I will try:)). There > are a lot of terms like WBF... So I guess that the proper name > of courses and certificates is > "DWS courses", "DWS certificate", "DWS TD club level" etc. > Best wishes < +=+ I think 'branding' is right. So 'DWS Certificated Director' followed as applicable by: Primary Level Intermediate Level Advanced Level. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 10 03:24:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:24:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] odd case Message-ID: At the club today, this happened: W N E S - 1C P 2D* *2D was almost immediately corrected to 1D. We were using bidding boxes, and S said something like "oops, I don't need to bid 2D" and removed the cards 2H-2D, leaving 1D as her bid. I wasn't sure what the law said about this, so I called the TD. When she showed up, I explained what had happened, and then North said something to the effect that South "thought she'd made an insufficient bid". While South never said a word during the TD call and ruling, I suspect North was correct. Anyway, at this point, TD said something about Law 25, and then something to West about "you can accept this bid..." At which point I pointed out that South had corrected a sufficient bid to a *different* sufficient bid. Long pause from TD. "Oh. That's harder. Wait a minute." And she goes off to consult with her colleague. Who comes back and says "I'm gonna let 1D stand, and we'll see what happens from there." Auction continued, they got too high, and went down (two, I think). No further comments from either TD. Was the final ruling correct? From adam@irvine.com Wed Sep 10 03:34:10 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:34:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Sep 2003 22:24:28 EDT." Message-ID: <200309100234.TAA27207@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed Reppert wrote: > At the club today, this happened: > > W N E S > - 1C P 2D* > > *2D was almost immediately corrected to 1D. We were using bidding > boxes, and S said something like "oops, I don't need to bid 2D" and > removed the cards 2H-2D, leaving 1D as her bid. I wasn't sure what the > law said about this, so I called the TD. When she showed up, I > explained what had happened, and then North said something to the > effect that South "thought she'd made an insufficient bid". While South > never said a word during the TD call and ruling, I suspect North was > correct. Anyway, at this point, TD said something about Law 25, and > then something to West about "you can accept this bid..." At which > point I pointed out that South had corrected a sufficient bid to a > *different* sufficient bid. Long pause from TD. "Oh. That's harder. > Wait a minute." And she goes off to consult with her colleague. Who > comes back and says "I'm gonna let 1D stand, and we'll see what happens > from there." Auction continued, they got too high, and went down (two, > I think). No further comments from either TD. > > Was the final ruling correct? I don't think so. I believe that the purpose of the "without pause for thought" clause of L25A is intended to deal with cases where, due to a slip of the tongue or a mispull from the bidding box, the player bid something she did not intend to bid. South's comment "I don't need to bid 2D" indicates that she *did* intend to bid 2D, and realized only after the bid that 1D would have been sufficient. Regardless of how quickly she made the change, I'd rule that this is a "purposeful correction" and L25B applies. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 10 07:58:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:58:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 Message-ID: Life Master Open Pairs, First Qualifying Session Dlr: West Vul: Both The bidding has gone: West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H Pass 2S Pass ? (1) Alerted, partnership agreement is Reverse Drury You, South, hold: AQJ72 A942 76 QJ What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From Anne Jones" <3F5DE7C1.8060409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001701c3776a$32de1600$eb2e6651@annespc> The EBU have currently got a 40 simulation online course intended to help club directors aspire to greater things. The definitive answers are available.(£25 to non EBU members) http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/td-training/Training_course/club-refresher.htm Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "David Stevenson" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature > Well, > > you could of course start with club director. > > > ... > > > And then move on to diamond director, heart and spade director. > > With Kojak as the only No-Trump director. > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test > > Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any > > country or Zone. > > > > Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the > > current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or > > national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. > > > > The idea is to give certificates to say what a person's level is based > > on the test. Now, my problems are in naming the courses, the tests, and > > the certificates. I am asking members of BLML to give me ideas as to > > names. > > > > Consider the certificates. I cannot say someone is a 'Club Director' > > because someone in Knoxville, TN, is going to say "How can you call > > yourself a 'Club Director' when the ACBL did not issue the certificate?" > > However, calling someone an 'Internet Club Director' gives the wrong > > impression, because this is not directing on the internet: it is > > ordinary F2F directing, with testing and training on the internet. I > > also want a name that reflects the international nature of these tests, > > without using a term I have no right to [like 'WBF']. > > > > OK, there's the problem. Any solutions, please? > > > > -- > 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 Sep 10 09:36:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:36:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c37776$9ca57040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > At the club today, this happened: >=20 > W N E S > - 1C P 2D* >=20 > *2D was almost immediately corrected to 1D. We were using bidding > boxes, and S said something like "oops, I don't need to bid 2D" and > removed the cards 2H-2D, leaving 1D as her bid. I wasn't sure what the > law said about this, so I called the TD. When she showed up, I > explained what had happened, and then North said something to the > effect that South "thought she'd made an insufficient bid". While = South > never said a word during the TD call and ruling, I suspect North was > correct. Anyway, at this point, TD said something about Law 25, and > then something to West about "you can accept this bid..." At which > point I pointed out that South had corrected a sufficient bid to a > *different* sufficient bid. Long pause from TD. "Oh. That's harder. > Wait a minute." And she goes off to consult with her colleague. Who > comes back and says "I'm gonna let 1D stand, and we'll see what = happens > from there." Auction continued, they got too high, and went down (two, > I think). No further comments from either TD. >=20 > Was the final ruling correct? To me this is not an obvious case. =20 According to the laws the situation seems clear (even without the remark = by South): She has changed her mind and law 25B applies. She intended to = bid 2D all until she discovered that 1D would be sufficient.=20 However (as I uttered with a ruling I made some time ago): This is one = of those cases where I rule differently in top division from what I do at "ordinary club level". (The is some degree of judgment involved). Depending upon the class of players (that nasty term again!) I might = very well rule law 25A instead. In fact on sensing between the lines in your description I believe that is exactly what I would have done; so my = answer is yes; I agree with the ruling by your director although she should be aware that her ruling was not exactly technically correct. BTW the remark from North is both extraneous and incorrect, but I take = it North wanted to point out that South probably bid 2D because she thought that 1D would have been insufficient and that she never intended to make = a jump bid. That is for the director (not the players) to conclude after hearing all available facts (not assumptions) on what happened and how. = Regards Sven =20 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 10 09:37:32 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:37:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <200309100234.TAA27207@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001101c3777b$d9828c00$ea693b3e@Default> Adam: > South's comment "I don't need to bid 2D" > indicates that she *did* intend to bid 2D, and realized only after the > bid that 1D would have been sufficient. Regardless of how quickly she > made the change, I'd rule that this is a "purposeful correction" Agree, I am not too strict about pulling the wrong card but it is clear this was not a 'slip of the hand'. By the way, if that correction option would be abolished (at least at serious competition level) people probably would pay more attention to what they are doing. Another example that the current rules protect and so encourage sloppiness. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] odd case > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > At the club today, this happened: > > > > W N E S > > - 1C P 2D* > > > > *2D was almost immediately corrected to 1D. We were using bidding > > boxes, and S said something like "oops, I don't need to bid 2D" and > > removed the cards 2H-2D, leaving 1D as her bid. I wasn't sure what the > > law said about this, so I called the TD. When she showed up, I > > explained what had happened, and then North said something to the > > effect that South "thought she'd made an insufficient bid". While South > > never said a word during the TD call and ruling, I suspect North was > > correct. Anyway, at this point, TD said something about Law 25, and > > then something to West about "you can accept this bid..." At which > > point I pointed out that South had corrected a sufficient bid to a > > *different* sufficient bid. Long pause from TD. "Oh. That's harder. > > Wait a minute." And she goes off to consult with her colleague. Who > > comes back and says "I'm gonna let 1D stand, and we'll see what happens > > from there." Auction continued, they got too high, and went down (two, > > I think). No further comments from either TD. > > > > Was the final ruling correct? > > I don't think so. > > I believe that the purpose of the "without pause for thought" clause > of L25A is intended to deal with cases where, due to a slip of the > tongue or a mispull from the bidding box, the player bid something she > did not intend to bid. South's comment "I don't need to bid 2D" > indicates that she *did* intend to bid 2D, and realized only after the > bid that 1D would have been sufficient. Regardless of how quickly she > made the change, I'd rule that this is a "purposeful correction" and > L25B applies. > > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 10 09:53:55 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:53:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: Message-ID: <001201c3777b$daa78400$ea693b3e@Default> Stupid question, what is reversed Drury ? If it is 'normal' Drury (partners bidding is consistent with a reasonable 10 with 3S) I consider this an 'automatic' pass at pairs. You need a good fitting maximum to have some play in 4S, and there is all kind of nice looking 10/11 counts were 4S has no real chance (and partner will bid it if you make a try). There is an interesting theoretical issue. Although 2H doesn't show extras (you need to be able to find a heart fit) I would never bid it with a hand that could never make game. Suppose the HA here is the HQ I would bid 2S (or 2D if that is your negative) to make sure I get to play at the two level. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 Life Master Open Pairs, First Qualifying Session Dlr: West Vul: Both The bidding has gone: West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H Pass 2S Pass ? (1) Alerted, partnership agreement is Reverse Drury You, South, hold: AQJ72 A942 76 QJ What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 10 10:13:11 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:13:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <000301c37776$9ca57040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001301c3777b$db895880$ea693b3e@Default> Sven, I agree and don't agree with you. Basically you say that certain rules or at least certain interpretations (it is not about this example in particular) should be different at competition level and at recreational level. Fundamental problem, where do you draw the line. TD judgement seems nice but this boils down to the TD deciding what the rules are today. Clear if we play a real championship, clear if it is a beginners course. But there is an awful lot of grey in between. I am in favor of strict laws (some current penalties could be less draconic, it is about being strict, it is not about being severe) and to apply them strictly. Because that is the only way to educate people and to let players take the rules seriously (ok, for that goal the rules should be better than the current mess). Anyway, I would not mind two sets of laws. One for serious bridge and one for recreational bridge (probably includes low level competition). There is all kind of rules (like asking partner 'no spades') which should be strict of serious level but which should be relaxed at low level. To avoid two (or more) sets of laws the solution would be to make the normal law rather relaxed and to put 'extra rules' in some standard COC's. But you should not ask me if low level competition players like the idea to play with less serious rules than top level competition. Everybody says so but I am far from sure. Ask those players. Maybe the solution is to have the same strict rules for everybody but to vary the severity of the penalty with the level of competition. Makes more sense because the rules remain the same for everybody. Example the famous 'no spades partner'. At low level a warning is ok (apart from UI considerations). At top level I have no problem with the current established revoke penalty. But whatever we do it should be codified. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:36 AM Subject: RE: [blml] odd case Ed Reppert > At the club today, this happened: > > W N E S > - 1C P 2D* > > *2D was almost immediately corrected to 1D. We were using bidding > boxes, and S said something like "oops, I don't need to bid 2D" and > removed the cards 2H-2D, leaving 1D as her bid. I wasn't sure what the > law said about this, so I called the TD. When she showed up, I > explained what had happened, and then North said something to the > effect that South "thought she'd made an insufficient bid". While South > never said a word during the TD call and ruling, I suspect North was > correct. Anyway, at this point, TD said something about Law 25, and > then something to West about "you can accept this bid..." At which > point I pointed out that South had corrected a sufficient bid to a > *different* sufficient bid. Long pause from TD. "Oh. That's harder. > Wait a minute." And she goes off to consult with her colleague. Who > comes back and says "I'm gonna let 1D stand, and we'll see what happens > from there." Auction continued, they got too high, and went down (two, > I think). No further comments from either TD. > > Was the final ruling correct? To me this is not an obvious case. According to the laws the situation seems clear (even without the remark by South): She has changed her mind and law 25B applies. She intended to bid 2D all until she discovered that 1D would be sufficient. However (as I uttered with a ruling I made some time ago): This is one of those cases where I rule differently in top division from what I do at "ordinary club level". (The is some degree of judgment involved). Depending upon the class of players (that nasty term again!) I might very well rule law 25A instead. In fact on sensing between the lines in your description I believe that is exactly what I would have done; so my answer is yes; I agree with the ruling by your director although she should be aware that her ruling was not exactly technically correct. BTW the remark from North is both extraneous and incorrect, but I take it North wanted to point out that South probably bid 2D because she thought that 1D would have been insufficient and that she never intended to make a jump bid. That is for the director (not the players) to conclude after hearing all available facts (not assumptions) on what happened and how. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 10 10:29:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:29:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <001301c3777b$db895880$ea693b3e@Default> Message-ID: <000401c3777e$154a4780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut=20 > Sven, >=20 > I agree and don't agree with you. >=20 > Basically you say that certain rules or at least certain = interpretations > (it > is not about this example in particular) should be different at > competition > level and at recreational level. >=20 > Fundamental problem, where do you draw the line. TD judgement seems = nice > but > this boils down to the TD deciding what the rules are today. Clear if = we > play a real championship, clear if it is a beginners course. But there = is > an > awful lot of grey in between. That question is one pinpointing some of what makes the life as director interesting.=20 There is no straight answer, you have to assimilate (?) in such a way = that you yourself feel where to draw the line and what to say in each case = while all the time (almost?) complying with the laws. And how do I know when I have succeeded? When I feel that everybody (offenders as well as non offenders) are happy with my decisions and = rulings I consider my job well done. And just for the record, I never try to keep non-offenders in the dark = on what is the "real" law, but always explain that I sometimes accept = things they would never get away with in a serious event. And to the rest of your post: No I do not think we need any law change = for this purpose. Regards Sven >=20 > I am in favor of strict laws (some current penalties could be less > draconic, > it is about being strict, it is not about being severe) and to apply = them > strictly. Because that is the only way to educate people and to let > players > take the rules seriously (ok, for that goal the rules should be better > than > the current mess). >=20 > Anyway, I would not mind two sets of laws. One for serious bridge and = one > for recreational bridge (probably includes low level competition). = There > is > all kind of rules (like asking partner 'no spades') which should be = strict > of serious level but which should be relaxed at low level. >=20 > To avoid two (or more) sets of laws the solution would be to make the > normal > law rather relaxed and to put 'extra rules' in some standard COC's. = But > you > should not ask me if low level competition players like the idea to = play > with less serious rules than top level competition. Everybody says so = but > I > am far from sure. Ask those players. >=20 > Maybe the solution is to have the same strict rules for everybody but = to > vary the severity of the penalty with the level of competition. Makes = more > sense because the rules remain the same for everybody. Example the = famous > 'no spades partner'. At low level a warning is ok (apart from UI > considerations). At top level I have no problem with the current > established > revoke penalty. >=20 > But whatever we do it should be codified. >=20 > Jaap >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:36 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] odd case >=20 >=20 > Ed Reppert > > At the club today, this happened: > > > > W N E S > > - 1C P 2D* > > > > *2D was almost immediately corrected to 1D. We were using bidding > > boxes, and S said something like "oops, I don't need to bid 2D" and > > removed the cards 2H-2D, leaving 1D as her bid. I wasn't sure what = the > > law said about this, so I called the TD. When she showed up, I > > explained what had happened, and then North said something to the > > effect that South "thought she'd made an insufficient bid". While = South > > never said a word during the TD call and ruling, I suspect North was > > correct. Anyway, at this point, TD said something about Law 25, and > > then something to West about "you can accept this bid..." At which > > point I pointed out that South had corrected a sufficient bid to a > > *different* sufficient bid. Long pause from TD. "Oh. That's harder. > > Wait a minute." And she goes off to consult with her colleague. Who > > comes back and says "I'm gonna let 1D stand, and we'll see what = happens > > from there." Auction continued, they got too high, and went down = (two, > > I think). No further comments from either TD. > > > > Was the final ruling correct? >=20 > To me this is not an obvious case. >=20 > According to the laws the situation seems clear (even without the = remark > by > South): She has changed her mind and law 25B applies. She intended to = bid > 2D > all until she discovered that 1D would be sufficient. >=20 > However (as I uttered with a ruling I made some time ago): This is one = of > those cases where I rule differently in top division from what I do at > "ordinary club level". (The is some degree of judgment involved). >=20 > Depending upon the class of players (that nasty term again!) I might = very > well rule law 25A instead. In fact on sensing between the lines in = your > description I believe that is exactly what I would have done; so my = answer > is yes; I agree with the ruling by your director although she should = be > aware that her ruling was not exactly technically correct. >=20 > BTW the remark from North is both extraneous and incorrect, but I take = it > North wanted to point out that South probably bid 2D because she = thought > that 1D would have been insufficient and that she never intended to = make a > jump bid. That is for the director (not the players) to conclude after > hearing all available facts (not assumptions) on what happened and = how. >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Sep 10 10:35:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:35:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <000301c37776$9ca57040$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c37776$9ca57040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F5EF07C.2020206@hdw.be> Reaction to Jaap and Sven: I don't understand you guys. On the one hand, you argue in favour of strict laws and strict application of those laws. And then on the other hand, you are almost reluctant to apply the (not-so-strict) laws that we actually have: Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert > >> >>Was the final ruling correct? > > > To me this is not an obvious case. > Seems perfectly obvious to me. > According to the laws the situation seems clear (even without the remark by > South): She has changed her mind and law 25B applies. She intended to bid 2D > all until she discovered that 1D would be sufficient. > Exactly. Can we draw any other conclusion from the facts Ed mentioned? For once, I cannot. > However (as I uttered with a ruling I made some time ago): This is one of > those cases where I rule differently in top division from what I do at > "ordinary club level". (The is some degree of judgment involved). > ?????? > Depending upon the class of players (that nasty term again!) I might very > well rule law 25A instead. ?????? Why Sven? Because you believe the text presented does not allow you to draw the conclusion above? Or because you think some class of players needs protection from laws that are too harsh? In fact on sensing between the lines in your > description I believe that is exactly what I would have done; so my answer > is yes; I agree with the ruling by your director although she should be > aware that her ruling was not exactly technically correct. > Please explain why you would be ruling incorrectly. > BTW the remark from North is both extraneous and incorrect, but I take it > North wanted to point out that South probably bid 2D because she thought > that 1D would have been insufficient and that she never intended to make a > jump bid. That is for the director (not the players) to conclude after > hearing all available facts (not assumptions) on what happened and how. > > Regards Sven > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 10 11:11:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:11:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <3F5EF07C.2020206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c37783$e4f7c4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Reaction to Jaap and Sven: >=20 > I don't understand you guys. No, I appreciate that. > On the one hand, you argue in favour of strict laws and strict > application of those laws. >=20 > And then on the other hand, you are almost reluctant to apply the > (not-so-strict) laws that we actually have: If you never direct except in high-level events there is no problem, but = it appears to me that you forget all those low- and medium level events = where you have to apply a bit of sense in addition to the strict laws. May I remind you of what I consider the main objective for the director? To direct the event so that everybody who has participated leaves with = the feeling of having had a pleasant time and a fair competition, and is = looking forward to return for the next event. It is of no purpose to always "hammer" in a ruling according to law when both offenders and non-offenders (not to mention all other competitors = in the event) will feel that this ruling is inappropriate for the = particular happening. You tell them the laws but sometimes you also adapt (or = "bend") the laws to accommodate what they feel is "right". Regards Sven >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: > > Ed Reppert > > > >> > >>Was the final ruling correct? > > > > > > To me this is not an obvious case. > > >=20 > Seems perfectly obvious to me. >=20 > > According to the laws the situation seems clear (even without the = remark > by > > South): She has changed her mind and law 25B applies. She intended = to > bid 2D > > all until she discovered that 1D would be sufficient. > > >=20 > Exactly. Can we draw any other conclusion from the facts Ed mentioned? > For once, I cannot. >=20 > > However (as I uttered with a ruling I made some time ago): This is = one > of > > those cases where I rule differently in top division from what I do = at > > "ordinary club level". (The is some degree of judgment involved). > > >=20 > ?????? >=20 > > Depending upon the class of players (that nasty term again!) I might > very > > well rule law 25A instead. >=20 > ?????? >=20 > Why Sven? > Because you believe the text presented does not allow you to draw the > conclusion above? > Or because you think some class of players needs protection from laws > that are too harsh? >=20 >=20 > In fact on sensing between the lines in your > > description I believe that is exactly what I would have done; so my > answer > > is yes; I agree with the ruling by your director although she should = be > > aware that her ruling was not exactly technically correct. > > >=20 > Please explain why you would be ruling incorrectly. >=20 > > BTW the remark from North is both extraneous and incorrect, but I = take > it > > North wanted to point out that South probably bid 2D because she = thought > > that 1D would have been insufficient and that she never intended to = make > a > > jump bid. That is for the director (not the players) to conclude = after > > hearing all available facts (not assumptions) on what happened and = how. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From David Stevenson Wed Sep 10 12:32:14 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:32:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson writes > > I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test >Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any >country or Zone. > > Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the >current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or >national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. Thanks for the several comments and suggestions. Some questions have been raised: perhaps I might answer them. I have been asked to do this by individuals, not a sponsoring organisation, so I cannot quote an SO. I would not want to anyway because if I cited [say] a French SO I do not suppose that would cut much ice in [say] Argentina. The reason I have done a specific test first is because I have customers for that test. It is my intention to broaden this to include courses, and simpler tests aimed at a specific level of TD. I believe I need certification from the start because that is what my first customers want. Someone asked whether this is commercial. Yes, I suppose so. I make a meagre income from bridge, [nowhere near a living wage!], and if I can supplement it a little it would not hurt. -- 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 Sep 10 12:32:14 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:32:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson writes > > I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test >Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any >country or Zone. > > Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the >current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or >national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. Thanks for the several comments and suggestions. Some questions have been raised: perhaps I might answer them. I have been asked to do this by individuals, not a sponsoring organisation, so I cannot quote an SO. I would not want to anyway because if I cited [say] a French SO I do not suppose that would cut much ice in [say] Argentina. The reason I have done a specific test first is because I have customers for that test. It is my intention to broaden this to include courses, and simpler tests aimed at a specific level of TD. I believe I need certification from the start because that is what my first customers want. Someone asked whether this is commercial. Yes, I suppose so. I make a meagre income from bridge, [nowhere near a living wage!], and if I can supplement it a little it would not hurt. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Sep 10 12:58:42 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:58:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <000501c37783$e4f7c4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c37783$e4f7c4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F5F11F2.6060404@hdw.be> Sven, don't get me wrong, Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>I don't understand you guys. > > > No, I appreciate that. > > >>On the one hand, you argue in favour of strict laws and strict >>application of those laws. >> >>And then on the other hand, you are almost reluctant to apply the >>(not-so-strict) laws that we actually have: > > > If you never direct except in high-level events there is no problem, but it > appears to me that you forget all those low- and medium level events where > you have to apply a bit of sense in addition to the strict laws. > Whenever there is some claims ruling, you criticize me for being to lenient. Those are from low-level events sometimes as well! > May I remind you of what I consider the main objective for the director? > Please tell me. > To direct the event so that everybody who has participated leaves with the > feeling of having had a pleasant time and a fair competition, and is looking > forward to return for the next event. > Exactly. So how do you align that sentiment with awarding zero tricks to a claimer who has done no more wrong than miscounting trumps (in some situations). I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment, only with the inconsistency that I perceive. > It is of no purpose to always "hammer" in a ruling according to law when > both offenders and non-offenders (not to mention all other competitors in > the event) will feel that this ruling is inappropriate for the particular > happening. You tell them the laws but sometimes you also adapt (or "bend") > the laws to accommodate what they feel is "right". > You see what is strange: you are reluctant to accept that my views on a law that requires judgment are valid, because they are less strict than your views on that same law - yet you advocate leniency in applying laws that do not require judgment! > Regards Sven > Puzzled, Herman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 10 13:28:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:28:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <3F5F11F2.6060404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c37797$19210fb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ....... > > May I remind you of what I consider the main > > objective for the director? > > Please tell me. > > > To direct the event so that everybody who has > > participated leaves with the feeling of having > > had a pleasant time and a fair competition, and > > is looking forward to return for the next event. > > > > Exactly. > So how do you align that sentiment with awarding zero tricks to a > claimer who has done no more wrong than miscounting trumps (in some > situations). > I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment, only with the > inconsistency that I perceive. For two reasons: 1: Most players at "lower levels" are uncomfortable with claiming, most of them prefer the board always to be played out so that they shall not risk being fooled away from any tricks. 2: I want to train players never to claim unless there is absolutely no doubt that they have the rest. (And in doubtful claim cases I show them why they can lose one or more tricks under their claim statement. Next time they are more careful, something I consider being of a great value). Feedback from where I direct tells me that I have selected the "correct" procedure, both for top-level and for lower levels. Regards Sven From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Sep 10 14:33:49 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:33:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <000501c37783$e4f7c4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Sven Pran writes: > > Herman De Wael > > Reaction to Jaap and Sven: > > > > I don't understand you guys. > > No, I appreciate that. > > > On the one hand, you argue in favour of strict laws and strict > > application of those laws. > > And then on the other hand, you are almost reluctant to apply the > > (not-so-strict) laws that we actually have: > > If you never direct except in high-level events there is no problem, but > it appears to me that you forget all those low and medium level events > where you have to apply a bit of sense in addition to the strict laws. I'm all for common sense, but a departure from the rule book is not remotely justified in this case. Once the TD has determined, as seems obvious from the facts given, that South bid 2D in the belief that 1D would be insufficient, the ruling is clear cut. This is not a L25A "mechanical error" and the provisions of L25B apply. I only direct at club level, but the players are not beginners and I would not dream of patronising them by "bending" the Laws to allow for their assumed inexperience. It is a fallacy to believe that players at club level will only enjoy their bridge if a lax attitude is adopted to correct procedure and laws application. In general, club players are happy to play to the correct Laws - they just want to see them applied fairly and consistently. It is a strange experience to be totally in agreement with Herman! Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From jrhind@therock.bm Wed Sep 10 14:43:03 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0300 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well said Charles. I agree with your comments entirely. You will only bring trouble on yourself as a TD if you start differentiating between levels of players with an infraction such as this. It is, IMHO, a very clear cut decision: apply L25B. Regards, Jack On 9/10/03 10:33 AM, "Brambledown" wrote: >> Sven Pran writes: > >>> Herman De Wael >>> Reaction to Jaap and Sven: >>> >>> I don't understand you guys. >> >> No, I appreciate that. >> >>> On the one hand, you argue in favour of strict laws and strict >>> application of those laws. >>> And then on the other hand, you are almost reluctant to apply the >>> (not-so-strict) laws that we actually have: >> >> If you never direct except in high-level events there is no problem, but >> it appears to me that you forget all those low and medium level events >> where you have to apply a bit of sense in addition to the strict laws. > > I'm all for common sense, but a departure from the rule book is not remotely > justified in this case. Once the TD has determined, as seems obvious from > the facts given, that South bid 2D in the belief that 1D would be > insufficient, the ruling is clear cut. This is not a L25A "mechanical > error" and the provisions of L25B apply. > > I only direct at club level, but the players are not beginners and I would > not dream of patronising them by "bending" the Laws to allow for their > assumed inexperience. It is a fallacy to believe that players at club > level will only enjoy their bridge if a lax attitude is adopted to correct > procedure and laws application. In general, club players are happy to play > to the correct Laws - they just want to see them applied fairly and > consistently. > > It is a strange experience to be totally in agreement with Herman! > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@tameware.com Wed Sep 10 15:58:38 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:58:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1. I like the format where you post just the auction and the AI. This is something a committee chair can and often should do for his AC -- in the ACBL we call it a "blind preview". The losing action is often more attractive when one cannot see all four hands. 2. My LAs are Pass, 3C (game try, implies stiff diamond), 3D (game try, psychic), and 3S (general game try), though it might depend on what we've agreed is a minimum for Drury. 3. For what it's worth, this case was discussed in December in the thread "Congratulations" and in February in the thread "Phoenix Case 2". NABC cases are numbered chronologically in the daily bulletins, but by subject in the casebooks. No one look until you've decided what you'd do over 2S! http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-December/002914.html http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2003-February/004172.html 4. In the casebook North was the third-hand opener, not South. This doesn't affect your question, I'm just trying to avoid future confusion. 5. I'm getting ahead of things, but in the actual case I don't think the Opener had any UI. No doubt you'll let us know what you're leading towards in due course. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 10 18:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I can't see this causing a problem at typical clubs anyway. In "relaxed" clubs opps will just accept the substitution (as a TD I am entitled to tell them that their doing so makes my life easier!). In more competitive ones people expect the laws to be applied so one just does. Of course it is important for a TD to provide an atmosphere consistent with what players want, but the flexibility in most laws along with L10b and L81c8 make going outside the law unnecessary. Tim From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Sep 10 20:02:41 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:02:41 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > 1. I like the format where you post just the auction and the AI. This > is something a committee chair can and often should do for his AC -- > in the ACBL we call it a "blind preview". The losing action is often > more attractive when one cannot see all four hands. Yes, it does have its advantages. > 2. My LAs are Pass, 3C (game try, implies stiff diamond), 3D (game > try, psychic), and 3S (general game try), though it might depend on > what we've agreed is a minimum for Drury. It does depend on what your minimum for Drury is - and also on what your third and fourth seat 1S openers tend to look like. For many pairs I know, this hand is a full trick better than the worst hand they'd open 1S - for those pairs I doubt pass in a LA. > 3. For what it's worth, this case was discussed in December in the > thread "Congratulations" and in February in the thread "Phoenix Case > 2". NABC cases are numbered chronologically in the daily bulletins, > but by subject in the casebooks. > 5. I'm getting ahead of things, but in the actual case I don't think > the Opener had any UI. No doubt you'll let us know what you're > leading towards in due course. Very true. This just comes up in a second level of reasoning ("if responder had just rebid 2S, what might opener have done?") and isn't, strictly speaking, a situation where the definition of LA really comes into it - just in evaluating possible outcomes of the deal to see if there is damage / what to adjust to. As for responder, I don't see how he could possible settle for just 2S with a nice 7-loser hand. 3S may not be the best rebid -- but I can't see any way for this auction to end at 2S, UI or not. I may well have ruled score stands, on that basis, if I had been the table director. I am kind of surprised East called. Or rather, I *was* kind of surprised East called, until I went to the PDF file that had the player's names in it (I had only read the copy pasted into the BLML link until just now.) I also ran across an email from Todd Zimnoch asking how this appeal might have fared at a regional in the antagonists' (also my) home district. I don't want to turn this thread into a personal attack ... it's probably a good thing I wasn't the table director. Would have been hard to be objective, because East is high on my list of top ten most obnoxious people to meet at the bridge table. Hops up and down and yaps for the director anytime anyone so much as takes a deep breath during the bidding, let alone forgets an alert. I wonder who the table director was, come to think of it -- if it had been someone from the northwest I really do think East would have been told to quit bellyaching and get on with the game. GRB From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 10 21:35:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:35:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c377db$232c39f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > I can't see this causing a problem at typical clubs anyway. In = "relaxed" > clubs opps will just accept the substitution (as a TD I am entitled to > tell them that their doing so makes my life easier!). In more = competitive > ones people expect the laws to be applied so one just does. >=20 > Of course it is important for a TD to provide an atmosphere consistent > with what players want, but the flexibility in most laws along with = L10b > and L81c8 make going outside the law unnecessary. I would say it is never any question of going outside the law. The question Ed raised in this thread was whether to apply Law 25A or = 25B. In a high-level event there is no question but to apply Law 25B. But as a director I am very familiar with environments where I would let = the player "off the hook" and judge it to be a Law 25A case, depending to = some degree of course on my impression of how things actually happened. Reading between the lines in Ed's posting I feel that his would be one = such case, but not having been present and taking in the immediate atmosphere = I could not be certain. =20 I do not consider this to be compromising duplicate bridge, I tell the players the strict rules as they are and also on what grounds I in case accept actions that I would consider unacceptable at higher levels.=20 My satisfaction is when (as usually happens to be the case) all involved players appreciate my judgment. I have met just too many players who = quitted bridge while still at a very moderate level because they felt = uncomfortable with strict "by the book" directors in the clubs where they were = playing. Sven From toddz@att.net Wed Sep 10 22:21:31 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:21:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Bower > Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > I also ran across an email from Todd > Zimnoch asking how this appeal might have fared at a > regional in the antagonists' (also my) home district. Not wanting to be misunderstood, in my e-mail, I thought of south as the antagonist since he appealed. As a member of District 19's board, chairman of its judiciary committee, and a man responsible for bringing to bear ethics problems in the district, he shouldn't be showing such poor ethical judgement either at the table nor by bringing such an appeal. I fear for the state of ethics jurisdiction in District 19. -Todd From toddz@att.net Wed Sep 10 22:25:25 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:25:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > Life Master Open Pairs, First Qualifying Session > The bidding has gone: > West North East South > Pass Pass Pass 1S > Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H > Pass 2S Pass ? > > (1) Alerted, partnership agreement is Reverse Drury > > You, South, hold: > > AQJ72 > A942 > 76 > QJ > > What are your logical alternatives? Since I've already crawled out of the woodwork, I think about pass and 3S. Since it's matchpoints, I'll pass. -Todd From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 10 22:40:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <000201c377db$232c39f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads > > I can't see this causing a problem at typical clubs anyway. In > > "relaxed" > > clubs opps will just accept the substitution (as a TD I am entitled to > > tell them that their doing so makes my life easier!). In more > > competitive > > ones people expect the laws to be applied so one just does. > > > > Of course it is important for a TD to provide an atmosphere consistent > > with what players want, but the flexibility in most laws along with > > L10b and L81c8 make going outside the law unnecessary. > > I would say it is never any question of going outside the law. > > The question Ed raised in this thread was whether to apply Law 25A or > 25B. > > In a high-level event there is no question but to apply Law 25B. In *any* event there is no question about applying L25b. Applying L25a in a clear L25b situation *is* going outside the law. > But as a director I am very familiar with environments where I would > let the player "off the hook" and judge it to be a Law 25A case, > depending to some degree of course on my impression of how things > actually happened. If it is an "off the hook" environment you can rely on opponents to accept a L25b substitution if you present their options correctly. > I do not consider this to be compromising duplicate bridge, I tell the > players the strict rules as they are and also on what grounds I in case > accept actions that I would consider unacceptable at higher levels. > > My satisfaction is when (as usually happens to be the case) all involved > players appreciate my judgment. I have met just too many players who > quitted bridge while still at a very moderate level because they felt > uncomfortable with strict "by the book" directors in the clubs where > they were playing. And my argument is that a director can give "by the book" rulings that meet the needs of the club. The rare exception is visiting lawyers (who wouldn't let one get away with non-book rulings anyway). The vast majority of visitors, when told it is normal in the club to ask the director to waive penalties, *will* ask him to do it. Tim From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 10 22:46:50 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:46:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: <001201c3777b$daa78400$ea693b3e@Default> Message-ID: <004801c377e6$c7254dc0$48f07f50@Default> > Reverse Drury simply means that over 1S-2C, then opener's 2S shows a minimum > (or subminimum, if it was third seat). I guessed so, although for me this is NORMAL Drury. > Actually, when you don't know Reverse Drury, you cannot say what 2H shows. > Right? Wrong, what I said made perfectly sense (besides of course I know Reversed Drury, I just didn't know that name for it) . Read it again. It is clear I wasn't sure whether 2S (tends to be 'standard' in Holland) or 2D (tends to be 'standard' in France) was the negative call. But this doesn't matter for the meaning and range of 2H. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "DRD" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > > > Stupid question, what is reversed Drury ? > > > > If it is 'normal' Drury (partners bidding is consistent with a reasonable > 10 > > with 3S) I consider this an 'automatic' pass at pairs. You need a good > > fitting maximum to have some play in 4S, and there is all kind of nice > > looking 10/11 counts were 4S has no real chance (and partner will bid it > if > > you make a try). > > > > There is an interesting theoretical issue. Although 2H doesn't show extras > > (you need to be able to find a heart fit) > > ==== > Actually, when you don't know Reverse Drury, you cannot say what 2H shows. > Right? > > Reverse Drury simply means that over 1S-2C, then opener's 2S shows a minimum > (or subminimum, if it was third seat). > > Raija Davis From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 10 22:58:31 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:58:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: Message-ID: <004901c377e6$c842a4a0$48f07f50@Default> Adam, I read the story. I agree with you, this AC ruling is terrible. But the dissenting opinion is quite good. Must be frustrating for him (and the TD's) to be outvoted even after giving all the right arguments. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > 1. I like the format where you post just the auction and the AI. This > is something a committee chair can and often should do for his AC -- > in the ACBL we call it a "blind preview". The losing action is often > more attractive when one cannot see all four hands. > > 2. My LAs are Pass, 3C (game try, implies stiff diamond), 3D (game > try, psychic), and 3S (general game try), though it might depend on > what we've agreed is a minimum for Drury. > > 3. For what it's worth, this case was discussed in December in the > thread "Congratulations" and in February in the thread "Phoenix Case > 2". NABC cases are numbered chronologically in the daily bulletins, > but by subject in the casebooks. > > No one look until you've decided what you'd do over 2S! > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-December/002914.html > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2003-February/004172.html > > 4. In the casebook North was the third-hand opener, not South. This > doesn't affect your question, I'm just trying to avoid future > confusion. > > 5. I'm getting ahead of things, but in the actual case I don't think > the Opener had any UI. No doubt you'll let us know what you're > leading towards in due course. > > -- > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 10 23:33:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:33:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] odd case Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Reaction to Jaap and Sven: >> >>I don't understand you guys. Sven: >No, I appreciate that. Herman De Wael: >>On the one hand, you argue in favour of strict laws and strict >>application of those laws. >> >>And then on the other hand, you are almost reluctant to apply the >>(not-so-strict) laws that we actually have: Sven: >If you never direct except in high-level events there is no >problem, but it appears to me that you forget all those low- and >medium level events where you have to apply a bit of sense in >addition to the strict laws. [big snip] Richard James: I agree with both Herman and Sven. However, where I draw the line would be much closer to Herman's view. I would call a "low-level event" a beginner's class, and a "medium-level event" a supervised play duplicate. In my humble opinion, once you get to real duplicate sessions which award real masterpoints you have to use the real Laws. Like Sven, I frequently direct what he would call a "medium-level" walk-in pairs at my local club. Several members of my local club are nearly beginners. But when I am called upon to give a slightly obscure technical ruling involving those nearly beginners, I rule exactly as the Laws require, carefully explaining to those beginners that my ruling is *required* according to the rules. In my humble opinion, when Sven keeps his nearly beginners happy in what Sven calls a medium-level event, Sven is deliberately infracting Law 81B2, so Sven should report himself to the Norse Bridge Federation. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 11 02:59:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:59:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 Message-ID: I wrote: >>Life Master Open Pairs, First Qualifying Session >> >>Dlr: West >>Vul: Both >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>West North East South >>Pass Pass Pass 1S >>Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H >>Pass 2S Pass ? >> >>(1) Alerted, partnership agreement is Reverse Drury >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>AQJ72 >>A942 >>76 >>QJ >> >>What are your logical alternatives? Adam Wildavsky noted, inter alia: >4. In the casebook North was the third-hand opener, not South. This >doesn't affect your question, I'm just trying to avoid future >confusion. I contine: This was the actual auction, rotated 180 degrees to avoid future confusion -> West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H Pass 3S Pass 4S All pass (1) Not alerted, partnership agreement is that partner always remembers the system but sometimes forgets to alert. North South AQJ72 KT4 A942 8 76 KJT4 QJ KT632 The AC agreed that both 2S and 3S were LAs for South's rebid. The AC also agreed that the failure to alert conveyed UI. The AC still further agreed that the UI suggested bidding 3S. The majority of the AC then left the planet by ruling that South had not acted on UI, overruled the TD's adjustment, and restored the table result. In my humble opinion it is *irrelevant* whether or not South acted on UI - Law 16 is very carefully worded to avoid such questions of intent. Therefore, the AC should have only considered the hypothetical auction of my first posting. However... Adam Wildavsky also noted: >2. My LAs are Pass, 3C (game try, implies stiff diamond), 3D (game >try, psychic), and 3S (general game try), though it might depend on >what we've agreed is a minimum for Drury. [snip] >5. I'm getting ahead of things, but in the actual case I don't think >the Opener had any UI. No doubt you'll let us know what you're >leading towards in due course. I continue: Yes, the recommended procedure laid down in the WBF Code of Practice is to dial back to the moment *just before* the infraction. Here, 3S was the infraction. If the AC inserts an ethical 2S into the auction, Adam correctly notes that Opener has a number of logical alternatives which are unconstrained by UI. An ACBL AC should then apply Law 12C2. If it deems that Pass will be selected at least 1/3 of the time, it should adjust the table score to NS +200 & EW -200. If it deems that Pass will be selected less than= 1/3 of the time, then the AC should adjust the table score to NS +200 &= EW -650. A WBF AC has the additional option of awarding a weighted score via Law= 12C3. And, of course, any AC should fine North-South the appropriate PP for a= clear-cut infraction of Law 73C. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Sep 11 16:31:01 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:31:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 Message-ID: <3f609535.727b.0@esatclear.ie> >This was the actual auction, rotated 180 degrees to avoid future >confusion -> > >West North East South > Pass Pass >Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) >Pass 2H Pass 3S >Pass 4S All pass > >(1) Not alerted, partnership agreement is that partner always > remembers the system but sometimes forgets to alert. > > North South > AQJ72 KT4 > A942 8 > 76 KJT4 > QJ KT632 > >The AC agreed that both 2S and 3S were LAs for South's rebid. The >AC also agreed that the failure to alert conveyed UI. +++ agree up to here. Infact my 4S, 3C or 3D all seem fine. (2S assuming 2C's shows 10/11 & spade support is just about there. This is presumably E/W's argument). >The AC still further agreed that the UI suggested bidding 3S. +++ Disagree. Surely regardless of what 2H's means south has a crystal clear 3S bid. The singleton heart (ruffs in the short hand) - and two nice minor suits either one of which can be setup makes this hand now worth 13+ if not more. Its a seven loser to start with never mind its value going up after pd's bids. I'd open this hand in my system and in anyone's system I'd be surprised if the vast majority didn't at least contemplate opening this. 2H's is natural either way. Over this I rate my rebids in order of preference as 3D, 3C, 3S, 4S, 2NT, 3NT, 2S. While 2S may be LA it is certainly not the favourite by a long shot. For the AC to decide it comes down to 2S's or 3S's is ridiculous. The whole point to E/W's protest was that South didn't have a 3S bid. I disagree. I'd estimate the vast majority would choose this descriptive bid. Surely the question should have been posed P P 1S P 2C P 2H P ?? what is your bid, as this is what this case is about. "Law 73C ... Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " What advantage has accrued ?? Just as an aside - what would have happened if South did bid 2S's and N/S make 2S+1, the room being in 4S's - 1. I'm quite sure our E/W heroes would be screaming for a 3S bid and want the score adjusted to 4S-1. K. ... just on the generation bidding issue 2C(big) Dbl Rdbl is what ?? -- http://www.iol.ie From Steve Willner" > > The trouble with that last is that it gets back to mind > > reading > From: "grandeval" > +=+ Not 'back to' - it is here and now, and will remain > in the future. Sigh! Maybe in 2015. From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Sep 11 22:05:38 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:05:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 46B (Incontrovertible) Message-ID: Hi over there, Back from my cottage after 4 months. I do hope you are all ok. I want to check something. When dummy has A-K-Q-x-x in club and declarer knows that the suit is running, it is routine around here to allow the Q when declarer calls: A then K and then Club and says to the TD that his intention was to play the Q. I hate reading "intentions", but such is life with the Laws we have (as interpreted by my SO). I was called on a similar case (A, K and Club) but this time the suit was not running (6 cards in dummy, 1 in declarer's hand, 1 in RHO's.) In a spade contract, it was not stupid to ruff a low club, go back later to dummy by ruffing a Heart and then play CQ. On this deal, the result should not have been the same as playing the Q. As the intention is not so "incontrovertible", do you rule "Club means a small" (46B2) or trust the declarer and allow the Q ? Any difference if there is no more entry in dummy ? Laval Du Breuil, ACBL TD Quebec City From Steve Willner" > From: John Nichols > You are correct. The order of the infractions is not a factor. From L50D1: > > "The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, > takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card... It logically has to be this way; otherwise a villain could avoid a lead penalty by arranging to have a penalty card in the suit he wants to lead. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 11 22:07:58 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:07:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #2 References: <001501c37696$9af18f80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001f01c378a9$c61b7440$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin French wrote: > > > >The ACBL ACs tend to assess (or approve of) PPs only when no damage resulted > >from an irregularity, feeling perhaps that a score adjustment is sufficient > >"punishment." > > I think the PP is appropriate here because otherwise there is little > downside for South in bidding on. With the hesitation it seems almost > certain that the slam will make, so unless he risks a PP a misguided > South might decide to go ahead and bid it even though he knows, or > should know, that the bid would be illegal. The opponents will no doubt call the TD, any damage will be redressed, and damage or no damage, the TD can give a lecture or write up a Player Memo. PMs are filed and frequent transgressors are hauled in front of a C&E committee. > > >Also, when assessing an Appeal Without Merit Warning (AWMW), > >which is documented, no accompanying PP is assessed even if the > >circumstances of the case might justify one. > > There's no regulation on the books to that affect. Of course not, I am just saying what is common practice. Pairs whose scores are adjusted seldom get a PP, and those assessed a AWMW don't get one either. By the way, it is only ACs who are issuing PPs, with rare exceptions, despite the complaints of Rich Colker that TDs should be doing so. The effect is to make PPs a punishment for appearing before an AC. No damage, they will say, but we are assessing a PP for the misuse of MI. We're not going to let you get away with that, no matter what the Laws say. >The AWMW replaces > earlier monetary and score penalties, but a PP may still be warranted > for the reasons I set out above. PPs are not warranted for those reasons, but only for offenses listed in L90B and the like. If the lawmakers wanted to give TDs/ACs a *carte blanche* right to issue PPs for any reason whatsover, L90 B would not exist. > > Recently I sat on a Regional AC where an auction like this came up: > > 1H 2H! X 3D > X 4C > > The 2H bidder heard his partner explain the cue-bid as showing > diamonds and hearts, which was in fact their agreement. He held the > black suits. The TD adjusted to 3DX down 1400. I still don't know why > the cue-bidder appealed. We made the same adjustment and also > assessed a half-board PP. If I'd thought of it I'd have pushed for an > additional quarter-board penalty for an AWMW. Citing which item in L90B? So, I am right. PPs are used in ACBL-land as punishment for taking up an AC's time. There is no basis for that in the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Steve Willner" > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > An ACBL AC should then apply Law 12C2. If it deems that Pass will be > selected at least 1/3 of the time, it should adjust the table score > to NS +200 & EW -200. If it deems that Pass will be selected less than > 1/3 of the time, then the AC should adjust the table score to NS +200 & > EW -650. Just a minor correction: that last sentence applies (or used to) if the probability is deemed to be between 1/6 and 1/3. If Pass will be selected less than 1/6 of the time, the score is NS +650 for both sides. I seem to recall, though, that the ACBL LC has disavowed the quantitative values for "likely" and "at all probable." Perhaps I'm mistaken. From toddz@att.net Thu Sep 11 22:57:17 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:57:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 In-Reply-To: <3f609535.727b.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Karel > Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > +++ Disagree. Surely regardless of what 2H's means > south has a crystal clear > 3S bid. The singleton heart (ruffs in the short hand) > - and two nice minor > suits either one of which can be setup makes this hand > now worth 13+ if not more. I'm not a particularly good bridge player, so this makes little sense to me. If 2H is natural, partner has shown 9 cards in the majors while I have 9 cards in the minors. I don't expect either minor to set up on length and partner may have difficulties ruffing 3 of his four hearts with my short trumps. > Its a seven loser to start with never mind its > value going up after pd's bids. To me, the value of the hand has gone down after partner bid my short suit. Why did the value of the hand actually go up? -Todd From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 11 23:16:29 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:16:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: References: <001e01c378ac$0b791ae0$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <003801c378b2$df00f6c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > Just a minor correction: that last sentence applies (or used to) if the > probability is deemed to be between 1/6 and 1/3. If Pass will be > selected less than 1/6 of the time, the score is NS +650 for both sides. > > I seem to recall, though, that the ACBL LC has disavowed the > quantitative values for "likely" and "at all probable." Perhaps I'm > mistaken. > Rich Colker has disavowed them, but I haven't seen any LC minutes that changed its original numbers, which David Stevenson characterized as reasonable (if memory serves). Anyway, those numbers were just guidelines to give people who could not understand what L12C2 meant by "most favorable result that was likely" and 'most unfavorable result that was at all probable" a clue to the meaning. They were not to be taken literally, as is true of all "guidelines." Rich said the 1/6-1/3 numbers were impossible, citing a theoretical case with multiple 1/8 chance probabilities. What do you do then? Your [Steve's] sensible suggestion for that was to add the probabilities bottom up and pick the outcome whose probability causes the subtotal to meet or exceed the guideline's threshold. I found only this on the subject in ACBLLC minutes, from the Anaheim 2000 meeting: "The Commission discussed the meanings of "likely" and "at all probable" in Law 12 but did not suggest a non-numerical definition." That seems to say that the previous 1/3-1/6 guideline still applies, but maybe it meant that TDs/ACs should just use common sense. Which is, give the NOS the best result of those that look reasonable and the OS the worst result of those that do not look unreasonable. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Sep 12 00:26:08 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:26:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: Message-ID: <001b01c378bc$15e32ba0$05ee7f50@Default> Karel: > > +++ Disagree. Surely regardless of what 2H's means > > south has a crystal clear > > 3S bid. The singleton heart (ruffs in the short hand) Crystal clear ???? If I give this as a bidding problem to a bunch of experts (actually I might try this one on my panel) I expect to get at least 3 different answers, probably more. So whatever it is, it is not crystal clear. Todd: > I'm not a particularly good bridge player, so this makes little > sense to me. If 2H is natural, partner has shown 9 cards in the > majors while I have 9 cards in the minors. I don't expect either > minor to set up on length and partner may have difficulties > ruffing 3 of his four hearts with my short trumps. I agree. Of course your hand is much better if partners second suit is not hearts. But point location is almost as important as length on this kind of hands. Most people get influenced by looking at the hand. Of course Ace empty fourth and good trumps is great for your hand. But give partner less in spades and more in hearts then 4S easily becomes an awful contract. So don't worry, 2S is normal also because one of your kings is likely to hit a singleton (but I never said 3C or 3S was crazy, it is not, it is agressive). If you carefully read the case somewhere it is written that some experts actually passed on 2S. In order to do so their expert partner had to bid 2S in this sequence (the first three bids are fairly automatic). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:57 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karel > > Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 > > > > +++ Disagree. Surely regardless of what 2H's means > > south has a crystal clear > > 3S bid. The singleton heart (ruffs in the short hand) > > - and two nice minor > > suits either one of which can be setup makes this hand > > now worth 13+ if not more. > > I'm not a particularly good bridge player, so this makes little > sense to me. If 2H is natural, partner has shown 9 cards in the > majors while I have 9 cards in the minors. I don't expect either > minor to set up on length and partner may have difficulties > ruffing 3 of his four hearts with my short trumps. > > > Its a seven loser to start with never mind its > > value going up after pd's bids. > > To me, the value of the hand has gone down after partner bid my > short suit. Why did the value of the hand actually go up? > > -Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 03:03:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:03:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hexameter Message-ID: Formerly the threads "Fw:" and "Phoenix Casebook #11". Richard James Hills: >>An ACBL AC should then apply Law 12C2. If it deems >>that Pass will be selected at least 1/3 of the time, >>it should adjust the table score to NS +200 & EW >>-200. If it deems that Pass will be selected less >>than 1/3 of the time, then the AC should adjust the >>table score to NS +200 & EW -650. Steve Willner: >Just a minor correction: that last sentence applies (or >used to) if the probability is deemed to be between 1/6 >and 1/3. If Pass will be selected less than 1/6 of the >time, the score is NS +650 for both sides. Richard James Hills: Just a minor clarification of two (possibly unwarranted) assumptions in my original posting - both Pass and bidding again are Logical Alternatives, and a Logical Alternative should *automatically* be deemed to be at least a 1/6th chance for the purpose of the ACBL interpretation of Law 12C2. (If the WBF Law 12C3 applies, then a LA can be deemed to be a less than 16% chance.) The poll I conducted of blmlers in my intial posting on the parent thread did suggest that Pass would be an LA. There is Rich Colker's hypothetical of eight LAs of an equal 1/8th probability. But if was an ACBL TD when the hypothetical became actual, I would be an innumerate TD that would rule that the 8 LAs each had a percentage likelihood of 17%. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 06:09:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:09:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] odd case Message-ID: [big snip] Sven wrote: >I have met just too many players who quitted bridge while >still at a very moderate level because they felt >uncomfortable with strict "by the book" directors in the >clubs where they were playing. Richard James Hills quibbles: In my humble opinion, it is not the strict "by the book" rulings which makes moderate players quit bridge. If the Director and other players are warm and sympathetic in their manners towards moderate players, sympathising with their bad luck in tripping over the obscure Law 25B, then beginners do not quit bridge. A brusque or rude club director - I have met several in my time - is the only sort of director who puts moderate players off. (Fortunately, rude club TDs are eventually a self-correcting problem. Either the club administration sacks the TD, or disgruntled former members establish a new, rival club.) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Sep 12 14:20:39 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:20:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 Message-ID: <3f61c827.1776.0@esatclear.ie> +++ Ok point taken. I'm an optimistic bidder (hasn't hurt me too much so far :>>). Still the main point is that the original AC basically came down to a choice between 2S and 3S as the only LA's (at least thats the way I read it). As an aside once you do come down to this chocie and disallow 3S on the basis of UI - I can't for the life of me see how they got to 4S+1 as pass over 2S with the opening hand is IMO standout. I'm disagreeing with their 1st premise. First off 2S & 3S's are not the only LA, 3C,3D,2NT are all quite acceptable. Nor do I think 3S is an overbid. IMO its just about right (3C/3D marginally better). 2S is too conservative, 4S too agressive. I can't see how the AC concluded that the lack of alert resulted in the normal bid (or at least a high percentage normal bid). Its a razor thin decision to say the alert caused UI and so ban the 3S bid. To be honest I think the whole case is razor thin (which is probably why the AC managed to do some cart wheels and leave the result as 4S+1). Even the most hardened amongst us (I await Mr Burns's sentence) must concede 3S is hardly outrageous. As Jaap said at a push a tad aggressive, but well within limits. I don't know the E/W pair but their UI case was very fine, IMO unsportingly fine. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 12 14:22:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:22:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34ADF308-E524-11D7-A1A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard James Hills quibbles: [snip] I agree with this quibble. I would add that this particular player finds the tendency of local club TDs to make rulings from (an often faulty) memory, to fail to have consistent written conditions of contest, and to run games lackadaisically to be far more likely to cause me to quit than would "by the book" rulings. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Sep 12 14:57:04 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:57:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: <3f61c827.1776.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <009201c37935$bf5d5ba0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Karel wrote: > Even the most hardened amongst us (I await Mr Burns's sentence) must concede > 3S is hardly outrageous. Mr Burn's sentences have already appeared in the Phoenix casebook. They were these: The Director has acted correctly in judging that South, in possession of the UI that North does not know about South's spade support, should not take some emphatic measure to show that support when his hand does not warrant such an action. I don't know how to play Drury, so I don't know whether South might be considered to have a 3S bid anyway - but I have some vague idea of how to play bridge, and I know that if I had shown a near-maximum pass with spade support and my partner had bid hearts, I would be back-pedalling like fury, not giving the impression that partner's 2H bid had improved my hand. If I wanted to bid at the three level, I would consider it 110% obvious to bid 3C and not 3S. I can see why South didn't want to do this given that he knew - as he was not allowed to know, and knew that he was not allowed to know - that North thought South had clubs and did not think that South had spades. Because North had not alerted 2C, South's overwhelming compulsion was to show his spade support despite having shown it already, and not to "repeat" his club suit despite not having bid it at all. The "no UI" argument might safely be dismissed as nonsense, were it not for the fact that it is extremely dangerous nonsense. We never accept the argument of a man who says: "Given our methods and our style, for me personally there was no logical alternative to pulling partner's double [or accepting partner's game try, or doing anything else after partner's slow action]". Instead, we judge by an objective standard: what would the majority of players have done? Similarly, we should never accept the argument of a man who says: "Given the circumstances of our partnership, for me personally there was no UI from partner's non-Alert". Instead, we should judge by an objective standard: what information might that non-Alert convey? In so doing, of course, we wrong people who are telling us the absolute truth about their methods, their style, their partnership circumstances, and who are acting for the best insofar as their limited understanding of the Law allows (Case Six is an example - the poor guy thought he had a 4C bid, and it was not until better men than he pointed out the defensive nature of his spade and diamond holdings that he saw the error of his ways). We know that we wrong these honest but deluded men, and we cushion the blow by saying: "We believe you, but you must understand that we have to rule against you, for there are villains in the world who would act exactly as you have acted not from the purest of motives, but from a desire to pull the wool over our august and all-seeing eyes". Now, here is a South who has produced a villainous auction, no doubt from the purest of motives. And here is a Committee who has listened to, and been convinced by, a sob story. And yet... the Committee wants to warn North-South, and publish North-South's actions in the streets of Ashkelon (or wherever their home District may be). Here, I would say, is a Committee without the faintest idea of what it is doing, with the honourable exception and to the understandable chagrin of one of its members. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Sep 12 16:55:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:55:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <34ADF308-E524-11D7-A1A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000c01c37946$3ce7c640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > Richard James Hills quibbles: > > [snip] > > I agree with this quibble. I would add that this particular player > finds the tendency of local club TDs to make rulings from (an often > faulty) memory, to fail to have consistent written conditions of > contest, and to run games lackadaisically to be far more likely to > cause me to quit than would "by the book" rulings. > The ACBL has a book available to club TDs, entitled "Duplicate Decisions. Subtitle "A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table." Besides going thru all the Laws, discussing how they should be applied, there is a lot of helpful material in a section entitled "Guidelines for Club Directors," including a chapter "How to Make a Good Ruling" and a bunch of ACBL regulations. It's a pretty good book, but I do not know a single club TD who owns one. Maybe, Ed, you should buy one for your club. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 12 19:56:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:56:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] odd case In-Reply-To: <000c01c37946$3ce7c640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 11:55 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > It's a pretty good book, but I do not know a single club TD who owns > one. > Maybe, Ed, you should buy one for your club. If I'm not mistaken, at least two of the three clubs in question have a copy (as do I). From nancy@dressing.org Sat Sep 13 00:55:47 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:55:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <34ADF308-E524-11D7-A1A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000c01c37946$3ce7c640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005b01c37989$62ff8820$6501a8c0@hare> You might be surprised at how many directors own "Duplicate Decisions". It is a great help to many, many directors and not necessarily one they carry with them. It is a great study book and one of the books allowed now for the director's exam as part of the course material. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] odd case > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > > > Richard James Hills quibbles: > > > > [snip] > > > > I agree with this quibble. I would add that this particular player > > finds the tendency of local club TDs to make rulings from (an often > > faulty) memory, to fail to have consistent written conditions of > > contest, and to run games lackadaisically to be far more likely to > > cause me to quit than would "by the book" rulings. > > > The ACBL has a book available to club TDs, entitled "Duplicate Decisions. > Subtitle "A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table." Besides going > thru all the Laws, discussing how they should be applied, there is a lot of > helpful material in a section entitled "Guidelines for Club Directors," > including a chapter "How to Make a Good Ruling" and a bunch of ACBL > regulations. > > It's a pretty good book, but I do not know a single club TD who owns one. > Maybe, Ed, you should buy one for your club. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 13 04:45:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 20:45:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <34ADF308-E524-11D7-A1A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000c01c37946$3ce7c640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005b01c37989$62ff8820$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <010401c379a9$80ad97c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nancy T Dressing" > You might be surprised at how many directors own "Duplicate Decisions". It > is a great help to many, many directors and not necessarily one they carry > with them. It is a great study book and one of the books allowed now for > the director's exam as part of the course material. In these parts it either isn't available or it isn't read. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nancy@dressing.org Sat Sep 13 06:48:33 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:48:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <34ADF308-E524-11D7-A1A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000c01c37946$3ce7c640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005b01c37989$62ff8820$6501a8c0@hare> <010401c379a9$80ad97c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c379ba$aaf29b50$6501a8c0@hare> Of course, it is available. Try the ACBL catalog!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] odd case > > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > > > You might be surprised at how many directors own "Duplicate Decisions". > It > > is a great help to many, many directors and not necessarily one they carry > > with them. It is a great study book and one of the books allowed now for > > the director's exam as part of the course material. > > In these parts it either isn't available or it isn't read. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 13 07:21:33 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:21:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <34ADF308-E524-11D7-A1A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000c01c37946$3ce7c640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005b01c37989$62ff8820$6501a8c0@hare> <010401c379a9$80ad97c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000d01c379ba$aaf29b50$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000701c379bf$4a5673c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Nancy Dressing wrote: > Of course, it is available. Try the ACBL catalog!!! > > > > > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > > > > > You might be surprised at how many directors own "Duplicate Decisions". > > It > > > is a great help to many, many directors and not necessarily one they > carry > > > with them. It is a great study book and one of the books allowed now > for > > > the director's exam as part of the course material. > > > > In these parts it either isn't available or it isn't read. > > I did that, and own one myself. What I meant to say was that either TDs hereabouts have not obtained one or, if so, don't seem to have read it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 13 12:43:15 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:43:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <200309100234.TAA27207@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c3777b$d9828c00$ea693b3e@Default> Message-ID: <003201c379ec$3b5254c0$559868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap] If that correction option would be abolished (at least at serious competition level) people probably would pay more attention to what they are doing. Another example that the current rules protect and so encourage sloppiness. [Nigel] Such laws reward "sloppy" players; but they also reward plausible liars and punish those who tell the truth. The human capacity to "rationalise" self-serving claims is immense and needs no additional blessing from stupid laws. [Sven] This is one of those cases where I rule differently in top division from what I do at "ordinary club level". (The is some degree of judgment involved). [Nigel] Rulings that discriminate on ability are unnecessary in a game. They deter would-be duplicate players from taking up Bridge. Experienced players and TDs often lose their way in the laws. To beginners, current laws are an illogical and impenetrable jungle: a spurious handicap in their learning path. They already realise that the law is different for experts. At worst, they suspect that this bias is in the experts' favour; at best, they resent "being treated like children". [Sven] May I remind you of what I consider the main objective for the director? To direct the event so that everybody who has participated leaves with the feeling of having had a pleasant time and a fair competition, and is looking forward to return for the next event. [Nigel] We all agree with Sven's objective; but in other games, no sane person regards it as "fair" to apply different rules in identical circumstances, to different players, based on subjective judgements. And, unfortunately, it is hard to enjoy a game the rules of which are privy to a tiny clique of telepaths. To help those of us who can only read the text, the 2005 law book would benefit from a newspeak glossary to redefine many common words as their antonyms e.g. "equity", "fair", "rational", and so on. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 13 13:28:07 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:28:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: <3f61c827.1776.0@esatclear.ie> <009201c37935$bf5d5ba0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00d901c379f2$7d431260$559868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn] South [is] in possession of the UI that North does not know about South's spade support. If I had shown a near-maximum pass with spade support and my partner had bid hearts, I would be back-pedalling like fury, not giving the impression that partner's 2H bid had improved my hand. If I wanted to bid at the three level, I would consider it ...obvious to bid 3C and not 3S. We should never accept the argument of a man who says: "Given the circumstances of our partnership, for me personally there was no UI from partner's non-Alert". Instead, we should judge by an objective standard: what information might that non-Alert convey? We know that we wrong the.. honest but deluded, and we cushion the blow by saying: "We believe you, but you must understand that we have to rule against you, for there are villains in the world who would act exactly as you have acted not from the purest of motives, but from a desire to pull the wool over our august and all-seeing eyes". [Nigel] Simple, clear, and David is correct, as usual. If a UK AC had deigned to consult a law-book before ruling for the the 3-spade bidder one might suspect that he had relatives or close friends on the AC; and that the AC were proud to advertise that relationship. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From Steve Willner" Message-ID: <001201c37a2c$0a2bd3e0$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > both Pass and bidding again are Logical Alternatives, Perhaps true but irrelevant. "Logical Alternatives" apply when we are dealing with UI -- and only then. For L12C2, we are dealing with "likely" and "at all probable." The concepts have some similarities but only superficial ones. > and a Logical Alternative > should *automatically* be deemed to be at least a 1/6th > chance for the purpose of the ACBL interpretation of Law > 12C2. Not true. The ACBL definition of Logical Alternative is quite inclusive. From the text of the definition, one might think it could be a 0% alternative, but in practice it is probably around 10%, perhaps 5% if the TD is feeling tough. Most of the rest of the world uses 25%, if they use percentages at all, but my impression is that the recent WBF change is closer to the ACBL view. More important, the very concept is different. For LA's, we are considering what a group of peers might do in the absence of UI. For likely/at all probable, we need to consider what would have happened _at the table in question_ absent the irregularity. In practice, the reasoning will be much the same ("Some players might pass, others might bid."), but the _goal_ of what we are trying to determine is different. > There is Rich Colker's hypothetical of eight LAs of an > equal 1/8th probability. But if was an ACBL TD when the > hypothetical became actual, I would be an innumerate TD > that would rule that the 8 LAs each had a percentage > likelihood of 17%. I'd give the OS the second worst (25%) for them and the NOS the third best (37.5%). What's so hard about that? It's probably about where you would come out if you didn't know anything about percentages. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 14 17:37:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:37:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] odd case References: <200309100234.TAA27207@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c3777b$d9828c00$ea693b3e@Default> <003201c379ec$3b5254c0$559868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001301c37ade$845076a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote, intelligently: > Rulings that discriminate on ability are unnecessary > in a game. They deter would-be duplicate players from > taking up Bridge. Experienced players and TDs often > lose their way in the laws. To beginners, current laws > are an illogical and impenetrable jungle: a spurious > handicap in their learning path. They already realise > that the law is different for experts. At worst, they > suspect that this bias is in the experts' favour; > at best, they resent "being treated like children". > However, a TD/AC must have a "virtual player" in mind as a model when deciding what is rational or irrrational, logical or illogical, probable or improbable, etc., when making a ruling. The model surely must be different for the typical club game and a high-level event. My suggestion is that the model be a generic player with skills that are average for contestants in the event. The goal is to treat all contestants equally, with the same ruling for identical irregularities regardless of who is involved. To achieve that goal without bias, a TD should consult with others without identifying the player(s) involved. The current practice at NABCs of TD panels' consulting with a few typical players in an event is without much value because of the small data sample. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 14 17:47:49 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: <3f61c827.1776.0@esatclear.ie> <009201c37935$bf5d5ba0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00d901c379f2$7d431260$559868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001e01c37adf$efad17e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> David Burn wrote, intelligently: > Weshould never accept the argument of a man who says: > "Given the circumstances of our partnership, for me > personally there was no UI from partner's non-Alert". > Instead, we should judge by an objective standard: what > information might that non-Alert convey? > > We know that we wrong the.. honest but deluded, and > we cushion the blow by saying: "We believe you, but > you must understand that we have to rule against you, > for there are villains in the world who would act > exactly > as you have acted not from the purest of motives, > but from a desire to pull the wool over our august and > all-seeing eyes". > Which leads us to the conclusion reached by Ron Gerard, an ACBL AC casebook panelist, which is that all uncorroborated testimony from an involved player is irrelevant, to be given zero weight. To be fair and to ensure that all contestants are treated equally, this includes self-damaging testimony given by the naive. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 14 17:56:49 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:56:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Hexameter References: <200309121418.h8CEIGer000061@cfa.harvard.edu> <001201c37a2c$0a2bd3e0$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <002701c37ae1$32463cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > I'd give the OS the second worst (25%) for them and the NOS the third > best (37.5%). What's so hard about that? It's probably about where you > would come out if you didn't know anything about percentages. > Yes. It is very rare that assigning appropriate L12C2 adjustments is difficult. It's hard to define the criteria, but you know one when you see one. Which leads me to reiterate that the "most favorable result that was likely" need not be a likely (>50%) result. Using "likely" out of context, as almost everyone does, is very misleading. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From centermedical@katamail.com Sun Sep 14 20:15:05 2003 From: centermedical@katamail.com (centermedical@katamail.com) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19.58.59 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) only for men Message-ID: =3Chtml=3E =3Chead=3E =3Ctitle=3E=3C=2Ftitle=3E =3Cmeta http-equiv=3D=22Content-Type=22 content=3D=22text=2Fhtml=3B charset=3Diso-8859-1=22=3E =3C=2Fhead=3E =3Cbody bgcolor=3D=22#FFFFFF=22 text=3D=22#000000=22=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E=3Cb=3EEgregi Signori=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E =3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E=3Cb=3E1=2E Il rispetto della privacy delle persone è=3B obbligatorio=3Cbr=3E 2=2E Ci scusiamo per l'invio di questo messaggio=3Cbr=3E 3=2E Nel caso non siate la persona destinataria del messaggio=2C rinviateci una email a =3Ca href=3D=22mailto=3Aremovemedical=40katamail=2Ecom=22=3Eremovemedical=40katamail=2Ecom=3C=2Fa=3E=3Cbr=3E =3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E4=2E Se siete la persona interessata o desiderate avere la possibilità=3B di visionare le nostre offerte=2Cbasta un click=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E =3Cu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E =3Chr=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fu=3E =3Cp=3E=3Cu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3EDear Sirs=2C=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3Cu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E=3Cbr=3E =3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E1 =2E privacy of the people must be respected =3B=3C=2Fb=3E =3Cb=3E=3Cbr=3E 2 =2E we are sorry for the mailing of this message=3B=3Cbr=3E 3 =2E in case you are not the addressee of the message=2Csend us back e-mail with =3Ca href=3D=22mailto=3Aremovemedical=40katamail=2Ecom=22=3Eremovemedical=40katamail=2Ecom=3C=2Fa=3E=3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E4 =2E if you are interested and you would examine our offers=2C just do “=3Bclick”=3B=2E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3Cbr=3E =3Cu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E=3Ca href=3D=22=2F01=5FCircolari=2F2003=2FnuoveCircolari=2FonlyMen=2F%F9=22=3E =3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fa=3E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fu=3E=3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E =3B=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22right=22=3E=3Cb=3E=3Ca href=3D=22http=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ebsnguarantee=2Ecom=2Fbsnguarantee=2F01=5FCircolari=2F2003=2FnuoveCircolari=2FonlyMen=2Findex=2Ehtm=22=3E=3Cimg src=3D=22http=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ebsnguarantee=2Ecom=2Fbsnguarantee=2F01=5FCircolari=2F2003=2FnuoveCircolari=2FonlyMen=2FourOffer=2Ejpg=22 width=3D=22162=22 height=3D=2232=22 border=3D=220=22=3E=3C=2Fa=3E=3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22right=22=3E =3B=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E =3B=3C=2Fp=3E =3C=2Fbody=3E =3C=2Fhtml=3E From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 15 05:57:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:57:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alpha or Beta? Message-ID: Sunday Swiss Teams, non-regular Acol partnership with no special slam conventions. However, your partner is the Unlucky Expert, so will draw the right inferences from any textbook slam try. Dealer South, vulnerable North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D(1) 3S ?(2) (1) 1D can, of course, be opened with a minimum hand and 5+ diamonds. You South hold: 7 A42 AKQT98542 void (2) However, if 1D is opened when holding *exactly* four diamonds, the partnership agreement is that the 1D opening promises either: alpha) a three-suited hand with a singleton in either major, or beta) a balanced hand, 15-20 hcp, with 2 or 3 clubs. What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Sep 15 11:09:17 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:09:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alpha or Beta? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CDBA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Richard] Sunday Swiss Teams, non-regular Acol partnership with no special slam conventions. However, your partner is the Unlucky Expert, so will draw the right inferences from any textbook slam try. Dealer South, vulnerable North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D(1) 3S ?(2) (1) 1D can, of course, be opened with a minimum hand and 5+ diamonds. You South hold: 7 A42 AKQT98542 void (2) However, if 1D is opened when holding *exactly* four diamonds, the partnership agreement is that the 1D opening promises either: alpha) a three-suited hand with a singleton in either major, or beta) a balanced hand, 15-20 hcp, with 2 or 3 clubs. What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- [Frances] Logical Alternatives appear to be 4S 7D 6D 4NT 4D, 5D 4NT will get you to 7 easily if you have the CA spare lower numbers of diamonds may work better in stopping them saving. Not = really my style but could easily be convinced they are LAs. any number of clubs or hearts sounds natural 5S would show a spade void Not sure of the relevance of the alpha/beta alternatives, other than = making 7D more attractive if partner can't have a weak NT. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 15 12:24:18 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:24:18 +1200 Subject: [blml] Alpha or Beta? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E167CDBA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001401c37b7b$eacaf7f0$bc9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Monday, 15 September 2003 10:09 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Alpha or Beta? > > > [Richard] > > Sunday Swiss Teams, non-regular Acol partnership with no > special slam conventions. However, your partner is the > Unlucky Expert, so will draw the right inferences from > any textbook slam try. > > Dealer South, vulnerable North-South > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D(1) 3S ?(2) > > (1) 1D can, of course, be opened with a minimum hand and 5+ > diamonds. > > You South hold: > > 7 > A42 > AKQT98542 > void > > (2) However, if 1D is opened when holding *exactly* > four diamonds, the partnership agreement is that the 1D > opening promises either: > > alpha) a three-suited hand with a singleton in either > major, or > > beta) a balanced hand, 15-20 hcp, with 2 or 3 clubs. > > What are your logical alternatives? 4S. Any number of diamonds does look right 5D is not enough and 6D/7D are pure guess-work. Maybe something else by special partnership agreement e.g. 5C = club void in my partnership since 4C = natural and forcing. Wayne Burrows > > Best wishes > > Richard James > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > > [Frances] > > Logical Alternatives appear to be > 4S > 7D > 6D > 4NT > 4D, 5D > > 4NT will get you to 7 easily if you have the CA spare > lower numbers of diamonds may work better in stopping them > saving. Not really my style but could easily be convinced > they are LAs. > > any number of clubs or hearts sounds natural > 5S would show a spade void > > Not sure of the relevance of the alpha/beta alternatives, > other than making 7D more attractive if partner can't have a weak NT. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 15 13:18:11 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:18:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 In-Reply-To: <001e01c37adf$efad17e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <3f61c827.1776.0@esatclear.ie> <009201c37935$bf5d5ba0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00d901c379f2$7d431260$559868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030915080957.00a07a00@pop.starpower.net> At 12:47 PM 9/14/03, Marvin wrote: >Which leads us to the conclusion reached by Ron Gerard, an ACBL AC >casebook >panelist, which is that all uncorroborated testimony from an involved >player >is irrelevant, to be given zero weight. To be fair and to ensure that all >contestants are treated equally, this includes self-damaging testimony >given >by the naive. The problem with that view is that in 99%+ of cases that reach an AC the problem arose when there were only four players at the table, so if you don't accept testimony from an involved player, you wind up with no testimony at all, which makes it kind of hard to determine what might have happened. We should recognize self-serving testimony for what it is, and discount it when weighing it as evidence, but it is still evidence, and still potentially useful in reaching a reasonable result. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From john@asimere.com Mon Sep 15 18:10:14 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:10:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alpha or Beta? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Sunday Swiss Teams, non-regular Acol partnership with no >special slam conventions. However, your partner is the >Unlucky Expert, so will draw the right inferences from >any textbook slam try. > >Dealer South, vulnerable North-South >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass 1D(1) 3S ?(2) > >(1) 1D can, of course, be opened with a minimum hand and 5+ >diamonds. I'd bid 5H, and over 5S, 7D, but the grand will always be a crapshoot. > >You South hold: > >7 >A42 >AKQT98542 >void > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 15 20:52:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:52:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 References: <3f61c827.1776.0@esatclear.ie> <009201c37935$bf5d5ba0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00d901c379f2$7d431260$559868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.2.0.9.0.20030915080957.00a07a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003701c37bc2$f896a540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin wrote: > > >Which leads us to the conclusion reached by Ron Gerard, an ACBL AC > >casebook > >panelist, which is that all uncorroborated testimony from an involved > >player > >is irrelevant, to be given zero weight. To be fair and to ensure that all > >contestants are treated equally, this includes self-damaging testimony > >given > >by the naive. > > The problem with that view is that in 99%+ of cases that reach an AC > the problem arose when there were only four players at the table, so if > you don't accept testimony from an involved player, you wind up with no > testimony at all, which makes it kind of hard to determine what might > have happened. I don't know what t ype of case you have in mind. If it's a tempo case, the testimony of just one player as to a break in tempo is irrelevant unless another player corroborates it. If it's an MI case, the testimony of one player as to the partnership agreement is irrelevant unless the CC or system notes corroborates it. It it is testimony by a player as to what s/he "would have done" absent the infraction, then that is similarly irrelevant except that irrefutable unarguable logic can serve as corroboration There are times, of course, when each side disputes the facts as stated by the other side. Then the TD/AC must hear both sides and accept one version or the other. I should have made it clear that I did not mean to exclude that sort of testimony. > In a tempo case my partner hesitated too long over a non-warned preemptive 3D overcall of my opening 1C bid, and then doubled for penalty, I cited authority as requiring that I pull the double with my hand (as did system notes, which I did not have available). No authority since 1932 (Culbertson) has said that penalty doubles of overcalls must not be pulled, and I had opened a 4=2=1=6 hand with 10 HCP. Per system, I had to bid 3S. My statement was uncorroborated because the AC members had no knowledge of what the authorities said on the subject, one member remarking, "Well, you can find anything in books." Was the AC wrong? No. Ignorant, yes, wrong no, because my uncorroborated testimony was irrelevant. > We should recognize self-serving testimony for what it > is, and discount it when weighing it as evidence, but it is still > evidence, and still potentially useful in reaching a reasonable result. This is unfair to the naive, who are then treated differently from those who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 15 21:50:40 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:50:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Casebook #11 Message-ID: <743123A2-E7BE-11D7-BB55-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops, meant to send this to the list, but sent it to Marv. Sorry, Marv. :) On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 15:52 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > My statement was uncorroborated because the AC members had no > knowledge of what the authorities said on the subject, one member > remarking, "Well, you can find anything in books." Was the AC wrong? > No. Ignorant, yes, wrong no, because my uncorroborated testimony > was irrelevant. No, it was not irrelevant. Did the committee make any effort to ascertain the truth of your testimony? If not, why not? As to "you can find anything in books", that's not only ignorant, it's fatuous. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 16 01:10:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:10:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alpha or Beta? Message-ID: Sunday Swiss Teams, non-regular Acol partnership with no special slam conventions. However, your partner is the Unlucky Expert, so will draw the right inferences from any textbook slam try. Dealer West, vulnerable North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D(1) 3S ?(2) (1) 1D can, of course, be opened with a minimum hand and 5+ diamonds. You South hold: 7 A42 AKQT98542 void (2) However, if 1D is opened when holding *exactly* four diamonds, the partnership agreement is that the 1D opening promises either: alpha) a three-suited hand with a singleton in either major, or beta) a balanced hand, 15-20 hcp, with 2 or 3 clubs. What are your logical alternatives? * * * How a carton of milk gained seven imps: A62 QJ73 7 AJ763 KJ3 QT9854 T865 K9 J 63 T9842 KQ5 7 A42 AKQT98542 void North picked up his hand, briefly noted that he had an opening bid in a minor, then started drinking a carton of milk. When West passed, North hastily pulled out the 1D card from the bidding box. After East's pushy 3S pre-empt, South started thinking. Now North finished his carton of milk, re-examined his hand, and turned a whiter shade of pale. North quickly summoned the Director, requesting redress under Law 25 (alpha), which permits changes of an inadvertant call. The Director ruled that, since North had intended to open one of a minor, Law 25 (beta) - a purposeful correction - was the relevant Law. And, unfortunately for North, once East had bid a purposeful correction was no longer permitted. The Director cautioned South to ignore the unauthorised information from North, and bid as if 1D was a legitimate opening. So South ethically but sadistically jumped to 6D. Now North turned a whiter shade of green, and ran to 6NT. Smelling blood in the water, West doubled, but there were 12 top tricks. +1680 gained seven imps when the normal 6D was reached at the other table. :-) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 16 02:10:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:10:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 46B (Incontrovertible) Message-ID: When my SO has laid down a regulation defining the word "incontrovertible" for a particular situation, as TD I automatically follow my SO's regulation, even when my good sense is revolted by the Orwellian definition. If a particular situation arises which is *not* specifically defined by the SO's regulation, then as TD I am permitted to use my good sense in defining "incontrovertible", and I do so. References: Law 81B2 Law 81C5 Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 16 09:45:07 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:45:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alpha or Beta? References: Message-ID: <001e01c37c2e$d5e1f100$3f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Sunday Swiss Teams, non-regular Acol partnership. Dealer South, vulnerable North-South. You hold, South: 7 A42 AKQT98542 void WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D(1) 3S ?(2) (1) minimum hand and 5+ diamonds OR (2) *exactly* four diamonds plus either: alpha) 4144 or 1444 OR beta) a balanced hand, 15-20 hcp, with 2/3 clubs. What are your logical alternatives? [Nigel] IMO 5S*=10 4N=9 6D/7D=8 4S=6 P/4D/5D=5 5/6C=1 * = Psychic exclusion (attempted Zia emulation). I am intrigued as to how a legal problem arises unless you bid a slow 5/6C --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From georgiev_d@yahoo.com Tue Sep 16 10:37:46 2003 From: georgiev_d@yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Hi All, In team event (Danish movement) at table 1 the auction was: 2/E AJ107 N-S 105 D1072 J98 K42 965 DJ8 A J5 AK643 A7532 K1064 D83 K976432 98 D E S W N 1d (Precision) 1h 1nt p 2cl p 3cl p 3nt (hesitation)p p db p p 4cl p... Result: 130 for E-W. Facts: The TD was called first after 3 nt and second time in the end of the game. The ruling: 3nt doubled one down. AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided to restore the table result. Any suggestion please? Best Regards DG __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Sep 16 10:59:51 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:59:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <83A5FEDF-E82C-11D7-AEA4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Dimitr, I hope you'll allow me to offer this reformatted and Anglicised version of your post, since I found the original rather difficult to follow. On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 10:37 am, Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > Hi All, > > In team event (Danish movement) at table 1 the auction > was: > > 2/E AJ107 > N-S 105 > Q1072 > J98 > K42 965 > QJ8 A > J5 AK643 > A7532 K1064 > Q83 > K976432 > 98 > Q > > W N E S > 1d (Prec) 1h > 1nt p 2cl p > 3cl p 3nt (hes) p > p db p p > 4cl p... > > Result: 130 for E-W. > > Facts: The TD was called first after 3 nt and second > time in the end of the game. > The ruling: 3nt doubled one down. > AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's > ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided > to restore the table result. > > Any suggestion please? > > > Best Regards > > DG > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Sep 16 11:45:26 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:45:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000701c37c3f$cc966ca0$946ba63e@Default> Well I would go for table result. First there is no hard UI. Both 2C and 3C is NF so the fact that E took some time to make up his mind doesn't mean a lot. Anyway west passed 3NT so what is the problem so far. Second, what to make of norths double. Probably it was only based on the hesistation. Without club stop he has no hard defense at all. And it is a well known risk of this kind of doubles that they don't sit for it. Although with this north hand I have no idea if I want them to run or not. This double is pure speculation. Just change the SK and DJ for the Sx and DA (leaves same dist and HCP of both hands) and 3NT +1 is 'cold' (giving the club guess and some handling). Third. West passed the hesistation 3NT. But then he got doubled. This is new info. North seems to think 3NT will go down (not really in this case with this silly double). That can have all kind of causes. But north has some quick tricks (meaning your SK is under the ace and or that you are unlikely to have 9 tricks after they knock out your heart stop) or you run into bad breaks. So I have no problem with west taking a view one way or another based on his hand and the double. Given his own 11 count west is sure to have 25 or 26 together so partners hesistation over 3C has little if anything to do with that decision. But then something else. The TD decision is IMO incorrect. If you decide UI and all that and you change the table result than declarer gets to misguess the clubs for two down (declarer is odds on to guess the clubs but IMO it is not automatic enough to give the position to an OS). It is either table or 3NT*-2. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dimitr Georgiev" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: [blml] Hesitation > Hi All, > > In team event (Danish movement) at table 1 the auction > was: > > 2/E AJ107 > N-S 105 > D1072 > J98 > K42 965 > DJ8 A > J5 AK643 > A7532 K1064 > D83 > K976432 > 98 > D > > E S W N > 1d (Precision) 1h 1nt p > 2cl p 3cl p > 3nt (hesitation)p p db > p p 4cl p... > > Result: 130 for E-W. > > Facts: The TD was called first after 3 nt and second > time in the end of the game. > The ruling: 3nt doubled one down. > AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's > ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided > to restore the table result. > > Any suggestion please? > > > Best Regards > > DG > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Sep 16 11:49:01 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:49:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c37c40$25f6fa80$946ba63e@Default> Well I would go for table result. First there is no hard UI. Both 2C and 3C is NF so the fact that E took some time to make up his mind doesn't mean a lot. Anyway west passed 3NT so what is the problem so far. Second, what to make of norths double. Probably it was only based on the hesistation. Without club stop he has no hard defense at all. And it is a well known risk of this kind of doubles that they don't sit for it. Although with this north hand I have no idea if I want them to run or not. This double is pure speculation. Just change the SK and DJ for the Sx and DA (leaves same dist and HCP of both hands) and 3NT +1 is 'cold' (giving the club guess and some handling). Third. West passed the hesistation 3NT. But then he got doubled. This is new info. North seems to think 3NT will go down (not really in this case with this silly double). That can have all kind of causes. But normally north has some quick tricks (meaning your SK is under the ace and or that you are unlikely to have 9 tricks after they knock out your heart stop) or you run into bad breaks. So I have no problem with west taking a view one way or another based on his hand and the double. Given his own 11 count west is sure to have 25 or 26 together so partners hesistation over 3C has little if anything to do with that decision. But then something else. The TD decision is IMO incorrect. If you decide UI and all that and you change the table result than declarer gets to misguess the clubs for two down (declarer is odds on to guess the clubs but IMO it is not automatic enough to give the position to an OS). It is either table or 3NT*-2. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dimitr Georgiev" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: [blml] Hesitation > Hi All, > > In team event (Danish movement) at table 1 the auction > was: > > 2/E AJ107 > N-S 105 > D1072 > J98 > K42 965 > DJ8 A > J5 AK643 > A7532 K1064 > D83 > K976432 > 98 > D > > E S W N > 1d (Precision) 1h 1nt p > 2cl p 3cl p > 3nt (hesitation)p p db > p p 4cl p... > > Result: 130 for E-W. > > Facts: The TD was called first after 3 nt and second > time in the end of the game. > The ruling: 3nt doubled one down. > AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's > ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided > to restore the table result. > > Any suggestion please? > > > Best Regards > > DG > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind@therock.bm Tue Sep 16 11:52:21 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:52:21 -0300 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/16/03 6:37 AM, "Dimitr Georgiev" wrote: > Hi All, > > In team event (Danish movement) at table 1 the auction > was: > > 2/E AJ107 > N-S 105 > D1072 > J98 > K42 965 > DJ8 A > J5 AK643 > A7532 K1064 > D83 > K976432 > 98 > D > > E S W N > 1d (Precision) 1h 1nt p > 2cl p 3cl p > 3nt (hesitation)p p db > p p 4cl p... > > Result: 130 for E-W. > > Facts: The TD was called first after 3 nt and second > time in the end of the game. > The ruling: 3nt doubled one down. > AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's > ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided > to restore the table result. > > Any suggestion please? The TD's ruling seems perfectly reasonable to me. As an AC members, I would have upheld the TD's table ruling.> > Jack > Best Regards > > DG > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Sep 16 11:57:46 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:57:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002301c37c41$5f022380$946ba63e@Default> And to add something to my previous comment. On AC I would have liked to talk to NS. I don't like this case at all. North makes a crazy double and then west made a lucky guess (one finesse different and the 'normal' 3NT makes). And then N calls the TD. Hmmmm. You double on this rubish and when you are right you win. You double on this rubish and when you are wrong the TD/AC is supposed to give you some points. This comes close to exploiting the pause. Now I might have a wrong impression, this is always a problem with limited info, but I don't like the smell of it. Jaap From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Sep 16 14:04:07 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:04:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046684@hotel.npl.co.uk> Don't know if this will get through - I have become detached from BLML. [ Henk: do you get mail to henk@rtflb? ] Obviously no one (including me) was aware of this WBFLC minute during this long thread. [ Quote found in the draft new white book. ] Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to the next trick, which establishes the revokes: how does the Director rule? The Director should act under Law 64C to restore equity, as though there had been no revoke by either side. [WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#4] So the "restore equity" side were right. Robin -----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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Sep 16 14:38:06 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:38:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046684@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <002101c37c57$c749b000$9369a63e@Default> Without starting the discussion all over again. > Obviously no one (including me) was aware of this WBFLC minute during > this long thread. [ Quote found in the draft new white book. ] If nobody knows what the WBFLC is doing (some members might well have participated in the thread) and writing then it is hardly relevant is it. In other words, the WBFLC producing minutes is wonderful but if they don't have any serious mechanism of distributing them they are next to meaningless. What is the legal status of these minutes anyway. After being 15 odd years on the Dutch national authority and all kind of international ad hoc AC's nobody ever told me they existed let alone they had any meaning. I am used to rule given the law book. And yes in Holland it has happened that we had a look at the stuff our law committee has written (it makes no sense to rule against whatever they have published for our members in our magazine). And yes you tend to have a look around how similar cases are judged somewhere else. But if these minutes are binding on someone or something the WBFLC needs to upgrade its communication methods big time. But vaguely I remember some Grattan statements on the issue. If I am correct they are not binding on SO's and NCBO's. And since the COC of all major EBL and WBF events tend to overrule just about everything those minutes might well have little practical meaning by lack of jurisdiction. > The Director should act under Law 64C to restore equity, as > though > there had been no revoke by either side. > > [WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#4] I consider the above to contradict the current laws and for the time being I consider the law to be more relevant than these minutes. The law clearly states that revokes carry penalties. And the above states that two revokes cancel each other. Come on, change the law or shut up. Maybe the WBFLC doesn't really understand that in any sensible legal system making laws and interpreting laws should be seperated. > So the "restore equity" side were right. Maybe the WBFLC minute was wrong. Or are those right be definition. I can remember plenty crazy EBL WBF AC decisions in the past where like claims were made. Once more, remember Turku. Or remember an American State parlement decision that pi = 3 1/7 because that was easier for the kids at school. Or .......... Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)'" ; Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes. > Don't know if this will get through - I have become detached from BLML. > [ Henk: do you get mail to henk@rtflb? ] > > > Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer also revokes > > by over-ruffing. Both sides play to the next trick, which > establishes the revokes: how does the Director rule? > > The Director should act under Law 64C to restore equity, as > though > there had been no revoke by either side. > > [WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#4] > > So the "restore equity" side were right. > > Robin > > -----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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Jerrijt@cs.com Sat Sep 6 15:11:02 2003 From: Jerrijt@cs.com (Jerrijt@cs.com) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:11:02 EDT Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #988 - 11 msgs Message-ID: <1cf.10812ee9.2c8b44f6@cs.com> --part1_1cf.10812ee9.2c8b44f6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What does the director rule, when the declarer claims after the loss of one ace, and there are fourteen trumps? ln your example declarer has 5, dummy has 5, and the opponent has 4! Anneka --part1_1cf.10812ee9.2c8b44f6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What does the directo= r rule, when the declarer claims after the loss of one ace, and there are fo= urteen trumps?  ln your example declarer has 5, dummy has 5, and the op= ponent has 4!

Anneka

--part1_1cf.10812ee9.2c8b44f6_boundary-- From Steve Willner" From: "Anne Jones" > The EBU have currently got a 40 simulation online course intended to help > club directors aspire to greater things. The definitive answers are > available.(£25 to non EBU members) > http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/td-training/Training_course/club-refresher.htm Nice idea. I took a look at the first problem at http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/td-training/Training_course/sit1.htm and am confused. (Guess I fail.) Shouldn't L26 be in there somewhere? If we are to assume that the TD has correctly ruled L26A2, and declarer required the diamond lead, how can there be any question of redress? If this is the official answer, it seems awfully tricky for a county TD course. This brings up a question for BLML: L26A2 says declarer "may ... require" various leads. Does declarer have the option of, in effect, saying "Lead anything, but UI restrictions apply?" From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 14:57:28 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:57:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046684@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <007c01c37c5a$77494fe0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> > So the "restore equity" side were right. No. The "restore equity" side were just as wrong as the WBFLC. This "interpretation" is illegal; it is in no way permitted under the words of the Laws. But that has not stopped the WBFLC from doing stupid things before, and it will not stop them from doing stupid things again. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 16 15:04:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:04:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003901c37c5b$75a19de0$179868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Dimitr Georgiev] 2. Teams N-S vul Dealer E West K42 QJ8 J5 A7532 North AJT7 T5 QT72 J98 East 965 A AK643 KT74 South Q83 K976432 98 Q West North East South 1D(1) 1H 2C P 3C P 3N(2) P P X P P 4C End (1) Precision (2) Hesitation Result: 130 for E-W. The TD was called first after 3N and second time in the end of the game. Ruling: 3NX-1. AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided to restore the table result. [Nigel] IMO East is full value for 1D and 3C; hence over 3NX, both XX and P are more logical than 4C; (I assume that Jaap is mistaken and that 2C was forcing) thus, East's escape to 4C seems predicated on the UI from West's hesitation; so I agree agree with the TD's ruling of 3NX-1 for EW. Or even Jaap's 3NX-2. IMO South's double is peculiar but not so blatantly of the "cake and eat it" variety that the AC should restore the table result as they did. Anyway, IMO, East still deserves a PP for 4C. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 16 15:34:08 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:34:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046684@hotel.npl.co.uk> <002101c37c57$c749b000$9369a63e@Default> Message-ID: <005201c37c5f$a7cd68e0$179868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] What is the legal status of these minutes anyway? [Nigel] Grattan Endicott and Herman De Weil seem to believe that vague discussions in WBFLC minutes are binding in law; as are obscure and bizarre AC decisions that accord with their preferrences for law-changes. Grattan, please explain the legal process that allows these idiosyncatic pronouncements to attain official legal status, after so long being kept secret from the bridge public. And how these radical new laws will be publicised to the players. "Eschew obfuscation" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Sep 16 15:40:59 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:40:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU TD course In-Reply-To: <001401c378ab$81e030c0$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10:27 pm, Steve Willner wrote: > From: "Anne Jones" >> The EBU have currently got a 40 simulation online course intended to > help >> club directors aspire to greater things. The definitive answers are >> available.(=A325 to non EBU members) >> > http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/td-training/Training_course/club-=20 > refresher.htm > > Nice idea. I took a look at the first problem at > http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/td-training/Training_course/sit1.htm > and am confused. (Guess I fail.) Shouldn't L26 be in there = somewhere? > If we are to assume that the TD has correctly ruled L26A2, and = declarer > required the diamond lead, how can there be any question of redress? =20= > If > this is the official answer, it seems awfully tricky for a county TD > course. > > This brings up a question for BLML: L26A2 says declarer "may ... > require" various leads. Does declarer have the option of, in effect, > saying "Lead anything, but UI restrictions apply?" Law 26 begins "When an offending player's call is withdrawn ... " - not =20= the situation under consideration since the 2S bid which was first =20 withdrawn was not made by an offending player. I think we should be looking at L21B1, L21B2, & L16C2 -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 16 18:43:21 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:43:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046684@hotel.npl.co.uk> <002101c37c57$c749b000$9369a63e@Default> Message-ID: <002001c37c7a$06a903a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > But vaguely I remember some Grattan statements on the issue. If I am correct > they are not binding on SO's and NCBO's. And since the COC of all major EBL > and WBF events tend to overrule just about everything those minutes might > well have little practical meaning by lack of jurisdiction. Grattan likes to duck problems with the ACBL and others who do not recognize the authority of the WBFLC when they don't like one of its interpretations, or want to issue one of their own. The WBF By-laws say that the WBFLC has the responsibility for interpreting the Laws. Anyone who says otherwise is not complying with the WBF constitution, as all agreed to do when they signed on to the WBF. The lack of enforcement of this By-law is appalling. Get it changed if it's wrong!! Evidently anyone can do anything they [sic] please, and we have myriad versions of the Laws world-wide. Is that what we want? If it's right, promulgate the WBFLC interpretations properly, require compliance, and have a machinery for passing lower interpretations up-the-line, considering them tentative until adopted or rejected by the WBFLC. It would help if the WBFLC stopped issuing interpretations that are merely implementation decisions that ought to be left optional. E.g., the Lille interpretation stating what avg- should get. It said 40% or session percentage, whichever is lower. The ACBL says 100% minus the avg+ percentage. Both versions make some sense, L12C1 is not specific ("at most 40%"), and this could well have been left as a local implementation decision. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Tue Sep 16 23:24:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:24:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In article <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com>, Dimitr Georgiev writes >Hi All, > >In team event (Danish movement) at table 1 the auction >was: > >2/E AJ107 >N-S 105 > D1072 > J98 > K42 965 > DJ8 A > J5 AK643 > A7532 K1064 > D83 > K976432 > 98 > D > > E S W N > 1d (Precision) 1h 1nt p > 2cl p 3cl p > 3nt (hesitation)p p db > p p 4cl p... > >Result: 130 for E-W. > >Facts: The TD was called first after 3 nt and second >time in the end of the game. >The ruling: 3nt doubled one down. >AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's >ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided >to restore the table result. > >Any suggestion please? On the facts as presented, and as TD, I'd rule 3Nx-1 - I might give a bit of down 2 as well. On a good day it makes but I ain't giving them any of that. > > >Best Regards > >DG > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 17 03:55:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:55:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: Robin Barker: >>So the "restore equity" side were right. David Burn: >No. The "restore equity" side were just as wrong as the >WBFLC. This "interpretation" is illegal; it is in no way >permitted under the words of the Laws. But that has not >stopped the WBFLC from doing stupid things before, and >it will not stop them from doing stupid things again. Richard James Hills: I agree with DB that the WBFLC should not *normally* issue any interpretation contrary to the words of the Laws. But this particular interpretation is a one-off special case of slashing a Gordian knot, the Rubens Paradox. The Rubens Paradox was first publicised in Jeff Rubens' multi-part satirical article "The Bet". (Published in The Bridge World in 1977, and subsequently reprinted in booklet form.) Law 62B1 To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card. A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand. Law 62C1 Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C). So, suppose dummy leads a plain suit card, declarer revokes by ruffing, and now declarer's LHO also revokes by over-ruffing. Both declarer and LHO notice their revokes before their revokes become established. Now Law 62B1 states that LHO's card becomes a penalty card, while Law 62C1 states that LHO's card does not become a penalty card. The correct DB-style ruling, if the WBLC interpretation did not exist, would be that the TD should crash in an infinite loop. :-) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 17 06:06:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:06:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rashomon Message-ID: Imps, dealer South, nil vulnerable. The Law 80E option of written bidding applies, but the SO has carelessly failed to adopt comprehensive written bidding regulations. The auction so far from West's viewpoint: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1C X 1H The auction so far from North's viewpoint: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1C /(1) 1H (1) For those not au fait with written bidding, a pass is represented by a diagonal stroke. The auction so far from East's viewpoint: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1C / or X 1H East takes a closer look at the bidding pad, and notices that West's pen had run out of ink when West was making the second stroke of the "X", so that the crossbar of the "X" is merely a scratch on the bidding pad. East therefore leans over, and uses their own (working) pen to remove the ambiguity of West's double. North calls for the TD. North is playing 1950s-style Acol, where 1H after a double will unconditionally deny 10+ hcp. The auction so far from the TD's viewpoint: How do you rule? Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 07:34:04 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:34:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: Message-ID: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> Richard: The correct DB-style ruling, if the WBLC interpretation did not exist, would be that the TD should crash in an infinite loop. I get the message. But if the laws contain logical flaws like infinite loops the laws should be changed. Not some kind of weird interpretation which clearly contradicts the law. I am quite sure that all those ill conceived undo options in the law can give cause to this type of problems. Besides in the actual case the infinite loop problem was irrelevant because both revokes became established. And IMHO that can be handled perfectly under current laws. So if the WBFLC had any common sense it would have restricted this 'illegal' interpretation to this infinite loop problem. Sometimes you need a tie breaker I guess. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. Robin Barker: >>So the "restore equity" side were right. David Burn: >No. The "restore equity" side were just as wrong as the >WBFLC. This "interpretation" is illegal; it is in no way >permitted under the words of the Laws. But that has not >stopped the WBFLC from doing stupid things before, and >it will not stop them from doing stupid things again. Richard James Hills: I agree with DB that the WBFLC should not *normally* issue any interpretation contrary to the words of the Laws. But this particular interpretation is a one-off special case of slashing a Gordian knot, the Rubens Paradox. The Rubens Paradox was first publicised in Jeff Rubens' multi-part satirical article "The Bet". (Published in The Bridge World in 1977, and subsequently reprinted in booklet form.) Law 62B1 To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card. A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand. Law 62C1 Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C). So, suppose dummy leads a plain suit card, declarer revokes by ruffing, and now declarer's LHO also revokes by over-ruffing. Both declarer and LHO notice their revokes before their revokes become established. Now Law 62B1 states that LHO's card becomes a penalty card, while Law 62C1 states that LHO's card does not become a penalty card. The correct DB-style ruling, if the WBLC interpretation did not exist, would be that the TD should crash in an infinite loop. :-) Best wishes Richard James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 08:00:18 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:00:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> <003901c37c5b$75a19de0$179868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <004701c37ce9$7850eee0$c8f07f50@Default> Nigel, The original lay out was terrible which might explain that the bidding sequence in your mail is completely different from the original to which I reacted. So no I was not mistaken about 2C. It just happend to be 2C by east not by west. Anyway it seems that everybody but me thinks this is an UI case. OK please tell me what information the pause conveys. And then how this information affects the decision how to react to a later unexpected penalty double. The guy that ran from 3NT knew he had at least 25 points together and all suits stopped and a source of tricks. Still he bid 4C. Might it just be possible that he took the double too seriously (bad breaks, easy defence, you name it). Because I really don't see the UI other than that it excludes a super max (might still be possible because partner might have considered a 5C or 3NT research type of bid) but if you get penalty doubled partner won't have a super max anyway. So where is that UI and what did west do with it ? Why is west not permitted to take a view after being doubled. He knows he has enough stuff (even if partner is sub minimum) so why did north double ? I have some strong ideas about the motivation for that double and I detest that reason. By the way I think dat east is not extremely light for his bidding. 3NT is a normal contract bid in a normal way. 3NT is down because the SK is wrong and would still have made if you have the S10 or D10 between the two hands. And 3NT is 'sure' to make at some tables. What is the problem. West North East South ---- ---- 1D 1H 1NT pass 2C pass 3C passs 3NT pass pass dbl pass pass 4C all pass Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > [Dimitr Georgiev] > 2. Teams N-S vul Dealer E > West K42 QJ8 J5 A7532 > North AJT7 T5 QT72 J98 > East 965 A AK643 KT74 > South Q83 K976432 98 Q > West North East South > 1D(1) 1H > 2C P 3C P > 3N(2) P P X > P P 4C End > (1) Precision (2) Hesitation > Result: 130 for E-W. > The TD was called first after 3N and second time > in the end of the game. Ruling: 3NX-1. > AC: The members of the AC were polarized between > TD's ruling and result at the table. Finally they > decided to restore the table result. > > [Nigel] > IMO East is full value for 1D and 3C; > hence over 3NX, both XX and P are more logical than 4C; > (I assume that Jaap is mistaken and that 2C was > forcing) > thus, East's escape to 4C seems predicated on the UI > from West's hesitation; > so I agree agree with the TD's ruling of 3NX-1 for EW. > Or even Jaap's 3NX-2. > IMO South's double is peculiar but not so blatantly of > the "cake and eat it" variety that the AC should > restore > the table result as they did. > Anyway, IMO, East still deserves a PP for 4C. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: > 11/09/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 09:08:09 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:08:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> Message-ID: <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Japp wrote: > So if the WBFLC had any common sense it would have restricted > this 'illegal' interpretation to this infinite loop problem. Sometimes you > need a tie breaker I guess. If it had a little sense, it would not have allowed the problem to arise in the first place. If it had any sense at all, it would simply have decided whether a withdrawn card did or did not become a penalty card. But because it has no sense whatsoever, it has done something both illegal and absurd. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 17 09:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ok, you got me. How does 3N by West go off at table 1 in Denmark. Are the standards really so low that players don't routinely use restricted choice? After a H lead from N (surely automatic) declarer wins in dummy and takes 5C leaving. > 2/E AJ107 > N-S 5 > D107 > > K42 965 > DJ > J5 AK64 > > D83 > K9 > 98 Or at least N would be happier if it did. Sadly he must throw another card. I don't think declarer can go wrong if he throws a Diamond or his (obviously last) Heart. Assuming a Spade is thrown I think the HQ is now obvious. West is the only player at the table who should be complaining about the pull! Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 17 10:03:14 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:03:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <20030916093746.96848.qmail@web40110.mail.yahoo.com> <003901c37c5b$75a19de0$179868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <004701c37ce9$7850eee0$c8f07f50@Default> Message-ID: <005801c37cfa$87ba2f20$1d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Dimitr Georgiev] 2. Teams N-S vul Dealer E West K42 QJ8 J5 A7532 North AJT7 T5 QT72 J98 East 965 A AK643 KT74 South Q83 K976432 98 Q West North East South ---- ----- 1D 1H 1N P 2C P 3C P 3N(2) P P X P P 4C End (1) Precision (2) Hesitation Result: 130 for E-W. The TD was called first after 3N and second time in the end of the game. Ruling: 3NX-1. AC: The members of the AC were polarized between TD's ruling and result at the table. Finally they decided to restore the table result. [Jaap van der Neut] ... The bidding sequence in your mail is completely different from the original to which I reacted. So no I was not mistaken about 2C. It just happened to be 2C by east not by west. [Nigel] Steve Willner has also kindly pointed out my errors. Thank you chaps. I hope it is now OK. Sorry Dimitr. Sorry all. [Jaap] Anyway it seems that everybody but me thinks this is an UI case. OK please tell me what information the pause conveys. [Nigel] Doubt about strain and strength (presumably 1N could be weaker) [Jaap] And then how this information affects the decision how to react to a later unexpected penalty double. [Nigel] I agree that removing the double is a strange decision; I still think that the reluctance to bid 3N may have influenced the decision to pull; but I agree that with the correct auction it is not so clear-cut. [Jaap] I have some strong ideas about the motivation for that double and I detest that reason. [Nigel] I agree that it is a bit brave, Jaap! Are you suggesting that if 3NX was passed out and made, then the doubler would complain to the TD? and the TD might adjust the score? I agree that, without the double, the TD should consider such a ruling, because the hesitation may suggest a pass. [Jaap] By the way I think that east is not extremely light for his bidding. 3NT is a normal contract bid in a normal way. 3NT is down because the SK is wrong and would still have made if you have the S10 or D10 between the two hands. And 3NT is 'sure' to make at some tables. What is the problem. [Nigel] I bow to Jaap's excellent judgement about East's values and the prospects for 3N; but are these points relevant? Like Jaap, however, I am also worried that this may be another auction where *either* decision (pass or pull) may be ruled against, if it turns out to be correct. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 10:03:03 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:03:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000601c37cfa$a11e6da0$1ef37f50@Default> David, I guess we agree. I started to say that laws that provoke this type of infinite loops should be changed. But I can understand that pending a law change you issue a temporary patch for such a problem. Of course this assumes a rational proces and I have the impression that both of us think that is an illusion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > Japp wrote: > > > So if the WBFLC had any common sense it would have restricted > > this 'illegal' interpretation to this infinite loop problem. Sometimes > you > > need a tie breaker I guess. > > If it had a little sense, it would not have allowed the problem to arise > in the first place. If it had any sense at all, it would simply have > decided whether a withdrawn card did or did not become a penalty card. > But because it has no sense whatsoever, it has done something both > illegal and absurd. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Sep 17 10:01:43 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:01:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> What a nice forum this is, a couple of bright guys finding each other to chat up themselves, shaking their wise heads in disbelief about the stupidity around them. Have fun. ton > Japp wrote: > > > So if the WBFLC had any common sense it would have restricted > > this 'illegal' interpretation to this infinite loop problem. Sometimes > you > > need a tie breaker I guess. > > If it had a little sense, it would not have allowed the problem to arise > in the first place. If it had any sense at all, it would simply have > decided whether a withdrawn card did or did not become a penalty card. > But because it has no sense whatsoever, it has done something both > illegal and absurd. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 10:27:40 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:27:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: Message-ID: <001201c37cfd$f5327280$1ef37f50@Default> Tim, You are right. North is strip squeezed on the fifth club. Declarer can always guess the position. I remember looking for a few secs at the effect of five times clubs but I didn't pay enough attention (I thought north could throw a winner because west doesn't have an entry to his HQJ anymore but he doesn't need it). So 3NT is 'cold' after all. Anyway, this was not my main point. I simply don't see the problem. West knew he had enough for 3NT by any standard, pause or no pause. Then he got doubled. We all know that our run of the mill 25 HCP 3NT's sometimes go three light because of breaks, duplication or whatever. So for me the reason he pulled was that he believed north's double. Which IMO he is entitled to do. I even can understand his decision; SK and DJ become dubious values, those club spots become awful, you have a slow heart stop. As I said before, I probably would sit for it but that is not relevant. Anyway for me he is free to do what he wants. I see no relation between the pause over 3C and the decision over the double. I also see no useful information from that pause. West knows he is in a normal 3NT that got doubled for some reason. He took a view about that double. So what the heck. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > Ok, you got me. How does 3N by West go off at table 1 in Denmark. Are > the standards really so low that players don't routinely use restricted > choice? After a H lead from N (surely automatic) declarer wins in dummy > and takes 5C leaving. > > > 2/E AJ107 > > N-S 5 > > D107 > > > > K42 965 > > DJ > > J5 AK64 > > > > D83 > > K9 > > 98 > > Or at least N would be happier if it did. Sadly he must throw another > card. I don't think declarer can go wrong if he throws a Diamond or his > (obviously last) Heart. Assuming a Spade is thrown I think the HQ is > now obvious. > > West is the only player at the table who should be complaining about the > pull! > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 10:43:51 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:43:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The equitable approach Message-ID: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: KJ109 A8762 He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West discovers his revoke. "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might have led a trump from two small." What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) if the only consideration is to restore equity? David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 11:03:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:03:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000501c37d02$e4fedb60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > dalburn@btopenworld.com > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: >=20 > KJ109 >=20 > A8762 >=20 > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. = Resignedly, > declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West > discovers his revoke. >=20 > "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might > have led a trump from two small." >=20 > What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; = (b) > if the only consideration is to restore equity? What is the problem?=20 West must correct his unestablished revoke and South has legal = information to play West for SQxx. He doesn't even need to show any logical reason = for doing so after East showed out. b) "If the only consideration is to restore equity?" Are you serious? With that approach South would just claim before the initial lead and have the Director awarding him the "equitable" result. = That is not why I play bridge. Sven From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Sep 17 11:07:04 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:07:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000701c37d03$71f150c0$ae692452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:43 AM Subject: [blml] The equitable approach > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: > > KJ109 > > A8762 > > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West discovers his revoke. > > "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might have led a trump from two small." > > What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) if the only consideration is to restore equity? This appears to be an unestablished revoke West has to correct his card and has major penalty card Declarer can change card he has played from dummy South might get trumps right now What's the problem? What adjustment? (amos falls into burn bear trap) (and hasn't read from the Law Book etc etc) Why should I want to change this ??? mike > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Sep 17 11:19:07 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:19:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <00c901c37d05$22b68000$69f7f0c3@LNV> very nice case, quite useful too. a) no score adjustment at all, if declarer wants to make his contract he is allowed to do so (L16c1). The TD applies also L62C1 which refers to L16C. May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his partner does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also revoke. That is the only way to make his queen! b) estimate the probabilities for both plays and calculate the weighted score. Let me tell at once that I am not in favour of this approach in this case. As long as L16C and L62 exist as they do now the solution is given in a). I don't have any intention to remove those laws. ton > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: > > KJ109 > > A8762 > > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West discovers his revoke. > > "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might have led a trump from two small." > > What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) if the only consideration is to restore equity? > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 11:21:42 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:21:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: <4344261.1063794102142.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: >But I can understand that pending a law change you issue a temporary patch for such a problem. A "temporary patch"? This anomaly has been around for well over twenty years. It is a bit late for a "temporary patch", don't you think? David Burn London, England From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 11:36:56 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:36:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001d01c37d07$a72d1ae0$1ef37f50@Default> Ton, If you don't agree with 'us' tell us what is wrong with our views. As chairman of that wonderful committee you owe the WBF a better defence than this kind of non efforts. But now you are there maybe you can explain me why the WBFLC makes minutes that are supposed to have some meaning but 'nobody' in the Dutch Federation (2nd or 3th biggest NCBO on this planet) has ever heard of their existence (that is putting it a tad too strong, some know they exist but never has there been any formal communication from the WBFLC to the NBB). Strange because you are chairman of both the WBFLC and some relevant committees in the Dutch Federation. Strange you never even mentioned that WBFLC minutes might possible have some implications for the operating of our law committee and national appeal committee. Strange that those minutes have never been published in Daily Bullitins at major events. Seems rather autistic to me. So for the moment I continue to think that those minutes are meaningless for all practical purposes. Which was confirmed by a post by Marvin. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Burn" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > > What a nice forum this is, a couple of bright guys finding each other to > chat up themselves, > shaking their wise heads in disbelief about the stupidity around them. > Have fun. > > ton > > > Japp wrote: > > > > > So if the WBFLC had any common sense it would have restricted > > > this 'illegal' interpretation to this infinite loop problem. Sometimes > > you > > > need a tie breaker I guess. > > > > If it had a little sense, it would not have allowed the problem to arise > > in the first place. If it had any sense at all, it would simply have > > decided whether a withdrawn card did or did not become a penalty card. > > But because it has no sense whatsoever, it has done something both > > illegal and absurd. > > > > 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 11:53:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:53:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <00c901c37d05$22b68000$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000801c37d09$f5d4d690$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > very nice case, quite useful too. >=20 > a) no score adjustment at all, if declarer wants to make his contract = he > is > allowed to do so (L16c1). The TD applies also L62C1 which refers to = L16C. >=20 > May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his = partner > does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also = revoke. > That is the only way to make his queen! Come on Ton, have your forgotten Law 72B1? That law would directly = address the action you suggest for East! Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Sep 17 12:00:27 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:00:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F683ECB.7040009@hdw.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: > > KJ109 > > A8762 > > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West discovers his revoke. > > "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might have led a trump from two small." > > What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; easy - L62C1 (& L16C1) - SJ may be played. Seven made. > (b) if the only consideration is to restore equity? We might imagine any sort of weighted scores. But why should we do that? We are ruling against someone (West) who has done something wrong (revoked), so why should we go for equity? What is your point, David? > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Sep 17 12:04:45 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:04:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <00c901c37d05$22b68000$69f7f0c3@LNV> References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00c901c37d05$22b68000$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3F683FCD.2060006@hdw.be> Nice one, Ton, and let's see what we can do about it: Ton Kooijman wrote: > very nice case, quite useful too. > > a) no score adjustment at all, if declarer wants to make his contract he is > allowed to do so (L16c1). The TD applies also L62C1 which refers to L16C. > > May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his partner > does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also revoke. > That is the only way to make his queen! > This is a deliberate infraction, which can be dealt with. It can even be considered an illegal asking "no spades?". But I doubt if we can find a law which will allow 100% of seven made to declarer. I feel only equity can save this one. > > > b) estimate the probabilities for both plays and calculate the weighted > score. > > Let me tell at once that I am not in favour of this approach in this case. > As long as L16C and L62 exist as they do now the solution is given in a). I > don't have any intention to remove those laws. > > ton > > > >>South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: >> >> KJ109 >> >> A8762 >> >>He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, > > declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West > discovers his revoke. > >>"I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might > > have led a trump from two small." > >>What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) > > if the only consideration is to restore 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 12:05:24 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:05:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00c901c37d05$22b68000$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001201c37d0b$d5e87740$2eeb7f50@Default> Ton: > May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his partner > does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also revoke. > That is the only way to make his queen! Are you advocating cheating ????? Maybe it is smart to revoke on purpose. But it is completely illegal. But more serious. What is the legal defence against this one ? They will never admit they did it on purpose. > a) no score adjustment at all, if declarer wants to make his contract he is > allowed to do so (L16c1). The TD applies also L62C1 which refers to L16C. 'if declarer wants to make his contract' What is this for ridiculous question. I thought we are playing remotely serious bridge and in that context declarers usually try to make their contracts. > Let me tell at once that I am not in favour of this approach in this case. > As long as L16C and L62 exist as they do now the solution is given in a). I > don't have any intention to remove those laws. The way you formulate this means there are some people that actually want to move that way. So maybe Sven's nightmare becomes true one day: Sven: Are you serious? With that approach South would just claim before the initial lead and have the Director awarding him the "equitable" result. That is not why I play bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > very nice case, quite useful too. > > a) no score adjustment at all, if declarer wants to make his contract he is > allowed to do so (L16c1). The TD applies also L62C1 which refers to L16C. > > May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his partner > does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also revoke. > That is the only way to make his queen! > > > > b) estimate the probabilities for both plays and calculate the weighted > score. > > Let me tell at once that I am not in favour of this approach in this case. > As long as L16C and L62 exist as they do now the solution is given in a). I > don't have any intention to remove those laws. > > ton > > > > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: > > > > KJ109 > > > > A8762 > > > > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, > declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West > discovers his revoke. > > > > "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might > have led a trump from two small." > > > > What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) > if the only consideration is to restore 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 11:40:09 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:40:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <4344261.1063794102142.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001101c37d0b$d5516760$2eeb7f50@Default> David You are preaching to the converted. But don't take things out of context. You delete an important qualifier. I said 'assuming a rational proces'. There is no such thing. Which your reaction seems to confirm. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > Japp wrote: > > >But I can understand that pending a law change you issue a temporary patch for such a problem. > > A "temporary patch"? This anomaly has been around for well over twenty years. It is a bit late for a "temporary patch", don't you think? > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 12:14:26 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:14:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <002501c37d0c$dd06dd40$2eeb7f50@Default> David, What about a slight variation. West discovers his revoke after north plays the king but before east does something. Now of course west produces a small heart. What now. Does it matter how long after SK play. Less than half a second. Half a sec. A full sec. Two. Three. ?????? Ok if it takes too long I guess it amounts to east showing out or asking questions. So assume west corrects himself the moment declarer calls for the SK. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:43 AM Subject: [blml] The equitable approach > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: > > KJ109 > > A8762 > > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West discovers his revoke. > > "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might have led a trump from two small." > > What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) if the only consideration is to restore equity? > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 12:19:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:19:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <3F683FCD.2060006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c37d0d$87d16600$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > > May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his > partner > > does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also > revoke. > > That is the only way to make his queen! > > > > This is a deliberate infraction, which can be dealt with. > It can even be considered an illegal asking "no spades?". > But I doubt if we can find a law which will allow 100% of seven made > to declarer. I feel only equity can save this one. Really! The moment we accept Ton's statement: "That is the only way to make his queen" there is only one result for an equity ruling and that is 100% grand slam made. I see no reason to award any weighted score for equity here. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 12:21:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:21:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <001201c37d0b$d5e87740$2eeb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <001001c37d0d$cfdbc800$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ......... > Are you advocating cheating ????? Maybe it is smart to revoke on purpose. > But it is completely illegal. But more serious. What is the legal defence > against this one ? They will never admit they did it on purpose. Nobody has to admit anything. Law 72B1 takes care of everything. ("could have known") Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 12:33:02 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:33:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <001001c37d0d$cfdbc800$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003b01c37d0f$75bce140$2eeb7f50@Default> Sven, Sorry about asking a rethoric question. See also 'my' second version of the case. But I am curious how the equity boys think about these things. Whatever the laws IMHO declarer should always been given this type of guess when they revoke in the critical suit. Like Burn. Like you. Like sane people. The legal question is do we have more intelligent defenses than the 'could have known' thing. Because that one can easily be misused. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach > Jaap van der Neut > ......... > > Are you advocating cheating ????? Maybe it is smart to revoke on purpose. > > But it is completely illegal. But more serious. What is the legal defence > > against this one ? They will never admit they did it on purpose. > > Nobody has to admit anything. Law 72B1 takes care of everything. ("could > have known") > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 17 12:43:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:43:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003101c37d10$f5576500$069468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] What a nice forum this is, a couple of bright guys finding each other to chat up themselves, shaking their wise heads in disbelief about the stupidity around them. Have fun. [Nigel] WBFLC members seem reluctant to enter into open dialogue about what the laws are or should be. Perhaps this frustration prompts unjustified allegations of stupidity from those who love Bridge but wish its laws were simpler and clearer. As experts in Bridge and its laws, however, surely David and Jaap are entitled to air opinions in an open forum? Especially when their views reflect those of the majority of players? If any of their criticisms of the law are invalid then for the sake of us ordinary players, please explain why. WBFLC members are free to ignore all BLML suggestions and criticisms, so no harm can result from such a dialogue. The game of Bridge can only benefit. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 12:45:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:45:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <003b01c37d0f$75bce140$2eeb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <001501c37d11$38176840$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der ....... > The legal question is do we have more intelligent > defenses than the 'could have known' thing. > Because that one can easily be misused. > > Jaap I honestly expect that I can find other legal defense(s) besides law 72B1; but when I find one legal defense that indisputably does the job I don't want to waste time looking for even another unless challenged by a counter defense to do so. Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 17 12:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: EW are coffeehousing, I'm not going to hold declarer's statement against him. I judge East's revoke with SQx as a deliberate infraction. Contract made whoever has SQ, disqualification from event for EW. The revoke laws in isolation are not up to handling cheating (and I don't care, I can find references for my ruling in other laws). On a mild day I might settle for a "Could have known" adjustment. Tim From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Sep 17 13:05:50 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:05:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> <001d01c37d07$a72d1ae0$1ef37f50@Default> Message-ID: <00ec01c37d14$0dfb8070$69f7f0c3@LNV> > Ton, > > If you don't agree with 'us' tell us what is wrong with our views. I gave up As > chairman of that wonderful committee you owe the WBF a better defence than > this kind of non efforts. I wasn't defending anything, I just admired you two caressing each other > > But now you are there maybe you can explain me why the WBFLC makes minutes > that are supposed to have some meaning but 'nobody' in the Dutch Federation > (2nd or 3th biggest NCBO on this planet) has ever heard of their existence > (that is putting it a tad too strong, some know they exist but never has > there been any formal communication from the WBFLC to the NBB). There is a regular communication between WBFLC and all NBO's as far as I know and I am sure that the NBB (not just me) is aware of the publication of the minutes of the LC. I remember that we talk about all these minutes in blml and assume this issue was somewhere there. May I ask Grattan to explain the procedure as followed when he is back from his trip to Italy? Strange > because you are chairman of both the WBFLC and some relevant committees in > the Dutch Federation. Strange you never even mentioned that WBFLC minutes > might possible have some implications for the operating of our law committee > and national appeal committee. We know by now that your presentation of facts lacks accuracy once in a while. I have mentioned the view of the LC on several issues more than once in our Dutch AC, but you prefer to stick to your personal opinion most of the time. > Strange that those minutes have never been > published in Daily Bullitins at major events. I am not sure that such daily bulletins are the right medium but I am quite willing to explore those posibilities. > Seems rather autistic to me. > So for the moment I continue to think that those minutes are meaningless for > all practical purposes. Which was confirmed by a post by Marvin. And David? ton > > Jaap From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 13:10:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:10:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c37d14$a8ce82f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > EW are coffeehousing, I'm not going to hold declarer's statement = against > him. I judge East's revoke with SQx as a deliberate infraction. = Contract > made whoever has SQ, disqualification from event for EW. The revoke = laws > in isolation are not up to handling cheating (and I don't care, I can = find > references for my ruling in other laws). On a mild day I might settle = for > a "Could have known" adjustment. And I suppose the "Could have known" adjustment will be 100% seven made = so that the only "mild" with this adjustment is if you do not in addition = give EW any PP? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Sep 17 13:40:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:40:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <003101c37d10$f5576500$069468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> <003101c37d10$f5576500$069468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F685630.5080103@hdw.be> I'm commenting on this message and two former ones: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Ton Kooijman] > What a nice forum this is, a couple of bright guys > finding each other to chat up themselves, shaking > their wise heads in disbelief about the stupidity > around them. Have fun. > Indeed Ton, perhaps we should let Jaap and David chat among themselves. They are far too often forgetting to draw the line between discussing the laws as they are and as they should be. > [Nigel] > > WBFLC members seem reluctant to enter into open > dialogue > about what the laws are or should be. > I have noticed that one as well. But then consider their position. These people have NOT been ordered by the WBF to monitor blml in order to give wise verdicts. They read blml, and sometimes give their personal opinions. It is very hard for them to get the distinction accross that they are merely talking for themselves, not for the WBF. > Perhaps this frustration prompts unjustified > allegations > of stupidity from those who love Bridge but wish its > laws were simpler and clearer. > Simpler? forget it. Clearer? well, yes, perhaps they could be. Perhaps a larger set of "interpretations from the WBFLC" might be a good idea. > As experts in Bridge and its laws, however, surely > David and Jaap are entitled to air opinions in an open > forum? Especially when their views reflect those of > the majority of players? > Sorry, but, no. They are entitled to their opinions, and to air them. But surely also, Ton has the right to his opinion that Jaap and David are NOT helping the sport of bridge by their continuous hammering on the fact that the laws are stupid. Rather, they should help our sport by trying to reach consensus on what the laws are. Consensus means giving a little by each side and we don't often see Jaap and David do that. I understand Ton's sentiment completely. As for "reflecting the majority of players", that is only dependent on what you mean by reflecting, or by what they are saying. If they are saying that the laws could be better, then that is a sentiment I, as a player, also agree with. With many other of their views I absolutely don't agree. And I believe it is that what Ton was referring to. > If any of their criticisms of the law are invalid > then for the sake of us ordinary players, please > explain why. > Do you have six months? Then read the last 6,000 messages on blml again. > WBFLC members are free to ignore all BLML suggestions > and criticisms, so no harm can result from such a > dialogue. > I don't think any blml suggestion has been ignored by any wbflc member. Read and discarded as ludicrous, maybe, but ignored? > The game of Bridge can only benefit. > That depends on the value of the suggestion. Some suggestions add very little to the game of bridge. > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Sep 17 13:51:54 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <3F685630.5080103@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 01:40 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > Simpler? forget it. That's a shame. > Clearer? well, yes, perhaps they could be. Perhaps a larger set of > "interpretations from the WBFLC" might be a good idea. Where can we see the interpretations that already exist? I've just been on the WBF site looking for them, but failed to discover where they are. Does anyone have a link to them? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Sep 17 13:22:09 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:22:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00c901c37d05$22b68000$69f7f0c3@LNV> <001201c37d0b$d5e87740$2eeb7f50@Default> Message-ID: <011001c37d1b$19bcd2e0$69f7f0c3@LNV> > Ton: > > May I elaborate somewhat on this case. A clever east assuming his partner > > does revoke and possessing the bare Q in this position should also revoke. > > That is the only way to make his queen! > Jaap: > Are you advocating cheating ????? Maybe it is smart to revoke on purpose. > But it is completely illegal. But more serious. What is the legal defence > against this one ? They will never admit they did it on purpose. > It is all covered in the laws: take L 72B1 for this one. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Sep 17 13:54:43 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:54:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> <003101c37d10$f5576500$069468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <011101c37d1b$1a157a30$69f7f0c3@LNV> > [Ton Kooijman] > What a nice forum this is, a couple of bright guys > finding each other to chat up themselves, shaking > their wise heads in disbelief about the stupidity > around them. Have fun. > > [Nigel] > > WBFLC members seem reluctant to enter into open > dialogue > about what the laws are or should be. Did I or might you have missed something. Have I ever showed any reluctance to enter an open dialogue? I have a different idea about what an 'open dialogue' is. I call it quite closed when words as 'stupid' are written in almost every sentence. > As experts in Bridge and its laws, however, surely > David and Jaap are entitled to air opinions in an open > forum? Yes they are, did I suggest something else? > Especially when their views reflect those of > the majority of players? You mean that the majority of players find the work of the LC stupid etc.? David and Jaap might hope so, but show me the evidence. My impression about the decision not to apply L 64A but 64C in case of a revoke from both sides in the same trick is that it is understood and accepted. But then these understanding players have to be as stupid as the LC is, don't you think? > WBFLC members are free to ignore all BLML suggestions > and criticisms, so no harm can result from such a > dialogue. That is only true when the only possible harm is that WBF members might not ignore BLML suggestions. That would be reassuring. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 14:02:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:02:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c37d1c$03e5e460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Try http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm At the bottom of that page you will find an additional link to the complete set if minutes. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 17. september 2003 14:52 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > > > On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 01:40 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Simpler? forget it. > > That's a shame. > > > Clearer? well, yes, perhaps they could be. Perhaps a larger set of > > "interpretations from the WBFLC" might be a good idea. > > Where can we see the interpretations that already exist? I've just been > on the WBF site looking for them, but failed to discover where they > are. Does anyone have a link to them? > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Wed Sep 17 14:18:26 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:18:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <000701c37d03$71f150c0$ae692452@mikeamos> References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <000701c37d03$71f150c0$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: In article <000701c37d03$71f150c0$ae692452@mikeamos>, mamos writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:43 AM >Subject: [blml] The equitable approach > > >> South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: >> >> KJ109 >> >> A8762 >> >> He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, >declarer calls for the king from dummy - and East shows out. Now West >discovers his revoke. >> >> "I was going", says declarer, "to play West for SQxx, because he might >have led a trump from two small." >> >> What adjustment, if any, should be given (a) under the current laws; (b) >if the only consideration is to restore equity? > >This appears to be an unestablished revoke >West has to correct his card and has major penalty card >Declarer can change card he has played from dummy >South might get trumps right now >What's the problem? What adjustment? > >(amos falls into burn bear trap) (and hasn't read from the Law Book etc etc) probst joins amos in the bear trap. > >Why should I want to change this ??? > >mike > >> >> 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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 14:34:35 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:34:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: <818306.1063805675579.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Indeed Ton, perhaps we should let Jaap and David chat among themselves. They are far too often forgetting to draw the line between discussing the laws as they are and as they should be. We know what the laws are. They are that a certain card, played at a certain time, both is and is not a penalty card. They are that a member of the set "designated suits" is not a designated suit. They are that revoke W should be adjusted in order to restore equity, revoke X should not be penalised, revoke Y should be penalised one trick, revoke Z should be penalised two tricks. Some of them appear in a book called "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" and are accessible to almost everybody; others appear in a document called "Minutes of the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission" and are accessible to almost nobody. And you want us to "discuss" these things? >Perhaps a larger set of "interpretations from the WBFLC" might be a good idea. Rex tremendae maiestatis Qui salvandos salvas gratis, Salva me, fons pietatis. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Wed Sep 17 14:53:24 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:53:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: In article , Tim West-Meads writes >EW are coffeehousing, I'm not going to hold declarer's statement against >him. I judge East's revoke with SQx as a deliberate infraction. Contract >made whoever has SQ, disqualification from event for EW. The revoke laws >in isolation are not up to handling cheating (and I don't care, I can find >references for my ruling in other laws). On a mild day I might settle for >a "Could have known" adjustment. I'm amused that people are trying to use 72B1 in a revoke position. I always get howled down when I suggest it. It cannot be applied to West's unintentional revoke as I'm endlessly told, and that is what caused South to rise King. [A9xxx in South facing KJTx, cash Ace and play King when W shows out] However East is in an impossible spot as his partner's revoke has forced him into revealing his Queen where he knows declarer probably would finesse because of the non trump lead. If East knows of the 9-card fit his sense of humour should provoke him into hiding his Queen. Burn's equity approach might well force us to award 100% of the contract down 1, based on South's statement. Remember 72B1 can't be applied. I think he's making the point that East's revoke to the trick is in the same class as the other threads we've been discussing As to the ruling, East would have played the Q under the King after the revoke, absent sense of humour, so the contract makes. That South would have hooked is not relevant, it's the price East pays for West's mistake. Given that East has a sense of humour I guess he should wait for the correction by West, for the Jack from dummy, then *repeat* his revoke and play the Q on the 3rd round of trump, looking innocent. That is real class. cheers John > >Tim > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 17 15:18:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <001601c37d14$a8ce82f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven asked: > And I suppose the "Could have known" adjustment will be 100% seven made > so that the only "mild" with this adjustment is if you do not in > addition give EW any PP? Got it. (Although I consider that very mild compared to disqualification). Tim From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 15:45:14 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:45:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> <001d01c37d07$a72d1ae0$1ef37f50@Default> <00ec01c37d14$0dfb8070$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002301c37d2a$787f1a40$36e17f50@Default> Ton, You seem to assume I didn't check my facts I guess. Not so smart. You should know by now I 'always' do. Ton: > There is a regular communication between WBFLC and all NBO's as far as I > know and I am sure that the NBB (not just me) is aware of the publication of > the minutes of the LC. I remember that we talk about all these minutes in > blml and assume this issue was somewhere there. May I ask Grattan to explain > the procedure as followed when he is back from his trip to Italy? As far as you know? You obviously know nothing because before making my statement I double checked with the two relevant senior staff members at the Dutch Fed Office and they both said that the Dutch Fed has never received any official communication from the WBFLC. So there is no such thing as regular communication. And how do you dare to use the word 'publication' when it comes the the minutes of the LC. They are not publicised in any meaningful way. Now of course a few people in the Dutch Fed know something about the LC. You are around. Both mentioned staff members are also A level International TD's. So yes by some net surfing and social and professional contacts, they, I, you and maybe one or two others know something about those minutes. Do you consider that to be the way to communicate LC minutes when they are supposed to be relevant for lower AC bodies and TD's at large. Help! Whatever Grattan explains is irrelevant. I remember he once wrote something about it. But if nothing arrives at the NBB office, well run with 20 odd permanent staff, with at least two persons (not counting you or me) around who take a real interest in these matters, how the hell do you think this will work out in less well equiped NCBO's? > We know by now that your presentation of facts lacks accuracy once in a > while. You are a real bastard to accuse me of lack of accuracy of facts. That you don't like my views, ok. That you don't like me exposing your little lies from time to time, I understand. But please please don't accuse me of fooling around with facts. Please Ton, give me some examples of my facts lacking accuracy. And you have to come with something better than an odd typo. If not I want an apology. > I have mentioned the view of the LC on several issues more than once > in our Dutch AC, but you prefer to stick to your personal opinion most of > the time. Yes you have mentioned these things a couple of time. This is also the reason I know about that LC. But if the views of the LC are never and nowhere published it is irrelevant for the decision making at any NCBO including our NCBO. Anyway, knowing you, you tend to mention the view of the LC only if it suits your side of the argument. On top of that nobody can check your claims. And you have been known to be wrong on facts, to put it mildly. > I am not sure that such daily bulletins are the right medium but I am quite > willing to explore those posibilities. Well if you want to show the world what the LC is doing than DB's are as good as any medium. But they are not if the purpose of those minutes is to be binding or so on lower AC's. Then you need formal communication with those lower AC's. But if Marvin is right the ACBL will not accept it so it is not going to happen. And this might explain why the WBFLC has never tried. Anyway if the WBFLC has ever send this type of formal mail to the Dutch Federation it would be on my desk by now. There is no such stuff. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > > > > Ton, > > > > If you don't agree with 'us' tell us what is wrong with our views. > > I gave up > > > As > > chairman of that wonderful committee you owe the WBF a better defence than > > this kind of non efforts. > > I wasn't defending anything, I just admired you two caressing each other > > > > > But now you are there maybe you can explain me why the WBFLC makes minutes > > that are supposed to have some meaning but 'nobody' in the Dutch > Federation > > (2nd or 3th biggest NCBO on this planet) has ever heard of their existence > > (that is putting it a tad too strong, some know they exist but never has > > there been any formal communication from the WBFLC to the NBB). > > There is a regular communication between WBFLC and all NBO's as far as I > know and I am sure that the NBB (not just me) is aware of the publication of > the minutes of the LC. I remember that we talk about all these minutes in > blml and assume this issue was somewhere there. May I ask Grattan to explain > the procedure as followed when he is back from his trip to Italy? > > > Strange > > because you are chairman of both the WBFLC and some relevant committees in > > the Dutch Federation. Strange you never even mentioned that WBFLC minutes > > might possible have some implications for the operating of our law > committee > > and national appeal committee. > > We know by now that your presentation of facts lacks accuracy once in a > while. I have mentioned the view of the LC on several issues more than once > in our Dutch AC, but you prefer to stick to your personal opinion most of > the time. > > > > Strange that those minutes have never been > > published in Daily Bullitins at major events. > > I am not sure that such daily bulletins are the right medium but I am quite > willing to explore those posibilities. > > > Seems rather autistic to me. > > So for the moment I continue to think that those minutes are meaningless > for > > all practical purposes. Which was confirmed by a post by Marvin. > > And David? > > ton > > > > > > Jaap > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 16:03:27 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:03:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <818306.1063805675579.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003001c37d2c$db20d1a0$36e17f50@Default> When Dear Herman says: > They are far too often forgetting to draw the line between discussing the laws as they are and as they should be. I always have the idea that both David and Jaap and quite some others know perfectly well the difference between discussing the laws as is (kind of obvious when discussing current cases) and the laws as they should be (kind of obvious when discussing the laws themselves). But then I always have the idea Herman and some others really don't care what the law is because they rule whatever they want to rule and than tell us and all the others to shut up because it was an WBFLC minute or an EBL AC ruling. And those bodies can fuck the law as much as they want because they have nobody to correct them. The rest of us continues ruling on our lower ranking AC's with just that little law book because that is all we have. And than the Hermans start to tell us we get it wrong because some high level AC decision or minute has redefined the law. The big question is how can we possibly know. Now of course David and Jaap and few others have no excuse because we know 'everything' but what about all those other TD's and AC members around the globe. How are they supposed to know that the laws are not anymore what is written in the law book? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > Herman wrote: > > >Indeed Ton, perhaps we should let Jaap and David chat among themselves. They are far too often forgetting to draw the line between discussing the laws as they are and as they should be. > > We know what the laws are. They are that a certain card, played at a certain time, both is and is not a penalty card. They are that a member of the set "designated suits" is not a designated suit. They are that revoke W should be adjusted in order to restore equity, revoke X should not be penalised, revoke Y should be penalised one trick, revoke Z should be penalised two tricks. Some of them appear in a book called "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" and are accessible to almost everybody; others appear in a document called "Minutes of the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission" and are accessible to almost nobody. And you want us to "discuss" these things? > > >Perhaps a larger set of "interpretations from the WBFLC" might be a good idea. > > Rex tremendae maiestatis > Qui salvandos salvas gratis, > Salva me, fons pietatis. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Sep 17 16:08:16 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:08:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <001b01c37d1c$03e5e460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 02:02 pm, Sven Pran wrote: > Try http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm > > At the bottom of that page you will find an additional link to the > complete > set if minutes. > > Regards Sven Thanks Sven. It's strange that the WBF don't themselves make them available, if they'd like them to achieve any sort of status in Law. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 16:42:56 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:42:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> <003101c37d10$f5576500$069468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <011101c37d1b$1a157a30$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c37d32$61dfce80$36e17f50@Default> Ton: > You mean that the majority of players find the work of the LC stupid etc.? > David and Jaap might hope so, but show me the evidence. My impression about > the decision not to apply L 64A but 64C in case of a revoke from both sides > in the same trick is that it is understood and accepted. But then these > understanding players have to be as stupid as the LC is, don't you think? First I never used the word stupid in this context. Maybe David did. Second I don't consider the work of the LC stupid, I don't know enough about their work to have an opinion, but IF there is some kind of claim that those minutes have a real meaning THEN I consider the current communication methods of the LC stupid and incompetent. But given the fact that because of the ACBL position the above IF clause is probably false you can discard everything in the THEN clause. Three I said myself clearly that I don't mind a rule change to the effect that two revokes are ruled like no revoke or whatever. I only said that as long as the current law is the current law I will continue to rule two established revokes under 64A because I see no legal ground to do otherwise. There might be a WBFLC minute that says otherwise. Great. But those minutes are unpublished for all practical purposes. It is a matter of legal principle. There will be many more minutes I don't know about. When ruling I don't have easy access to them. So they are not part of my law book when ruling on say the Dutch national authority. My local law committee doesn't know about them in a formal way. Some of my colleagues don't even know they exist. So get real. Besides suppose we apply 64C according to the minute but against the laws. I am curious what would happen if this gets challenged in our 'legal appeal court'. All decisions in the Dutch Fed including board decisions can be challenged on legal grounds. This appeal court obviously cannot overrule us but it can cancel our decision on legal grounds and force a new one (by us). It is feasible they might do so in this case. Knowing lawyers it mght even be likely. Ton: ... is understood and accepted ... Given the recent discussion on blml it is maybe understood but not accepted. But how can it possible be if the LC doesn't communicate and publish its minutes in a structured way. The rest of us are not telepaths. We just have the law book you know. So my guess is that at least 95% of the TD's and AC's world wide have never ever heard of this double revoke 'rule'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > > > [Ton Kooijman] > > What a nice forum this is, a couple of bright guys > > finding each other to chat up themselves, shaking > > their wise heads in disbelief about the stupidity > > around them. Have fun. > > > > > > > > [Nigel] > > > > WBFLC members seem reluctant to enter into open > > dialogue > > about what the laws are or should be. > > > Did I or might you have missed something. Have I ever showed any reluctance > to enter an open dialogue? > I have a different idea about what an 'open dialogue' is. I call it quite > closed when words as 'stupid' are written in almost every sentence. > > > > > As experts in Bridge and its laws, however, surely > > David and Jaap are entitled to air opinions in an open > > forum? > > Yes they are, did I suggest something else? > > > Especially when their views reflect those of > > the majority of players? > > You mean that the majority of players find the work of the LC stupid etc.? > David and Jaap might hope so, but show me the evidence. My impression about > the decision not to apply L 64A but 64C in case of a revoke from both sides > in the same trick is that it is understood and accepted. But then these > understanding players have to be as stupid as the LC is, don't you think? > > > WBFLC members are free to ignore all BLML suggestions > > and criticisms, so no harm can result from such a > > dialogue. > > That is only true when the only possible harm is that WBF members might not > ignore BLML suggestions. That would be reassuring. > > ton > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 17 17:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <00ec01c37d14$0dfb8070$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > There is a regular communication between WBFLC and all NBO's as far as I > know and I am sure that the NBB (not just me) is aware of the > publication of the minutes of the LC. I am sure some people in the EBU are also aware of the existence of such minutes. I am equally sure that these minutes have not been implemented within the EBU (I recently attended an EBU training course for club TDs and the materials ignored the LC minutes). I am equally sure that members of the WBFLC do not understand the interpretations given in their minutes. Try asking your WBFLC representative why they approved an interpretation granting NBOs/SOs the power to ban Jewish people from using Stayman and most of them will deny doing any such thing:) Beware of the tiger! Tim From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 18:01:28 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:01:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <002c01c37ce5$b2819e60$c8f07f50@Default> <003801c37cf2$d558c3c0$a8f48051@pbncomputer> <00a701c37cfd$1623c940$69f7f0c3@LNV> <001d01c37d07$a72d1ae0$1ef37f50@Default> <00ec01c37d14$0dfb8070$69f7f0c3@LNV> <002301c37d2a$787f1a40$36e17f50@Default> <000901c37d36$278772c0$9e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001501c37d3d$59b1afc0$36e17f50@Default> Nigel, I agree with you 100% You got me wrong. Probably my English but I was trying to ridiculize the current situation. Anyway, for those minutes to have any status at all they must by published in a formal way (meaning a web site, formal letters to all zone's, NCBO's, SO's including the legal status etc.). If not they might as well not exist. This clear enough ? But if Marvin is correct this is not going to happen because it means a legal conflict between the WBFLC and the ACBLLC. And I am curious what will happen if big NCBO's like the FFB and the NBB start getting that kind of letters. The Dutch won't make too much of a fuss I guess, but the French might well put up as much resistance as the ACBL. So I guess for the foreseeable future those minutes are meaningless. And I will continue having my regular conflicts with Ton at the Dutch national AC. But I have one great advantage against him when he wants to use a LC minute based argument. Apart from him I am the only one on the AC who really knows about those bloody things so that tends to stop him cold. As it should be. Unpublished law is no law. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. > [Jaap van der Neut] > Do you consider that to be the way to communicate > LC minutes when they are supposed to be relevant > for lower AC bodies and TD's at large. Help! > > [Nigel] > No! No! Jaap, you too seem to be subscribing to the > WBFLC policy that understanding Bridge-Laws be kept > a closed shop accessible only to a privileged few. > > Admittedly you feel that ACs & TDs should be allowed > some access (perhaps on a "need to know" basis) but > you mention no provision for the *ordinary bridge > player* to be privy to such secrets. > > Surely it is ludicrous to expect the bridge playing > public to abide by legal interpretations about which > they are deliberately kept in ignorance. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: > 11/09/2003 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 18:23:45 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:23:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBF minutes References: Message-ID: <002b01c37d40$75af2f60$36e17f50@Default> Hmmmm. We found the 'complete' WBFLC minutes. Found on the private pages of the well known personality DWS. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm Question: OR is David asked to put them on the web by the WBF ? OR is it David's initiative having permission by the WBF ? OR is it David's initiative without permission by the WBF ? OR is it David's initiative and the WBF doesn't care. OR is it just random But once more what is the real status of those bloody things. By now we know: AND there is some by-law that suggets it is 'binding' interpretation of the laws for all of us AND that the ACBL couldn't care less AND that the WBFLC has never formally told any NCBO that they existed Cheers to a great way to communicate. Jaap From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 17 20:27:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:27:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <005801c37cfa$87ba2f20$1d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 05:03 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I agree that, without the double, the TD should > consider such a ruling, because the hesitation may suggest a > pass. If that is your reason, then after consideration the TD should reject that ruling. "May suggest" is not what the law requires. From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 17 20:44:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:44:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c37d54$200a59e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 05:03 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > I agree that, without the double, the TD should > > consider such a ruling, because the hesitation may suggest a > > pass. > > If that is your reason, then after consideration the TD should reject > that ruling. "May suggest" is not what the law requires. I take it "could demonstrably have been suggested" is an approximately equivalent clause (in fact a bit weaker)? Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Sep 17 19:14:31 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:14:31 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <00ec01c37d14$0dfb8070$69f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > But now you are there maybe you can explain me why the WBFLC makes minutes > > that are supposed to have some meaning but 'nobody' in the Dutch > Federation > > (2nd or 3th biggest NCBO on this planet) has ever heard of their existence > > There is a regular communication between WBFLC and all NBO's as far as I > know and I am sure that the NBB (not just me) is aware of the publication of > the minutes of the LC. I remember that we talk about all these minutes in That may be. Even if so, it doesn't accomplish the goal of disseminating the minutes. (Not entirely the WBFLC's fault, of course, if the NBOs don't pass anything on.) Let me assure you that the recent interpretations of the WBFLC are completely unknown to the rank and file (directors and players) of the ACBL. Much, much wider circulation of the new interpretations, if not the minutes themselves, is needed if you want people to be following them. > > Strange that those minutes have never been > > published in Daily Bullitins at major events. > > I am not sure that such daily bulletins are the right medium but I am quite > willing to explore those posibilities. In the ACBL, highlights of board meetings of various types are usually printed in the tournament bulletin within a few days. Anything important that will affect the players as a whole -- changes to the alert procedure, or silly little details like requiring organizers of a multi-site event to specify whether games of 4 1/2 tables or less will be eligible for overall awards -- is published in the monthly magazine, AND in the newsletter for club managers, AND added to the help files of the next edition of the scoring software. The 1997 changes were introduced via several long articles in each of those places. The ACBLLC does receive information from the WBFLC, and discussions of recent WBF proposals have appeared in their minutes. And the ACBLLC does communicate with the ACBL board of directors and management. This makes me about 90% certain that the WBF interpretations have been deliberately rejected and suppressed. The mechanism to publish them exists, and is available to the people who were notified of them, but has not been used. GRB From rwilley@mit.edu Wed Sep 17 21:40:57 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:40:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1063831257.3f68c6d9cdff8@webmail.mit.edu> I'd like to make two relatively simple and basic observations: As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish an online version of the Laws of Bridge. If I google for "WBF Bridge Laws", I can find any number of sites where copies of the laws are posted. Surprisingly enough, the WBF site doesn't actually bother to do so. Given this data point, I don't find it particularly surprising that the WBF doesn't post its minutes. (If I had to make a guess why the WBF doesn't post its minutes, my natural inclination would be to assume inertia.) By now, it seems readily apparant that the WBF's lack of transparency is creating problems for the organization. While Jaap has a somewhat abrasive style, he is raising some valuable points. My own belief as a vaguely interested observer is that the issues that he is raising would best be dealt with by adopting better mechanisms to distribute information. If the WBF really wants to develop "case law" based on "precedence", it needs to ensure that this information is readily available to the practioners that are expected to apply these decisions. In this day and age, publication via the web seems like the obvious solution. The publication of case books from major events is a welcome first step. At the very least, these book help to educate interested parties about appropriate behaviour at the table as well as areas where there are differences of option about the law. However, if individual cases from major tournaments do indeed establish a precedent this information needs to be presented in a single, official location. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 17 23:00:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:00:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <1063831257.3f68c6d9cdff8@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <003901c37d67$2d41db20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: > I'd like to make two relatively simple and basic observations: > > As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish an online version of the > Laws of Bridge. If I google for "WBF Bridge Laws", I can find any number of > sites where copies of the laws are posted. Surprisingly enough, the WBF site > doesn't actually bother to do so. Given this data point, I don't find it > particularly surprising that the WBF doesn't post its minutes. (If I had to > make a guess why the WBF doesn't post its minutes, my natural inclination would > be to assume inertia.) The WBF website is at www.worldbridge.org The Laws are included under "Departments." The Constitution and By-Laws are under "Administration." That's where the by-law is that creates the WBFLC and states what authority it has. > > By now, it seems readily apparant that the WBF's lack of transparency is > creating problems for the organization. While Jaap has a somewhat abrasive > style, he is raising some valuable points. My own belief as a vaguely > interested observer is that the issues that he is raising would best be dealt > with by adopting better mechanisms to distribute information. If the WBF > really wants to develop "case law" based on "precedence", it needs to ensure > that this information is readily available to the practioners that are expected > to apply these decisions. In this day and age, publication via the web seems > like the obvious solution. > > The publication of case books from major events is a welcome first step. At > the very least, these book help to educate interested parties about appropriate > behaviour at the table as well as areas where there are differences of option > about the law. However, if individual cases from major tournaments do indeed > establish a precedent this information needs to be presented in a single, > official location. > Indeed! The ACBL is now publishing its NABC casebooks on the ACBL website (look under "Members," perhaps because they used to be for ACBL members only), a welcome move. The Board of Directors meeting minutes are in the same place, right up to date including this summer's Long Beach meeting. Casebooks take quite a while to create, so they are only available thru 2002. The ACBLLC minutes are also up to date. These are under "Governance" (Laws Commission item) Looking around that website I came across the ACBL Constitution and By-laws. Included is this statement: The ACBL Laws Commission shall consist of a minimum of nine (9) members and a maximum of (15) members. The members shall be appointed by the President of the ACBL with the approval of the Board of Directors and each shall serve for a five (5) year term. The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. Now isn't that interesting?? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 17 23:34:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:34:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: Richard Willey: [big snip] >While Jaap has a somewhat abrasive style, he is raising >some valuable points. Richard James Hills: It is futile raising interesting points if your style is abrasive to the point of regular rodomontades. I enjoy blml for its discussion of Laws theory and practice. I do not enjoy blml when Jaap uses the English translation of the Dutch word "fokken" to insult Ton. Richard Willey: >My own belief as a vaguely interested observer is that >the issues that he is raising would best be dealt with >by adopting better mechanisms to distribute information. >If the WBF really wants to develop "case law" based on >"precedence", it needs to ensure that this information >is readily available to the practioners that are expected >to apply these decisions. [big snip] Richard James Hills: Agreed. I recommend the policy followed for many years by the Federation Internationale des Echecs. Each time FIDE reprints the Laws of Chess, relevant Interpretations (which often include examples from case law) are placed as footnotes to the relevant Law that the Interpretation clarifies. David Stevenson is sensibly following the same policy in his redrafting of the White Book, with relevant WBFLC Interpretations being inserted as footnotes to their corresponding paragraph in DWS's draft of the new White Book. Therefore, the WBFLC could extend the practice it already uses once in the current Laws (the footnote to Law 75), and include more case law and indicative examples as footnotes in the 2005 edition of the Laws. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Sep 18 01:44:48 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:44:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Rashomon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030917203948.00b62cd0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 01:06 AM 9/17/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps, dealer South, nil vulnerable. The Law 80E option >of written bidding applies, but the SO has carelessly >failed to adopt comprehensive written bidding >regulations. > >The auction so far from West's viewpoint: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >1C X 1H > >The auction so far from North's viewpoint: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >1C /(1) 1H > >(1) For those not au fait with written bidding, a pass > is represented by a diagonal stroke. > >The auction so far from East's viewpoint: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >1C / or X 1H > >East takes a closer look at the bidding pad, and >notices that West's pen had run out of ink when >West was making the second stroke of the "X", so >that the crossbar of the "X" is merely a scratch on >the bidding pad. East therefore leans over, and >uses their own (working) pen to remove the ambiguity of >West's double. > >North calls for the TD. North is playing 1950s-style >Acol, where 1H after a double will unconditionally deny >10+ hcp. I rule L25A applies. West wrote a slash while intending to write a cross, and it was corrected as soon as the error was discovered. West is allowed to correct his call, and North is allowed to change his 1H to XX. East's correction is probably the written-bidding equivalent of asking for a review of spoken bidding, which would reveal that West had not made the bid he thought he made. It is not reasonable to rule that North has no redress because he made a call based on his own misunderstanding. If West's call was illegible, North would be responsible for ordering a correction, but a slash is an unambiguous call. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 18 04:36:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:36:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <003401c37d54$200a59e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3AA292BF-E989-11D7-BA60-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I take it "could demonstrably have been suggested" is an approximately > equivalent clause (in fact a bit weaker)? I read "could demonstrably suggest" as requiring that one who wants to invoke this law be able to demonstrate how the presumed illegal action was suggested. I read "may suggest" as rather more nebulous. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 18 04:40:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:40:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <1063831257.3f68c6d9cdff8@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 16:40 US/Eastern, rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > If I google for "WBF Bridge Laws", I can find any number of > sites where copies of the laws are posted. Surprisingly enough, the > WBF site > doesn't actually bother to do so. http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/Laws/laws.htm From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 18 05:03:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:03:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >I read "could demonstrably suggest" as requiring >that one who wants to invoke this law be able to >demonstrate how the presumed illegal action was >suggested. I read "may suggest" as rather more >nebulous. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. :-) Richard James Hills: My understanding is that the word "demonstrably" was deliberately inserted into the 1987 or 1997 edition of the Laws by the WBFLC, to prevent the OS having their score automatically adjusted whenever they selected a "rub-of-the-green" successful LA. For example, the OS has two LAs. UI is passed. Both of the LAs are suggested by the UI. Before the insertion of the word "demonstrably", even if the OS selected the road less travelled (the LA *less* suggested by UI), they would suffer a Catch-22 when their ethical action got lucky. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 18 06:21:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:21:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <3AA292BF-E989-11D7-BA60-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c37da4$b5205750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert=20 > On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > I take it "could demonstrably have been suggested" is an = approximately > > equivalent clause (in fact a bit weaker)? >=20 > I read "could demonstrably suggest" as requiring that one who wants to > invoke this law be able to demonstrate how the presumed illegal action > was suggested. I read "may suggest" as rather more nebulous. I dunno, > maybe I'm wrong. :-) The way I understand it "demonstrably" means that the Director do have = to show some possible logical connection between the UI and the subsequent choice among alternatives. However "could" simply removes the need for proving that such connection actually exists, only that it might exist. The consequence is (at least in theory) that in certain cases every available alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested" by some = UI; leading to the interesting but very possible situation that whatever alternative was selected can be ruled as illegal under law 16. If you have bid 4S, your LHO bids 5H and then your partner hesitates and passes then the apparent alternatives open for you is to pass, double or = bid 5S. The distinct possibility exists that neither of these alternatives = can be dismissed as not "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the hesitation: Pass is "demonstrably suggested" if he thinks that 5H will go down, but = not with sufficient probability to warrant a double, or if he simply thinks = that 5H will make and that bidding 5S will be too expensive.=20 Double is "demonstrably suggested" if he thinks that 5H will go down = while 5S cannot profitably be made. And finally 5S is "demonstrably suggested" if he thinks that 5S will = make with better payoff than can be obtained from a double of the 5H bid. As we cannot normally read each other's minds each of the alternatives "could demonstrably have been suggested" and the Director must rule accordingly. If (from your own cards) you have just one outstanding = logical alternative then fine, if you have more than one you might find yourself = in trouble regardless of which alternative you choose. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Sep 18 07:36:03 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001d01c37daf$4aae94d0$ef19e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > [A9xxx in South facing KJTx, cash Ace and play > King when W shows out] > > However East is in an impossible spot as his > partner's revoke has forced him into revealing > his Queen where he knows declarer probably > would finesse because of the non trump lead. If > East knows of the 9-card fit his sense of humour > should provoke him into hiding his Queen. > +=+ Now, of course, I am just back from a week in Italy with never a thought of..... well, on the day we visited Salsomaggiore I was recognized as having been there 'with the bridge last year', but that's all...... So maybe I am a little slow picking up what this is all about, but when both opponents show out, the Director will be called and, the revoke(s) not being established, will require any player who has revoked to correct his play, will he not? If only West has revoked declarer will be allowed to change his play of the K, will he not? If both have revoked he will probably not exercise his right to do so, don't you think? So the problem is? Or was this just a fun discussion? In which case I am unlucky picking it out from just short of 400 messages. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 18 12:36:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:36:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: Message-ID: <000701c37dd9$0fb37420$099468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Que? I thought Grattan has made many posts explaining WBFLC policy, plus some additional posts explaining Grattan's non-official personal opinions. [Nigel] Apologies to Grattan -- he politely and patiently answers questions (even some of mine) -- he is tireless in his support of WBFLC policies (however indefensible) -- and he offers guarded versions of his personal views (sometime radical, mostly sensible, and always interesting). However, others like Ton are less tolerant of opinions from the public like mine. {Richard] De mortuis nil nisi bonum. However, the overall consensus of blml and the WBF Executive Council and the WBF Laws Commission is that the late Edgar Kaplan was overly concise, overly ambiguous, and insufficiently redundant in his phrasing of the words of the Laws in the 1987 and 1997 editions. [Nigel] We all agree that TFLB is incomplete: hence the necessity for all the idiosyncratic local additions) but hardly "concise" unless the word has some special new WBFLC/Orwellian meaning. Most critics (like David Burns) criticise what seems to be "elegant variation" in TFLB; hence even more redundancy would be a retrograde step; but we all agree that there are many ambiguities that need clarification and TFLB would benefit from the inclusion of simple relevant examples of case law. Obviously, the laws would be simpler, shorter, clearer, and fairer if reliance on subjective judgement were eliminated or reduced wherever possible. [Richard] Grattan has reported to blml a direction that the WBFEC gave to the WBFLC - that the 2005 edition of the Laws should have maximum clarity and minimum zonal exceptions. [Nigel] Three cheers for Grattan!!! [Richard] Jaap's entitlement is ended. As Henk warned earlier, if Jaap did not cease his unnecessary rudeness, his posting rights would be removed. Jaap has continued to be unnecessarily rude. (David sometimes will accidentally overstep the mark, but has the grace to apologise for unintended offence, plus his polemics are leavened by wit.) [Nigel] IMO you are wrong about Jaap. His arguments ad hominem and personal abuse are indefensible. But he is sensitive to criticism; he has publicly apologised; and he is in the process of cleaning up his act. When Jaap sticks to facts and arguments, he has contributed a lot to BLML and I am sure can do more good in the future [Richard] Some of David Burn's views reflect the views of a majority of activists on blml. Even in that limited statistical universe, most of David Burn's views of the Laws are too purist for the pragmatic majority of blml. [Nigel] BLML views are wide-ranging with a conservative bias as most TDs do not want to jeapadise their hard-learnt expertise. IMO, players at large share David Burn's views. [Richard] Both David Burn and I criticise the WBF for some carelessness in retaining an infinite loop in the Laws. Both David Burn and I wish to see that infinite loop removed from the 2005 edition of the Laws. You, David and I share many goals for the 2005 Laws. On this particular thread, we merely differ in our selection of a path to a particular goal. [Nigel] Aims are similar; and your approach is the same in this case; but in most cases your approach is quite different because you seem to the prefer complex "equitable" subjective variant to a simple rule (or in some cases - no rule at all). [Richard] If you read the blml Archives, and the WBFLC minutes, you will note that the WBFLC is *already* using some discussions on blml as a tool and resource. Example: One of the case studies in the WBF Code of Practice was originally posted to blml by Peter Gill. [Nigel] OK. Good. I admit to a "sour grapes" syndrome -- many of my own suggestions are ignored or rejected by legislators [Richard] I agree "The game of Bridge can only benefit". But the WBFLC has already made it so. What's the problem? [Nigel] Oh dear! To me there seem to be many problems. Two of the obvious ones: (1) Sloth: it is hard to correct mistakes or make major changes if there are many years between revisions; it is always difficult to get everything right in one go; in the mean-time we suffer with ambiguous and contradictory laws that hasten the demise of our wonderful game. The WBF can easily remedy this by publishing/publicising a new edition of the law-book, every year (or perhaps every week or month, to begin with). (2) Chauvinism: Local legislatures refuse to consider the overall welfare of the game. Local variation should be eliminated and TFLB should be complete with detailed legislation on subjects like convention cards --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003 From georgiev_d@yahoo.com Thu Sep 18 12:33:24 2003 From: georgiev_d@yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blml] Re:Hesitation Message-ID: <20030918113324.94553.qmail@web40112.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks all for yours opinions. I am especially grateful to Jaap for his human approach and arguments about hesitation problems. Sorry for unformatted post. Best regards Dimitr __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Sep 18 15:11:33 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:11:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <001d01c37daf$4aae94d0$ef19e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00cb01c37df0$be9a1d60$d7053dd4@m1q9j9> > So maybe I am a little slow picking up what > this is all about, but when both opponents show > out, the Director will be called and, the revoke(s) > not being established, will require any player > who has revoked to correct his play, will he not? > If only West has revoked declarer will be allowed > to change his play of the K, will he not? If both > have revoked he will probably not exercise his > right to do so, don't you think? > So the problem is? > Or was this just a fun discussion? In which case > I am unlucky picking it out from just short of 400 > messages. > > If east has revoked as well it is better for east not to announce that before north has made up his mind. Ben From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Sep 18 20:07:49 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:07:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <001d01c37daf$4aae94d0$ef19e150@endicott> <00cb01c37df0$be9a1d60$d7053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <004a01c37e1d$e7ac83a0$203fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > So maybe I am a little slow picking up what > > this is all about, but when both opponents show > > out, the Director will be called and, the revoke(s) > > not being established, will require any player > > who has revoked to correct his play, will he not? > > If only West has revoked declarer will be allowed > > to change his play of the K, will he not? If both > > have revoked he will probably not exercise his > > right to do so, don't you think? > > So the problem is? > > Or was this just a fun discussion? In which case > > I am unlucky picking it out from just short of 400 > > messages. > > > > > If east has revoked as well it is better for east not > to announce that before north has made up his mind. > > Ben > +=+ All four players have played a card to the trick. The Director will require E and W each to play a correct card if he has revoked. I do not read Law 62 as requiring declarer to decide whether to change K to J before all corrections have been effected (62C2 refers to optional plays, not to a compulsory rectification). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 18 23:24:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:24:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Concise (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >We all agree that TFLB is incomplete: hence the >necessity for all the idiosyncratic local additions) >but hardly "concise" unless the word has some special >new WBFLC/Orwellian meaning. Richard James Hills: Sorry, my previous posting was too concise, therefore you misunderstood what I was trying to say. :-) An example of where, in my humble opinion, the Laws are too concise is the notorious Law 12C3. This Law uses the concise word "equity". If I was the El Supremo of the WBFLC, at the very least I would include a comprehensive explanation of "equity" in the Chapter 1 Definitions. But my true preference would be a lengthy footnote to Law 12C3 containing indicative case studies on how "equity" is to be interpreted (similar to the current indicative case study which is footnoted to Law 75). Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 19 03:34:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:34:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: [big snip] Nigel Guthrie: >Local variation should be eliminated and TFLB >should be complete with detailed legislation >on subjects like convention cards. Richard James Hills: A number of years ago, the Pope issued an encyclical endorsing subsidiarity as a morally desirable principle. The subsidiarity principle has also been officially adopted by the European Union, with the EU Glossary stating: "The subsidiarity principle is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level." Over many postings Nigel has outlined arguments against the subsidiarity principle applying to bridge Law and bridge practices. (It is possible that our philosophical differences are partly cultural - I am a citizen of a federal nation, while Nigel is a citizen of a nation where the Westminster Parliament had - until recently - untrammelled power.) Nigel's slogan is, "Think globally". My slogan is, "Think globally, but act locally." Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 19 01:48:25 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:48:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <1063831257.3f68c6d9cdff8@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <001e01c37e89$cc7e6280$cb1ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 revokes. >> As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish >> an online version of the Laws of Bridge. If I google >> for "WBF Bridge Laws", > +=+ Have you considered the Ecats Bridge in Britain website? It is an authorized location for WBF material and WBF material published there is published by arrangement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 19 09:38:07 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:38:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Concise (was 2 revokes.) References: Message-ID: <001f01c37e89$cd4b7680$cb1ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Concise (was 2 revokes.) Sorry, my previous posting was too concise, therefore you misunderstood what I was trying to say. :-) An example of where, in my humble opinion, the Laws are too concise is the notorious Law 12C3. This Law uses the concise word "equity". +=+ But it says exactly what it was intended to say. I know because I was leading the European element in the negotiation that led to it. I can say with absolute certainty that, with 12C3 activated, the intention was to give ACs the power to determine what was 'equity' in each instance and implement a score adjustment that reflected it in the opinion of the AC. In 1984-7 the EBL insisted that it retain the right to adjust scores in the manner of its long-standing principles and not be strait-jacketed by the concept that the (wholly ACBL) drafting body wished to introduce (as 12C2). Without 12C3 there would have been no 12C2. We would have stayed with the 1975 Law in which the instruction to the Director as to the way in which he could adjust the score simply said: "An adjusted score may be assigned by altering the total-point score on the board, or by the assignment of zero or more matchpoints. The number of points assigned to the non-offending side should not exceed the number required to offset the irregularity. The number of points assigned to the offending side may be reduced by penalty points. Penalty points and indemnity points need not balance." Personally I think that, in this, the 1975 Law drafted under Geoffrey Butler's leadership said all that needed to be said (and was commendably concise). It gave all the powers of 12C3. Today I would simply extend 'matchpoints' to include IMPs and VPs. However, it appeared that EK had a problem in the ACBL and 'must' tie the hands of the ACBL Directors/ACs so we negotiated the compromise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 19 09:58:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:58:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: <001e01c37e89$cc7e6280$cb1ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <001201c37e8c$226c7400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ............... > >> As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish > >> an online version of the Laws of Bridge. If I google > >> for "WBF Bridge Laws", > > > +=+ Have you considered the Ecats Bridge in Britain > website? It is an authorized location for WBF material > and WBF material published there is published by > arrangement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Can you give an URL please? Regards Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Sep 19 11:19:27 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:19:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <001d01c37daf$4aae94d0$ef19e150@endicott> <00cb01c37df0$be9a1d60$d7053dd4@m1q9j9> <004a01c37e1d$e7ac83a0$203fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <002601c37e9a$1ebbe6c0$13053dd4@m1q9j9> > > > > So maybe I am a little slow picking up what > > > this is all about, but when both opponents show > > > out, the Director will be called and, the revoke(s) > > > not being established, will require any player > > > who has revoked to correct his play, will he not? > > > If only West has revoked declarer will be allowed > > > to change his play of the K, will he not? If both > > > have revoked he will probably not exercise his > > > right to do so, don't you think? > > > So the problem is? > > > Or was this just a fun discussion? In which case > > > I am unlucky picking it out from just short of 400 > > > messages. > > > > > > > > If east has revoked as well it is better for east not > > to announce that before north has made up his mind. > > > > Ben > > > +=+ All four players have played a card to the trick. The > Director will require E and W each to play a correct card > if he has revoked. I do not read Law 62 as requiring > declarer to decide whether to change K to J before all > corrections have been effected (62C2 refers to optional > plays, not to a compulsory rectification). > > I meant the following situation: All four players have played a card to the trick. W and E have revoked. W announces his revoke but E keeps silence for the moment because he has the Q sec. Correct or not? The TD is summoned and he advices W and declarer. W plays a correct card, a small trump. Now declarer has to make up is mind whether to change K to J. After this decision E announces his revoke. Ben From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 19 12:23:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:23:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <002601c37e9a$1ebbe6c0$13053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000001c37ea0$7c92abc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen > To: Grattan Endicott; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach >=20 > > +=3D+ All four players have played a card to the trick. The > > Director will require E and W each to play a correct card > > if he has revoked. I do not read Law 62 as requiring > > declarer to decide whether to change K to J before all > > corrections have been effected (62C2 refers to optional > > plays, not to a compulsory rectification). > > > > > I meant the following situation: > All four players have played a card to the trick. > W and E have revoked. > W announces his revoke but E keeps silence for the moment because he = has > the > Q sec. > Correct or not? > The TD is summoned and he advices W and declarer. > W plays a correct card, a small trump. > Now declarer has to make up is mind whether to change K to J. > After this decision E announces his revoke. Ben's approach is correct, and on its face it leaves declarer with the choice whether to play the King or the Jack from dummy to the trick = after the revoke by West is revealed and corrected. With East still having shown out it is almost inconceivable for declarer = not to alter his played card from the King to the Jack, after which East announces that he too had revoked and gets the trick with his Queen. Frankly I see no problem here. It is true that declarer cannot change = his card played from dummy this time because that card was not played = subsequent to the revoke by East. But we still have Law 72B1, and if this isn't a = case where East "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" I don't = know one when I see it. Let East have his fun and adjust afterwards to seven made. And unless the Director is extremely convinced that the action by East = was honestly (incontrovertibly?) unintentional add a very severe PP to him. (I might accept that East accidentally revoked, but I shall not believe = him if he states that he didn't under the circumstances realize his revoke = until after declarer had decided which card to play from dummy when the revoke = by West was revealed) Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 19 13:44:07 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach Message-ID: <2AE3C42C-EA9F-11D7-A742-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Argghh! Meant this to go to the list, not just Sven. :( On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > we still have Law 72B1, and if this isn't a case > where East "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the > irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" I don't > know > one when I see it. Okay. What of L72B3? East's revoke was certainly inadvertent at the time he made it. Failure to own up to having revoked is not, as far as I can see, an irregularity in itself. From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 19 14:00:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:00:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <2AE3C42C-EA9F-11D7-A742-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c37ead$f4ebec50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Argghh! Meant this to go to the list, not just Sven. :( Indeed, I did wonder. > On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > we still have Law 72B1, and if this isn't a case > > where East "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the > > irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" I don't > > know > > one when I see it. > > Okay. What of L72B3? East's revoke was certainly inadvertent at the > time he made it. Failure to own up to having revoked is not, as far as > I can see, an irregularity in itself. Good try, but Law 62A certainly takes precedence over Law 72B3 or the existence of law 62A would be meaningless: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." And note the word "must" - nothing less. If East should claim that all the fuss around his partner's revoke did not wake him up but then he discovered his revoke after declarer had finally selected the card to be played from dummy????? I shall probably ask him: "Do you really want me to believe that story?" Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Fri Sep 19 14:06:56 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:06:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. Message-ID: "Sven Pran" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 19/09/2003 10:58 =20 Pour : "blml" cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] 2 revokes. > Grattan Endicott ............... > >> As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish > >> an online version of the Laws of Bridge. If I google > >> for "WBF Bridge Laws", > > > +=3D+ Have you considered the Ecats Bridge in Britain > website? It is an authorized location for WBF material > and WBF material published there is published by > arrangement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Can you give an URL please? *** http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/ jpr *** Regards Sven =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=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 svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 19 14:15:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:15:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c37eb0$0b6b6f80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Yeah, had it already from Eitan Levy. Thanks to you both. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > Sent: 19. september 2003 15:07 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes. >=20 > "Sven Pran" > Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org > 19/09/2003 10:58 >=20 >=20 > Pour : "blml" > cc : > Objet : RE: [blml] 2 revokes. >=20 >=20 > > Grattan Endicott > ............... > > >> As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish > > >> an online version of the Laws of Bridge. If I google > > >> for "WBF Bridge Laws", > > > > > +=3D+ Have you considered the Ecats Bridge in Britain > > website? It is an authorized location for WBF material > > and WBF material published there is published by > > arrangement. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >=20 > Can you give an URL please? >=20 > *** > http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/ >=20 > jpr > *** >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 >=20 >=20 > __________________________________________________ > 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 >=20 > Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr > ___________________________________________________ >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Sep 19 14:12:08 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:12:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000001c37ea0$7c92abc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005b01c37eb1$4c8e2100$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach Ben Schelen > To: Grattan Endicott; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > > +=+ All four players have played a card to the trick. The > > Director will require E and W each to play a correct card > > if he has revoked. I do not read Law 62 as requiring > > declarer to decide whether to change K to J before all > > corrections have been effected (62C2 refers to optional > > plays, not to a compulsory rectification). > > > > > I meant the following situation: > All four players have played a card to the trick. > W and E have revoked. > W announces his revoke but E keeps silence for the moment because he has > the > Q sec. > Correct or not? > The TD is summoned and he advices W and declarer. > W plays a correct card, a small trump. > Now declarer has to make up is mind whether to change K to J. > After this decision E announces his revoke. Ben's approach is correct, and on its face it leaves declarer with the choice whether to play the King or the Jack from dummy to the trick after the revoke by West is revealed and corrected. With East still having shown out it is almost inconceivable for declarer not to alter his played card from the King to the Jack, after which East announces that he too had revoked and gets the trick with his Queen. Frankly I see no problem here. It is true that declarer cannot change his card played from dummy this time because that card was not played subsequent to the revoke by East. But we still have Law 72B1, and if this isn't a case where East "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" I don't know one when I see it. Let East have his fun and adjust afterwards to seven made. And unless the Director is extremely convinced that the action by East was honestly (incontrovertibly?) unintentional add a very severe PP to him. (I might accept that East accidentally revoked, but I shall not believe him if he states that he didn't under the circumstances realize his revoke until after declarer had decided which card to play from dummy when the revoke by West was revealed) The revoke of E must be a "normal" one and unintentional, because he does not know about the revoke of W. How could E know at that moment that he would derive any profit from his revoke and would be likely to damage NS? Law 72B1 could hadly be applied. Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an irregularity.(Law72B1) Why an adjustment to seven? If W did not revoke declarer had his problem! Why should E solve this problem? Is that the equity DB mentioned? Ben From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 19 14:32:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:32:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <005b01c37eb1$4c8e2100$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: Ben Schelen ......... > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > irregularity.(Law72B1) Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can do because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. Law 62A. Regards Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Sep 19 15:25:55 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:25:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001901c37eb9$f2ffb640$326aa63e@Default> Dear all, As I said before I am in favor of a very simple rule: Declarer (or defenders by the way) is given any guess in a suit were opponents revoke and correct. This stops any fun cold. Another way of putting it, I assume that revoker could have known by definition that his revoke and correct might influence declarers guess. Because we were discussing the case where both revoked. What about west revoking and correcting his revoke more or less the moment declarer plays from dummy ? As far as I see declarer still has to guess the suit under current rules. Do we want that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:32 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach > From: Ben Schelen > ......... > > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > > irregularity.(Law72B1) > > Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can do > because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. > > Law 62A. > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 19 15:30:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:30:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <000101c37ead$f4ebec50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 09:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Good try, but Law 62A certainly takes precedence over Law 72B3 or the > existence of law 62A would be meaningless: > > "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity > before it becomes established." > > And note the word "must" - nothing less. doh! I missed that one. Too early in the morning, I guess. ;-) From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Sep 19 15:28:48 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:28:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00c701c37eba$803241e0$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:32 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach > From: Ben Schelen > ......... > > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > > irregularity.(Law72B1) > > Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can do > because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. > > Law 62A. > > Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as soon as declarer has made up his mind and before the cards are quitted. Only not permitted when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. Must could mean: It is no good to continue play with a detected revoke. It restores the possible distribution of the hands. Ben From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 19 15:33:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:33:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <005b01c37eb1$4c8e2100$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <39D0287C-EAAE-11D7-A742-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 09:12 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > irregularity.(Law72B1) That's what I thought, until Sven pointed out Law 62A. From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 19 16:23:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:23:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <00c701c37eba$803241e0$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <000e01c37ec2$04b6a620$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen=20 > > From: Ben Schelen > > ......... > > > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > > > irregularity.(Law72B1) > > > > Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can = do > > because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. > > > > Law 62A. > > > > > Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as soon as declarer has made = up > his mind and before the cards are quitted. > Only not permitted when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. >=20 > Must could mean: It is no good to continue play with a detected = revoke. It > restores the possible distribution of the hands. There is no such thing as "must could mean". How the word "must" is to = be understood whenever used in the laws is precisely defined in = "Interpretation of the Laws" which is located between Table Of Contents and Chapter 1: The strongest word "must" (.....), indicates that violation is regarded = as serious. And Law 62A doesn't say that a player who becomes aware of his own not = yet established revoke must call attention to it before it becomes = established. Law 62A states that if he becomes aware of his revoke before it is established he must correct it. There is no opening here for any grace period during which he may delay this compulsory action, on the contrary there is every reason to understand the law that he must correct it as = soon as possible. The fact that Law 62A does not contain any words to the = effect of "as soon as possible" is unimportant to me, the actual text is strict enough as it is. If I were to rule a case like this and East argued with me: "I wanted to = see declarer's choice of play before I announced my revoke" (or maybe he = would argue: "I intended to correct my revoke just before my partner or I was = to play to the next trick"), I would simply tell him: "You have already = become aware of your revoke and you have not yet complied with Law 62A. The = longer you continue arguing the stronger the PP I am going to serve on you will be". Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Sep 19 16:40:00 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:40:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001901c37eb9$f2ffb640$326aa63e@Default> Message-ID: <011b01c37ec4$65157260$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > Dear all, > > As I said before I am in favor of a very simple rule: > > Declarer (or defenders by the way) is given any guess in a suit were > opponents revoke and correct. This stops any fun cold. Another way of > putting it, I assume that revoker could have known by definition that his > revoke and correct might influence declarers guess. > > Yes, if you mean the revoke of west. (because he could hit upon east having Q x) Ben From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Fri Sep 19 17:49:44 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:49:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach Message-ID: "Sven Pran" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 19/09/2003 17:23 =20 Pour : "blml" cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] The equitable approach Ben Schelen=20 > > From: Ben Schelen > > ......... > > > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > > > irregularity.(Law72B1) > > > > Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can do > > because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. > > > > Law 62A. > > > > > Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as soon as declarer has made=20 up > his mind and before the cards are quitted. > Only not permitted when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. >=20 > Must could mean: It is no good to continue play with a detected revoke.=20 It > restores the possible distribution of the hands. There is no such thing as "must could mean". How the word "must" is to be understood whenever used in the laws is precisely defined in=20 "Interpretation of the Laws" which is located between Table Of Contents and Chapter 1: The strongest word "must" (.....), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. And Law 62A doesn't say that a player who becomes aware of his own not yet established revoke must call attention to it before it becomes=20 established. Law 62A states that if he becomes aware of his revoke before it is established he must correct it. There is no opening here for any grace period during which he may delay this compulsory action, on the contrary there is every reason to understand the law that he must correct it as=20 soon as possible. The fact that Law 62A does not contain any words to the=20 effect of "as soon as possible" is unimportant to me, the actual text is strict enough as it is. If I were to rule a case like this and East argued with me: "I wanted to=20 see declarer's choice of play before I announced my revoke" (or maybe he would argue: "I intended to correct my revoke just before my partner or I was to play to the next trick"), I would simply tell him: "You have already=20 become aware of your revoke and you have not yet complied with Law 62A. The=20 longer you continue arguing the stronger the PP I am going to serve on you will be". *** is it so clear? in L62A, to which part of the sentence does "before it.."=20 refer? to "a player must correct"? to "he becomes aware"? to both? my=20 understanding of english language is far too poor for me to know. jpr ***=20 Sven =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=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 B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Sep 19 18:07:36 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:07:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000e01c37ec2$04b6a620$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c37ed0$a878eb20$06053dd4@m1q9j9> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach Ben Schelen > > From: Ben Schelen > > ......... > > > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > > > irregularity.(Law72B1) > > > > Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can do > > because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. > > > > Law 62A. > > > > > Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as soon as declarer has made up > his mind and before the cards are quitted. > Only not permitted when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. > > Must could mean: It is no good to continue play with a detected revoke. It > restores the possible distribution of the hands. There is no such thing as "must could mean". How the word "must" is to be understood whenever used in the laws is precisely defined in "Interpretation of the Laws" which is located between Table Of Contents and Chapter 1: The strongest word "must" (.....), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. And Law 62A doesn't say that a player who becomes aware of his own not yet established revoke must call attention to it before it becomes established. Law 62A states that if he becomes aware of his revoke before it is established he must correct it. There is no opening here for any grace period during which he may delay this compulsory action, on the contrary there is every reason to understand the law that he must correct it as soon as possible. The fact that Law 62A does not contain any words to the effect of "as soon as possible" is unimportant to me, the actual text is strict enough as it is. If I were to rule a case like this and East argued with me: "I wanted to see declarer's choice of play before I announced my revoke" (or maybe he would argue: "I intended to correct my revoke just before my partner or I was to play to the next trick"), I would simply tell him: "You have already become aware of your revoke and you have not yet complied with Law 62A. The longer you continue arguing the stronger the PP I am going to serve on you will be". > > A rule comprises: - a task, - a time-table, - a priority and - mentions who has to do the job. Of course I have given value to the word MUST, but please do not neglect the time. So I mentioned that inorder to hear the opinion of BLML. The original case has become a funny case, is not it? Now Jaap made a point: maybe west "could have known". Declarer has a problem and his guess could be influenced by the revoke. On the other hand the chance of a revoke with Q x is smaller than with only x. Why mentioned DB in the original text that declarer was going to play for Q x x? As far as I know DB, he must have done it with an intention! It could have been omitted. And what about equity: that word has been snowed under in the meantime. Ben From David Stevenson Fri Sep 19 18:35:33 2003 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:35:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] My Lawspage Message-ID: A couple of people have commented recently that some of the documents were unavailable. The reason for this is that my website is too big to fit in the space available to me, and a friend had provided some space. However, eventually he was merely paying a sub for no reason except to provide space for me, so he reluctantly said I would have to find alternative space. This I have done through another friend. I transferred the files over immediately, but finding all the links to them was another matter. This is an enormous job, and I am afraid not completed. So if ever you find a document or picture to be downloaded and it says it is not available please let me know: it will usually mean the link needs changing. I do think that I have found all the links on the Lawspage. From one or two comments here and on RGB it seems that some people have forgotten the resources available to them on my Lawspage, so here are a few: Laws on the Web http://blakjak.com/lws_lnks.htm IBLF http://blakjak.com/iblf1.htm Arrow-switch http://blakjak.com/lws_men1.htm Bridge rulings http://blakjak.com/rulings Butler scoring http://blakjak.com/butler.htm Laws Committee minutes http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm ACBL alerts http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm BLML logos http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm Flow Charts for Laws http://blakjak.com/lwx_dub0.htm Code of Practice http://blakjak.com/wbf_cop.htm Fixing Broken Movements http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm Bridge Proprieties http://blakjak.com/lwz_prop.htm The Laws Quiz http://blakjak.com/lwz_quz0.htm IBLF has a large amount of material for the simpler side of rulings. We have just moved hosts and initially it looked as though we would lose much of the material. However, thanks to Todd Zimnoch and Marcel den Broeder it has all been retained, and you will find all the old stuff at the IBLF link above. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 19 12:39:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <8285535.1063791831264.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <001d01c37daf$4aae94d0$ef19e150@endicott> <00cb01c37df0$be9a1d60$d7053dd4@m1q9j9> <004a01c37e1d$e7ac83a0$203fe150@endicott> <002601c37e9a$1ebbe6c0$13053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <001001c37edd$bc7fcc30$e015e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach a compulsory rectification). > > > > > I meant the following situation: > All four players have played a card to the trick. > W and E have revoked. > W announces his revoke but E keeps silence > for the moment because he has the Q sec. > Correct or not? > The TD is summoned and he advices W and > declarer. W plays a correct card, a small trump. > Now declarer has to make up is mind whether to > change K to J. > After this decision E announces his revoke. > > Ben > +=+ As the trick is 'complete' I would suggest the Director require both players to correct any revoke card and then inform Declarer of his rights. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 19 12:45:55 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:45:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <001201c37e8c$226c7400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c37edd$bdc19b00$e015e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:58 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 revokes. > > Grattan Endicott > ............... > > >> As far as I can tell, the WBF doesn't actually publish > > >> an online version of the Laws of Bridge. If I google > > >> for "WBF Bridge Laws", > > > > > +=+ Have you considered the Ecats Bridge in Britain > > website? It is an authorized location for WBF material > > and WBF material published there is published by > > arrangement. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Can you give an URL please? > > Regards Sven > +=+ http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 19 20:37:54 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:37:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00c701c37eba$803241e0$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <002c01c37ee5$ad6cb8e0$87de193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > > Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as > soon as declarer has made up his mind and > before the cards are quitted. Only not permitted when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. > > Must could mean: It is no good to continue play > with a detected revoke. It restores the possible > distribution of the hands. > +=+ East does not have the option of waiting for anything when the director puts the question to him, and I see nothing in the law to say this will be after declarer has made his choice of plays. If East has made an illegal play he must correct it forthwith upon becoming aware of it - and the Director will ensure he is aware of it. ~ G ~ +=+ From mv.phaff@quicknet.nl Sat Sep 20 06:51:30 2003 From: mv.phaff@quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 07:51:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <00c701c37eba$803241e0$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: Ben, 9B provides the AS SOON AS obligation, Best regards, Martin Phaff. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Namens Ben Schelen Verzonden: vrijdag 19 september 2003 16:29 Aan: Sven Pran; blml Onderwerp: Re: [blml] The equitable approach ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:32 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach > From: Ben Schelen > ......... > > Concealing the revoke by E until declarer had decided is not an > > irregularity.(Law72B1) > > Yes, it is. In fact it is among the gravest irregularities East can do > because he violates a "must" rule in the laws. > > Law 62A. > > Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as soon as declarer has made up his mind and before the cards are quitted. Only not permitted when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. Must could mean: It is no good to continue play with a detected revoke. It restores the possible distribution of the hands. Ben _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 20 14:31:27 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) References: Message-ID: <00d601c37f7b$7fa30180$1f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Nigel's slogan is, "Think globally". My slogan is, "Think globally, but act locally." [Nigel] IMO, your analogy between game-law and other international law is stretched. It is hard to see how local variation in the rules of a *game* can be necessary or can add real value. Admittedly, some games have grown apart like the American/Australian versions of Rugby. Some may even argue that the games have benefited. Others, like me, feel that destructive commercial and nationalist interests are sabotaging what could be wonderful international sports. Especially in the case of Bridge which is already taking its first tentative steps towards becoming an international game with a level playing field for all participants; although, obviously, it still has a a long and difficult path to negotiate, plagued by nationally sponsored terrorism. Local Bridge laws are a temporary necessity to remedy the gaping holes in TFLB; but players can hope that the WBFLC will eventually get its act together to remedy such deficiencies. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003 From info@bsnguarantee.com Wed Sep 24 16:23:05 2003 From: info@bsnguarantee.com (info@bsnguarantee.com) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16.12.00 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) our new offer Message-ID: <20030920142733.CB8C62BF51@rhubarb.custard.org> =3Chtml=3E =3Chead=3E =3Ctitle=3EBusiness Guarantee=3C=2Ftitle=3E =3Cmeta http-equiv=3D=22Content-Type=22 content=3D=22text=2Fhtml=3B charset=3Diso-8859-1=22=3E =3C=2Fhead=3E =3Cbody bgcolor=3D=22#FFFFFF=22 text=3D=22#000000=22=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E=3Cimg src=3D=22http=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ebsnguarantee=2Ecom=2Fbsnguarantee=2Fimages=2FNewLogo=2FLogo=2Egif=22 width=3D=22245=22 height=3D=22171=22=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E=3Cb=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#0000FF=22=3EAVVERTENZA Legge 675=2F96=2E Tutela delle persone e di altri soggetti rispetto al trattamento di dati personali=2E =3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#0000FF=22=3E=3Cb=3EGli indirizzi E-Mail presenti nel nostro archivio provengono o da richieste di iscrizioni pervenute al nostro recapito o da elenchi e servizi di pubblico dominio pubblicati in Internet=2C da dove sono stati prelevati=2E Si ricorda che per rimuovere l'indirizzo dall'archivio e' sufficiente rispondere al messaggio cliccando su =3Ca href=3D=22mailto=3Aremove=40bsnguarantee=2Ecom=22=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#FF0000=22=3EREMOVE=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fa=3E ed inviando l'E-mail con oggetto REMOVE=2E Secondo l'articolo n=2E 1618 Par=2E 111 deliberato al 105°=3B congresso USA=2C questo messaggio non puo' essere considerato SPAM poiche' include la possibilita' di essere rimosso da invii ulteriori=2E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E =3Cu=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#000000=22=3E=3Cb=3E =3Chr=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fu=3E =3Cp=3E=3Cb=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#0000FF=22=3EThe 675=2F96 law=3A in order to protect people and other subjects as regards the personnel treatment of the the general features=2E =3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#0000FF=22=3E=3Cb=3EThe e-mail address you can find in our file come from the numerous requests of enrollment that reached our address or from a list or services of public domain advertised in Internet where they were taken out=2E We remind you that in order to remove the address from our file is sufficient to answer to the message by clicking the word =3Ca href=3D=22mailto=3Aremove=40bsnguarantee=2Ecom=22=3E=3Cfont color=3D=22#FF0000=22=3EREMOVE=3C=2Ffont=3E=3C=2Fa=3E and to send the e-mail with object REMOVE =2E According to the article n=2E1618 par=2EIII ruled on the 105°=3B USA Congress=2C this message cannot be taken into consideration as spam because it is understood that it could be removed from further sendings=2E=3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Ffont=3E=3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E=3Cbr=3E =3Cbr=3E =3Cimg src=3D=22http=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ebsnguarantee=2Ecom=2Fbsnguarantee=2Fimages=2FNewLogo=2FLogoBSNSmall=2Egif=22 width=3D=22205=22 height=3D=2253=22=3E =3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22left=22=3E =3B=3C=2Fp=3E =3Cp align=3D=22right=22=3E=3Cb=3E=3Ca href=3D=22http=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ebsnguarantee=2Ecom=2Fbsnguarantee=2F01=5FCircolari=2F2003=2FCircolareGenerale=2Ehtm=22=3E=3Cimg src=3D=22http=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ebsnguarantee=2Ecom=2Fbsnguarantee=2F01=5FCircolari=2F2003=2FnuoveCircolari=2FonlyMen=2FourOffer=2Ejpg=22 width=3D=22162=22 height=3D=2232=22 border=3D=220=22=3E=3C=2Fa=3E=3Cbr=3E =3C=2Fb=3E=3C=2Fp=3E =3C=2Fbody=3E =3C=2Fhtml=3E From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sat Sep 20 14:19:44 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:19:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: Message-ID: <000b01c37f83$c225b400$29053dd4@m1q9j9> > Ben, > > 9B provides the AS SOON AS obligation, > > No, west did call attention to his revoke. But nobody, east included, did not draw attention to the revoke of east. Law9B1a is applicable only to west and not (yet) to east. Ben From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Sep 20 16:30:51 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:30:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rashomon In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030917203948.00b62cd0@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <6AB85000-EB7F-11D7-838D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 01:44 am, David J. Grabiner wrote: > At 01:06 AM 9/17/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps, dealer South, nil vulnerable. The Law 80E option >> of written bidding applies, but the SO has carelessly >> failed to adopt comprehensive written bidding >> regulations. >> >> The auction so far from West's viewpoint: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> 1C X 1H >> >> The auction so far from North's viewpoint: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> 1C /(1) 1H >> >> (1) For those not au fait with written bidding, a pass >> is represented by a diagonal stroke. >> >> The auction so far from East's viewpoint: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> 1C / or X 1H >> >> East takes a closer look at the bidding pad, and >> notices that West's pen had run out of ink when >> West was making the second stroke of the "X", so >> that the crossbar of the "X" is merely a scratch on >> the bidding pad. East therefore leans over, and >> uses their own (working) pen to remove the ambiguity of >> West's double. >> >> North calls for the TD. North is playing 1950s-style >> Acol, where 1H after a double will unconditionally deny >> 10+ hcp. > > I rule L25A applies. West wrote a slash while intending to write a > cross, and it was corrected as soon as the error was discovered. West > is allowed to correct his call, and North is allowed to change his 1H > to XX. East's correction is probably the written-bidding equivalent > of asking for a review of spoken bidding, which would reveal that West > had not made the bid he thought he made. I'm not entirely happy about this. Firstly, it wasn't West who corrected the error, it was East. Additionally, it wasn't an inadvertent call but a deliberate call which was imperfectly executed. This seems to me to be the written-bidding equivalent of a player mumbling their bid, such that although three players at the table knew what was said, they all agree that the fourth had good reason for mishearing it. Surprisingly, I can't find anything in the Laws that directly addresses this situation: perhaps it usually gets clarified with a bidding review before it becomes a problem. > > It is not reasonable to rule that North has no redress because he made > a call based on his own misunderstanding. I agree. I would rule under Law 21B that the 1H bid was based on Misinformation from an Opponent, and therefore allow the 1H bid to be changed. This gets us to the same place as ruling under L25A in this instance, but would lead us to a different result if North had already called after the 1H bid before the misunderstanding was discovered. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 20 18:28:03 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:28:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: Message-ID: <000901c37f9c$90c28a00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" > > > This makes me about 90% certain that the WBF interpretations have been > deliberately rejected and suppressed. The mechanism to publish them > exists, and is available to the people who were notified of them, but has > not been used. > This is correct 100%. A vice-chair of the ACBLLC has emphasized several times that the ACBL has complete independence in regard to the Laws and their interpretation. When I questioned this by e-mail, he directed me to the ACBL Constitution and By-laws, which say exactly that. If the ACBL does not recognize the authority of the WBFLC, then of course interpretations coming out of the WBFLC are not going to be promulgated unless they agree with them. When they do agree on an item, it may (rarely) appear in the ACBLLC minutes without reference to the WBFLC. When they disagree, they will often state their own interpretation, again without reference to the WBFLC. Others of influence in ACBL-land may adopt a WBFLC interpretation when it has not been touched on by the ACBLLC. Rich Colker at one time considered non-reciprocal score adjustments (OS only) as illegal. One had to penalize the OS with a PP when the NOS does something egregious that causes loss of redress, the PP sized by whatever effect an L12C2 adjustment would have. I hope that my rants about this had something to do with the WBFLC's Lille interpretation, which contradicted this policy. Rich then said he would comply, but considered this a *new* interpretation, not a clarifying one. I do not know if the ACBL TD department pays attention to the WBFLC interpretations. Probably not. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 20 18:31:27 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:31:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim Message-ID: <002001c37f9d$70764ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> A recent happening has reinforced my opinion that when defenders claim on the basis of one or more tricks to be won by their partner, then the cards of the partner should be treated as major penalty cards. Play does not cease, and declarer plays the penalty cards as he wishes Suppose dummy, on lead, has a losing heart and Ax clubs. Next hand has Jxx clubs, declarer K10x, fourth hand a high heart and Qx clubs. Fourth hand knows partner has the jack and claims the setting trick for his side, laying down his hand. Would anyone not allow this claim? Well, in real life a 1500 masterpoint holder played high on the second round of clubs. 6NT bid and made. Danny Kleinman has told me of a number of similar goofs by clients of his. A partner of mine once blanked a king with two cards left, AQ in dummy, the dummy on lead. Why??? Because she couldn't be expected to discard an ace, could she? Had Danny and I unethically claimed instead of playing these hands out, the goofs would not have happened. The opponents would not contest the claims, or if they did the TD would have allowed them, because such goofs are irrational plays that cannot be assumed. Or can they? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 20 18:34:24 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:34:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes Message-ID: <002101c37f9d$70ca3940$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Here is an excerpt from the ACBLLC's latest meeting. #### No. 1 Richard Colker brought up the problems in law interpretation that can result from the use of the words "irregularity" and "infraction" in the current laws. Specifically, does "the irregularity" in 12C2 refer to a player's illegal choice of calls after a hesitation or does it instead refer to the both the hesitation and the illegal choice? There was a consensus that the irregularity referred to in 12C2 may include the event that transmitted the unauthorized information. ##### Which leads to making "if the irregularity had not occurred" in L12C2 apply just prior to the UI, not to the misuse of the UI. ##### No. 2 After much discussion and as a result of general agreement that the nonoffenders not get an undeserved windfall that may harm the field after an disallowed action by the opponents, the Laws Commission agreed that 12C3 (if applicable) should apply when appropriate only to the non-offending side while 12C2 should always apply to the offending side. As for definitions, the following suggestion was offered: --an infraction is an action by a side that illegally benefits his side and for which one would normally expect to result in a penalty or a score adjustment or both. --an irregularity may be an infraction and is a deviation from correct procedure set forth in the laws that will not necessarily result in a penalty or a score adjustment. #### I consider both of these interpretations to be garbage, and wonder if any on BLML, especially those on the WBFLC, agree with them Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mv.phaff@quicknet.nl Sat Sep 20 19:00:11 2003 From: mv.phaff@quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:00:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <000b01c37f83$c225b400$29053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: I don't agree with you. At the moment East observed his revoke, he has to summon the Director on behalf of his revoke, regardless the irregularities committed by West. And of course East observes his revoke during the debate about the revoke of West, and has to summon the Director, immediately. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Ben Schelen [mailto:B.Schelen@IAE.NL] Verzonden: zaterdag 20 september 2003 15:20 Aan: Martin Phaff; Sven Pran; blml Onderwerp: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > Ben, > > 9B provides the AS SOON AS obligation, > > No, west did call attention to his revoke. But nobody, east included, did not draw attention to the revoke of east. Law9B1a is applicable only to west and not (yet) to east. Ben From jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl Wed Sep 17 12:06:01 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:06:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach slightly different Message-ID: <001001c37d0b$d3cf5b40$2eeb7f50@Default> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C37D1C.71A99000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, Now what about this one. South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: KJ109 A8762 He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. = Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy - and now west = discovers his revoke. West now plays a small heart. Of course declarer = can play again from dummy. Does declarer still have to guess the suit ? If so this opens a can of = worms because it gives all kind of interesting tactical options. Is it = better to revoke from xx or from Qxx ? Depends on what declarer will = think. If it is an honest revoke I guess xx is more likely than Qxx. Is = this kind of defensive tactics 'legal'. Of course they will always deny = it was done on purpose. Does it matter if west discovers his revoke after a (very) slight pause = by east. Jaap ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C37D1C.71A99000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok,
 
Now what about this one.
 
South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump=20 suit:

       =20 KJ109

        A8762
 
 
He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. = Resignedly,=20 declarer calls for the king from dummy - and now west discovers his = revoke.=20 West now plays a small heart. Of course = declarer can=20 play again from dummy.
 
Does declarer still have to guess the = suit ? If so=20 this opens a can of worms because it gives all kind of interesting = tactical=20 options. Is it better to revoke from xx or from Qxx ? Depends on what = declarer=20 will think. If it is an honest revoke I guess xx is more likely than = Qxx. Is=20 this kind of defensive tactics 'legal'. Of course they will always deny = it was=20 done on purpose.
 
Does it matter if west discovers his = revoke after a=20 (very) slight pause by east.
 
Jaap
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C37D1C.71A99000-- From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Sep 21 00:56:14 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:56:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <001201c37e8c$226c7400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Hi all I heard this case piece meal 3rd hand but from what I can gather it goes as follows. The SO has a rule that 1NT may be opened on a singleton honour. At one table the bidding proceeds as follows N E S W 1NT 2H(1) 2NT 3C(2) P P 3D P 3NT P P Dbl P P P (1) Majors (2) Apparently Club fit bid for hearts Now I wouldn't get hung up about the bidding - I don't think much of it makes sense and its not really relevant other than they reached 3NT played by north. East is about to lead when N says its not your lead Pd bid NT 1st. E says no you opened 1NT. N says no I opened 1S. All 4 review the bidding and E then leads the HA. N shows out on the 1st round. He has a 5071 shape. 3NT makes, 7D's & 2 aces. TD called and E/W quote the SO rule on opening 1NT. TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. Right/wrong ?? K. From nf@glo.be Sun Sep 21 15:36:41 2003 From: nf@glo.be (Norbert Fornoville) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:36:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach Message-ID: ---------- > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > To: blml@rtflb.org > South, declarer in seven spades, has this trump suit: > > KJ109 > > A8762 > > He cashes the ace, and all follow. On the two, West shows out. Resignedly, declarer calls for the king from dummy Well David,it seems to me that next time declarer will put in the jack and have the solution in case of a revoke if you (like me), agree with Grattan's application of the law.... Norbert From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Sep 21 23:31:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:31:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Concise (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>This Law uses the concise word "equity". [snip] Grattan Endicott: >+=3D+ But it says exactly what it was intended to say. [snip] >We would have stayed with the 1975 Law in which >the instruction to the Director as to the way in >which he could adjust the score simply said: "An >adjusted score may be assigned by altering the >total-point score on the board, or by the >assignment of zero or more matchpoints. The >number of points assigned to the non-offending >side should not exceed the number required >to offset the irregularity. The number of points >assigned to the offending side may be reduced >by penalty points. Penalty points and indemnity >points need not balance." > Personally I think that, in this, the 1975 Law >drafted under Geoffrey Butler's leadership said >all that needed to be said (and was commendably >concise). It gave all the powers of 12C3. Today I >would simply extend 'matchpoints' to include IMPs >and VPs. However, it appeared that EK had a >problem in the ACBL and 'must' tie the hands >of the ACBL Directors/ACs so we negotiated the >compromise. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: In my humble opinion, there should be a via media in the 2005 edition of the Laws between the purist ACBL position of Law 12C2 only, and the equally purist Grattanical support for an untrammelled Law 12C3. Like EK and/or the ACBL, I also have a problem with the power without definition that the previous 1975 Law and the current Law 12C3 gives to ACs. Like Grattan, I also have a problem with the sea lawyers and inequities that are endemic in the ACBL, partially caused by the rigid Law 12C2. Montaigne: >>>Il faut noter, que les jeux d'enfants ne sont pas >>>jeux: et les faut juger en eux, comme leurs plus >>>serieuses actions. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 22 09:02:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:02:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Montreal material at Ecats site Message-ID: <001001c3813a$37537b10$9721e150@endicott> This is an old message from Anna Gudge but it may be a help with URLs ************************************* Grattan Endicott To: "Steve Willner" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:09 PM Subject: RE: Montreal material at Ecats site I know the direct URL works, but the problem is that with many people's email clients a long URL breaks in the email so they get in a muddle ... So I never give it!! The documents in the Appeals material section are all headed up with the official publisher, and that acts as sufficient provenance I believe - they are either EBL or WBF publications. Kind regards anna > Anything published under the WBF Reports and Minutes are official > information, provided by the WBF normally without additional comments, > so I am not really in a position to do other than to say they are > official documents. > > To find them, go to http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp Thanks, Anna. Actually, the direct URL http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp?page=Laws+Committee +Min utes+Montreal+2002&start=d%3A%5Cinetpub%5Cwwwroot%5Cbridgeinbritain% 5Cbi b%5Cstatic%5Cfiles%5CWBF+Information%5CWBF+Reports+and+Minutes works fine, but I can see why you didn't want to type it in! Anyway, I have found the documents. The ones on this page identify themselves perfectly well: "Minutes of ...." By contrast, documents on page http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp?page=Appeals+Materi al don't have an obvious provenance, at least that I could find. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 22 20:40:19 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:40:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001901c37eb9$f2ffb640$326aa63e@Default> <011b01c37ec4$65157260$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <004d01c38143$19cc09a0$d46487d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Sven Pran" ; > "blml" > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:25 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > > > Dear all, > > > > As I said before I am in favor of a very simple rule: > > > > Declarer (or defenders by the way) is given any guess in a suit were > > opponents revoke and correct. This stops any fun cold. Another way > > of putting it, I assume that revoker could have known by definition > > that his revoke and correct might influence declarers guess. > > > > > Yes, if you mean the revoke of west. (because he could hit upon east > having Q x) > > Ben > +=+ blml seems to have gone dead since the above message from Ben Schelen. Are we off the air? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 22 21:42:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:42:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Things to come. Message-ID: <005d01c3814a$66df9e80$9721e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott >From the Desk of=3A Engr FRED CHIKA HARRY Dear Sir=2C CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS PROPOSAL This letter may come to you as a surprise since it is coming from someone you have not met before=2E However=2C we decided to contact you based on a satisfactory information we had about you=2EI am a Petroleum Enginer currently working with the Petroleum Trust Fund =28PTF=29=2E I and some of my close and trusted colleagues need your assistance in the transfer of US$26=2E8 million into any reliable Account you may nominate overseas=2EThis fund was generated from over-invoicing of contracts executed by the PTF under our control and supervision=2E This fund is now ready to be remitted into any Account we put forward for that purpose=2E What we want from you is a good and reliable company or personal Account into which we shall transfer this fund=2E Details should include the following=3A 1=2E Name of Company=2C Address & Your Private Telephone & Fax Number=2E 2=2E Name of Bank & Address of Bank =2E 3=2E Account Number 4=2E Beneficiary Name Upon receipt of your company & bank particulars=2C an application shall be made in your name to the Central Bank of Nigeria for the approval of the remittance of the funds which shall be by SWIFT =28Telegraphic transfer=29 copies of the approval and other relevant documents shall be faxed to you for your perusal=2Eplease treat as strictly confidential for obvious reasons=2E The fund will be shared as follows=3A1=2E 30% for your assistance 2=2E 60% for myself & my Colleagues 3=2E 10% for contingency expenses=2E We wish to assure you that your involvement should you decide to assist us=2C will be well protected=2C and also=2C this business=2C proposal is 100% risk free as the remittance will be made through the legal procedures=2ENote=3A your discussions regarding this transaction should be limited because we are still in government service=2E We intend to retire peacefully at the end of this transaction=2E Let honesty and trust be our watchword throughout this transaction and your prompt reply will be highly appreciated=2EThank you for your anticipated cooperation while we look forward to a mutually benefiting business relationship with you please contact me EngrFRED CHIKA HARRY From jvickers@fish.co.uk Mon Sep 22 23:41:19 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:41:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke Message-ID: <003801c3815a$bf04abe0$1483bc3e@oemcomputer> I have a feeling that this subject was discussed on BLML a year or two ago. If so, can someone remind me of the verdict? Berks and Bucks Pivot Teams, 21.09.03 Board 12, NS vul, dealer W. J 7 4 Q 7 5 3 Q 7 K 9 6 4 10 8 2 A K Q 9 6 5 3 10 K A K 9 4 3 J 10 8 5 A J 8 3 Q (void) A J 9 8 6 4 3 6 2 10 7 5 2 East was declarer in 6S. South had at some point doubled a heart cue-bid, but otherwise NS had passed throughout. I don't have full details of the early play, but I think South cashed the heart ace and switched to a club. East won, drew trumps and had to broach the diamonds. He led the jack, and when South showed out said "I'll have to give you a diamond." South immediately corrected his revoke. I was called at this point and have to confess I was unsure of what to do. The revoke is not established (L63) and so must be corrected (L62A). Although I had a suspicion that this was not correct, I allowed play to continue for the following reasons: (1) I wasn't sure that East's comment constituted a full-blown claim or concession (2) if I determined later that this was wrong I might be able to overrule myself and recover the situation (3) I had to do something and I didn't know what else to do. East played for the drop and made his slam, and that was the end of the matter. Trying to work out how I should have ruled, I established that East has clearly conceded a trick, so play cannot continue (L68A and D). My first thought was that I could cancel the concession under L71, but unfortunately there is a normal play that leads to loss of a trick, so this does not help. Then I considered restoring equity after a revoke under L64C, but no, this applies only to established revokes. OK, can I allow East to change his claim under L62C1? This refers to "played" cards, and claims are not plays. I also think that East is being disadvantaged if he is forced to claim against his will. He has two normal lines of play, with chances of success not that far apart. What he wants to do is play the cards and see if he can tempt an unwise cover or gain a clue from his opponents' mannerisms. He is being denied this if he has to claim. Finally, I decided I could take refuge in L12A as a last resort and award 6S= by East to both sides. This brings up another interesting point: even if NS deserve their -980, do EW merit the full value of the slam? East could easily have guessed wrong, and even if you think the case is clear here, suppose South had held Q x x in diamonds and had pre-empted in hearts, making the drop a clear favourite. Might you then be tempted to give a weighted score of x % of +980 and (100-x) % of -50 to NS under L16C3? Does anyone have any better ideas? James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 23 09:08:09 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:08:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F6FFF69.8000802@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Willey: > > blml for its discussion of Laws theory and practice. I > do not enjoy blml when Jaap uses the English translation > of the Dutch word "fokken" to insult Ton. > fokken = "to raise" as in cattle or sheep. Well, maybe that WAS what you meant. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 23 17:24:35 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:24:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] ignoretest Message-ID: <000501c381ef$31fa9b20$9dd84c51@pentium41600> one, two, three. From ac342@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Wed Sep 24 06:10:42 2003 From: ac342@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A. L. Edwards) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] am I having a problem? Message-ID: <20030924051042.00511420B0@smeagol.ncf.ca> Sorry to bother you all, but I seem to have lost connection. Can someone tell me how to reconnect to the BLML mailing list? Thanks! Tony (aka ac342) From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Sep 24 08:26:01 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:26:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] no subject Message-ID: ??????????? From henk@ripe.net Wed Sep 24 15:08:09 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:08:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Ignore me Message-ID: Test ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wed Sep 24 15:32:10 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:32:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] List crashed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As you may have noticed, BLML stopped delivering messages sometime Friday. The list has just been restarted and all mail will be delivered. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Sep 24 15:57:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:57:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F71B0EA.7030002@hdw.be> Karel wrote: > Hi all > > I heard this case piece meal 3rd hand but from what I can gather it goes as > follows. The SO has a rule that 1NT may be opened on a singleton honour. > At one table the bidding proceeds as follows > > N E S W > 1NT 2H(1) 2NT 3C(2) > P P 3D P > 3NT P P Dbl > P P P > > (1) Majors > (2) Apparently Club fit bid for hearts > > Now I wouldn't get hung up about the bidding - I don't think much of it > makes sense and its not really relevant other than they reached 3NT played > by north. > > East is about to lead when N says its not your lead Pd bid NT 1st. E says > no you opened 1NT. N says no I opened 1S. All 4 review the bidding and E > then leads the HA. N shows out on the 1st round. He has a 5071 shape. 3NT > makes, 7D's & 2 aces. TD called and E/W quote the SO rule on opening 1NT. > TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. Right/wrong ?? > Right. Clear case of L40A. Opener never intended to open 1NT, so cannot be ruled to be using an illegal system. (if we believe opener, of course - but his insistence that partner plays the contract is a strong indication that he though he had opened 1Sp) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 24 21:03:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:03:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <002001c37f9d$70764ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <2581B8CE-EECA-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 13:31 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Had Danny and I unethically claimed instead of playing these hands > out, the goofs would not have happened. I fail to see how a claim can, in itself, be unethical. Unless you're suggesting that by the act of claiming one is telling one's partner how to play his cards. And I'm not sure even then, since *he* doesn't get to play them once you've claimed. The fact that if you play a hand out somebody might make a mistake not accounted for by the claim rules has absolutely nothing to do, IMO, with the ethicality (is that a word?) of the claim itself. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 24 21:08:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:08:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 19:56 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > East is about to lead when N says its not your lead Pd bid NT 1st. E > says > no you opened 1NT. N says no I opened 1S. All 4 review the bidding > and E > then leads the HA. N shows out on the 1st round. He has a 5071 > shape. 3NT > makes, 7D's & 2 aces. TD called and E/W quote the SO rule on opening > 1NT. > TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. Right/wrong ?? Let me put it this way: if the TD rules any other way, I don't play in that club any more. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 24 21:23:09 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:23:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] My Lawspage References: Message-ID: <003101c382da$97025620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> David Stevenson writes: > > > From one or two comments here and on RGB it seems that some people > have forgotten the resources available to them on my Lawspage, so here > are a few: > (snip of other items) > The Laws Quiz http://blakjak.com/lwz_quz0.htm > A True/False quiz by Morris Jones and Gary Porter, following ACBL's version of the Laws and ACBL regulations. David comments on some of the answers, but said nothing about question 10. So I will: 10 During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an explanation of an opponent's bid. Answer given: TRUE - In addition, explanation of defender's signals can also be obtained at any time during the play. (Law 20F2.) My answer: FALSE! L20F2:....either defender at his own turn to play may require an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play convention. For defender: "opposing auction." For declarer: "a defender's call." There is a difference. Also, *call* and *bid* are not synonymous. Declarer can request an explanation of a double, redouble, or pass, as well as a bid. While the answer is not wrong in this regard, it doesn't give the complete picture (as other answers do). Those who give answers to quiz questions should take the trouble of quoting the Laws exactly. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 24 21:54:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:54:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: References: <001201c37e8c$226c7400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030924165003.022f25a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:56 PM 9/20/03, Karel wrote: >N E S W >1NT 2H(1) 2NT 3C(2) >P P 3D P >3NT P P Dbl >P P P > >(1) Majors >(2) Apparently Club fit bid for hearts > >Now I wouldn't get hung up about the bidding - I don't think much of it >makes sense and its not really relevant other than they reached 3NT played >by north. > >East is about to lead when N says its not your lead Pd bid NT 1st. E says >no you opened 1NT. N says no I opened 1S. All 4 review the bidding and E >then leads the HA. N shows out on the 1st round. He has a 5071 >shape. 3NT >makes, 7D's & 2 aces. TD called and E/W quote the SO rule on opening 1NT. >TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. Right/wrong ?? Right. An unintended call *may* be corrected per L25, but there is no requirement to do so. A player who makes an unintended call and doesn't attempt to change it -- whether because he doesn't realize what his call was or because he simply chooses to stay silent and see what transpires -- has not committed an infraction. 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 Wed Sep 24 22:02:45 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:02:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim References: <2581B8CE-EECA-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003201c382df$367597e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Ed Reppert wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Had Danny and I unethically claimed instead of playing these hands > > out, the goofs would not have happened. > > I fail to see how a claim can, in itself, be unethical. Unless you're > suggesting that by the act of claiming one is telling one's partner how > to play his cards. And I'm not sure even then, since *he* doesn't get > to play them once you've claimed. > > The fact that if you play a hand out somebody might make a mistake not > accounted for by the claim rules has absolutely nothing to do, IMO, > with the ethicality (is that a word?) of the claim itself. > I think you miss the point. If we claim in order to prevent an irrational mistake by partner, that is unethical. It seems not to be illegal, but true bridge players never do anything to help partner. In the 1963 Laws a defender's claim was treated differently from a declarer's claim, as it should be. Play did not necessarily cease. A defender could show his hand to declarer, not letting partner see any card, and declarer could either play on or concede. If the claimer revealed to partner even one card in his hand, if only by naming it, declarer could (at his discretion) treat the cards of claimer's partner as penalty cards (without the lead penalty provisions). This was a good law, and I don't understand why it was changed. Too complicated, I suppose. Similarly, it is unethical to suggest curtailment of play when you see that declarer may stumble into a line that will produce more tricks than those you are conceding. The despicable Ivan Erdos tried this against me in the 50s, saying "You have to lose a diamond and a heart, Marv, why play it out?" But Marv then executed the simple squeeze that Ivan foresaw. Was his claim Illegal? Probably not. Unethical? Absolutely. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 24 22:10:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:10:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: <003801c3815a$bf04abe0$1483bc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030924170255.022cc6b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:41 PM 9/22/03, James wrote: >Board 12, NS vul, dealer W. > > J 7 4 > Q 7 5 3 > Q 7 > K 9 6 4 >10 8 2 A K Q 9 6 5 3 >10 K >A K 9 4 3 J 10 8 5 >A J 8 3 Q > (void) > A J 9 8 6 4 3 > 6 2 > 10 7 5 2 > >East was declarer in 6S. South had at some point doubled a heart cue-bid, >but otherwise NS had passed throughout. I don't have full details of the >early play, but I think South cashed the heart ace and switched to a club. >East won, drew trumps and had to broach the diamonds. He led the jack, and >when South showed out said "I'll have to give you a diamond." > >South immediately corrected his revoke. I was called at this point and >have >to confess I was unsure of what to do. The revoke is not established (L63) >and so must be corrected (L62A). Although I had a suspicion that this was >not correct, I allowed play to continue for the following reasons: (1) I >wasn't sure that East's comment constituted a full-blown claim or >concession >(2) if I determined later that this was wrong I might be able to overrule >myself and recover the situation (3) I had to do something and I >didn't know >what else to do. > >East played for the drop and made his slam, and that was the end of the >matter. Trying to work out how I should have ruled, I established that >East >has clearly conceded a trick, so play cannot continue (L68A and D). My >first >thought was that I could cancel the concession under L71, but >unfortunately >there is a normal play that leads to loss of a trick, so this does not >help. >Then I considered restoring equity after a revoke under L64C, but no, this >applies only to established revokes. > >OK, can I allow East to change his claim under L62C1? This refers to >"played" cards, and claims are not plays. I also think that East is being >disadvantaged if he is forced to claim against his will. He has two normal >lines of play, with chances of success not that far apart. What he >wants to >do is play the cards and see if he can tempt an unwise cover or gain a >clue >from his opponents' mannerisms. He is being denied this if he has to >claim. > >Finally, I decided I could take refuge in L12A as a last resort and award >6S= by East to both sides. It sounds like you could have used L73F. South has "no demonstrable bridge reason" for revoking, it "could [have] work[ed] to his benefit", and he "could have known" that the position could be as it was, in which case it would be likely to do so (as, indeed, it did). So I rule that East is down one after his concession, with a subsequent L73F adjustment to 6S=. 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 Wed Sep 24 22:17:00 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:17:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) References: <00d601c37f7b$7fa30180$1f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003f01c382e1$3285fc40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Admittedly, some games have grown apart like the > American/Australian versions of Rugby. Some may > even argue that the games have benefited. > > Others, like me, feel that destructive commercial > and nationalist interests are sabotaging what > could be wonderful international sports. > > Especially in the case of Bridge which is already > taking its first tentative steps towards becoming an > international game with a level playing field for all > participants; although, obviously, it still has a > a long and difficult path to negotiate, plagued by > nationally sponsored terrorism. > > Local Bridge laws are a temporary necessity to > remedy the gaping holes in TFLB; but players can hope > that the WBFLC will eventually get its act together > to remedy such deficiencies. Again I recall that when the US soccer rules threatened to differ from international rules, the deviance was stopped in its tracks with a hint from the international organization that the US might thereby lose the right to host any World Cup matches. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 24 22:22:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:22:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF Message-ID: <2B7AD282-EED5-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> I've just had a look at the WBF and ACBL websites regarding constitutions and bylaws and other things. I find: 1. A member organization of the WBF is a "national bridge organization (NBO)" which represents the interests of the game in its country (and only in its country). [WBF Constitution, Article 5, and Bylaws, Article 2] 2. A member of the WBF must "undertake to comply with the Constitution and Bylaws of the WBF". [WBF Bylaws, Article 2.1(b)] 3. The ACBL claims jurisdiction over bridge in Bermuda, Canada, Mexico, and the US. [ACBL Bylaws, article II] 4. NBOs in a geographical area (a zone, as defined by the WBF Executive) are required to form a "Zonal Conference", which will "further WBF objectives" within its jurisdiction [WBF Bylaws, Article 4]. In particular, the WBF Executive has the power to require a ZC to submit its constitution and bylaws to the WBF Executive for approval. [WBF Bylaws, Article 4.6] 5. The Constitution and Bylaws of the WBF require member organizations to conform to the rulings of the WBFLC regarding the international laws of bridge and their interpretation. [WBF Constitution, Article 10, WBF Bylaws, Article 8.8]. 6. The Bylaws of the ACBL make no mention whatsoever of the WBF. [ACBL Bylaws, in their entirety]. 7. The ACBL Laws Commission is assigned, by the ACBL, jurisdiction over the laws of bridge within its domain [ACBL Bylaws, Article XVI]. My conclusions: Findings of fact: 1. The ACBL is not a member organization of the WBF [items 1, 2, and 3 above]. 2. The ACBL, while it is de jure the WBF Zonal Authority for Zone 2 (because it was appointed as such by the WBF Executive), does not acknowledge that in any official document, nor in any official capacity does it carry out its duties as such. [Items 4 and 6 above]. 3. The Bylaws of the ACBL are in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the WBF, at least regarding the administration and interpretation of the laws of the game. [Items 5 and 7 above]. Opinions: 1. It is my opinion that the ACBL should either (a) turn over all NBO duties and functions for its constituent countries to the designated and WBF approved NBOs for those countries, or (b) assume all NBO duties and functions for *one* of those countries. In addition, under option (a), the ACBL should restructure itself as the Zonal Conference for Zone 2, and solely as that body or, under option (b), the NBOs of Zone 2 need to create a *new* ZC. 2. It is my opinion that should the ACBL not do one or the other of the above, and soon, the WBF should take one of the following actions: (a) sanctions against the ACBL, including withdrawal of recognition of the ACBL as its ZC, withdrawal of permission for the ACBL to send contestants to WBF tournaments, and refusal to treat the ACBL, in any way, as a member or affiliate of the WBF organization OR (b) acknowledge that the WBF is powerless to govern the ACBL, and withdraw from North America entirely. From John Mac Gregor" Message-ID: <001a01c382e5$acac4ac0$aa160b0a@john> The Bermudians are now a member of Zone 5 of the WBF - the CACBF. Their transfer was approved last year, so they were able to participate in the BB qualifying in May of this year (which they won). John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:22 PM Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF | I've just had a look at the WBF and ACBL websites regarding | constitutions and bylaws and other things. I find: | | 1. A member organization of the WBF is a "national bridge organization | (NBO)" which represents the interests of the game in its country (and | only in its country). [WBF Constitution, Article 5, and Bylaws, Article | 2] | | 2. A member of the WBF must "undertake to comply with the Constitution | and Bylaws of the WBF". [WBF Bylaws, Article 2.1(b)] | | 3. The ACBL claims jurisdiction over bridge in Bermuda, Canada, Mexico, | and the US. [ACBL Bylaws, article II] | | 4. NBOs in a geographical area (a zone, as defined by the WBF | Executive) are required to form a "Zonal Conference", which will | "further WBF objectives" within its jurisdiction [WBF Bylaws, Article | 4]. In particular, the WBF Executive has the power to require a ZC to | submit its constitution and bylaws to the WBF Executive for approval. | [WBF Bylaws, Article 4.6] | | 5. The Constitution and Bylaws of the WBF require member organizations | to conform to the rulings of the WBFLC regarding the international laws | of bridge and their interpretation. [WBF Constitution, Article 10, WBF | Bylaws, Article 8.8]. | | 6. The Bylaws of the ACBL make no mention whatsoever of the WBF. [ACBL | Bylaws, in their entirety]. | | 7. The ACBL Laws Commission is assigned, by the ACBL, jurisdiction over | the laws of bridge within its domain [ACBL Bylaws, Article XVI]. | | My conclusions: | | Findings of fact: | | 1. The ACBL is not a member organization of the WBF [items 1, 2, and 3 | above]. | | 2. The ACBL, while it is de jure the WBF Zonal Authority for Zone 2 | (because it was appointed as such by the WBF Executive), does not | acknowledge that in any official document, nor in any official capacity | does it carry out its duties as such. [Items 4 and 6 above]. | | 3. The Bylaws of the ACBL are in conflict with the Constitution and | Bylaws of the WBF, at least regarding the administration and | interpretation of the laws of the game. [Items 5 and 7 above]. | | Opinions: | | 1. It is my opinion that the ACBL should either (a) turn over all NBO | duties and functions for its constituent countries to the designated | and WBF approved NBOs for those countries, or (b) assume all NBO duties | and functions for *one* of those countries. In addition, under option | (a), the ACBL should restructure itself as the Zonal Conference for | Zone 2, and solely as that body or, under option (b), the NBOs of Zone | 2 need to create a *new* ZC. | | 2. It is my opinion that should the ACBL not do one or the other of the | above, and soon, the WBF should take one of the following actions: (a) | sanctions against the ACBL, including withdrawal of recognition of the | ACBL as its ZC, withdrawal of permission for the ACBL to send | contestants to WBF tournaments, and refusal to treat the ACBL, in any | way, as a member or affiliate of the WBF organization OR (b) | acknowledge that the WBF is powerless to govern the ACBL, and withdraw | from North America entirely. | | | _______________________________________________ | blml mailing list | blml@rtflb.org | http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Wed Sep 24 22:50:12 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:50:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:41:19 BST." <003801c3815a$bf04abe0$1483bc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <200309242150.OAA07855@mailhub.irvine.com> James Vickers wrote: > I have a feeling that this subject was discussed on BLML a year or two ago. More likely a year *and* two ago. And three, and four, etc. It comes up regularly. > If so, can someone remind me of the verdict? > > Berks and Bucks Pivot Teams, 21.09.03 > > Board 12, NS vul, dealer W. > > J 7 4 > Q 7 5 3 > Q 7 > K 9 6 4 > 10 8 2 A K Q 9 6 5 3 > 10 K > A K 9 4 3 J 10 8 5 > A J 8 3 Q > (void) > A J 9 8 6 4 3 > 6 2 > 10 7 5 2 > > East was declarer in 6S. South had at some point doubled a heart cue-bid, > but otherwise NS had passed throughout. I don't have full details of the > early play, but I think South cashed the heart ace and switched to a club. > East won, drew trumps and had to broach the diamonds. He led the jack, and > when South showed out said "I'll have to give you a diamond." > > South immediately corrected his revoke. I was called at this point and have > to confess I was unsure of what to do. The revoke is not established (L63) > and so must be corrected (L62A). . . . >From "Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee Held on January 11th, 2000, in Bermuda": # The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a # defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender # disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has # not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke # and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating # any margin of doubt against the revoker. This situation is a bit different, in which the revoke causes the declarer to concede rather than to claim. I suspect you could apply the same principle, though. -- Adam From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Sep 24 22:53:55 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:53:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Inconsistency between L45D and L47 Message-ID: I can't remember whether we've discussed this before, but it seems to me to need correction in the coming laws: L45D says "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2)." The part about defender withdrawing a card played after the error is contradicted by L47F, which says: "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once played may not be withdrawn." The L45D situation should be covered somewhere in L47A-E, but isn't (unless I'm overlooking something obvious). The closest L47 gets to the L45D situation seems to be L47D about plays following an opponent's change of play, but that is not good enough: the card dummy has mistakenly placed in the played position is of course not played, and its withdrawal is therefore not a change of play. My suggestion would be to add to L47E any situation where a defender through a fault from the declaring side is misled about which card dummy has actually led. Alternatively, L47C could be changed to say something about that, since it is about a somewhat similar situation. In addition, L47C explicitly concerns itself with the situation from L45C4b, but L45C4b refers back to L47E, not L47C. That reference seems to be wrong. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 24 23:07:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:07:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <003201c382df$367597e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <73B5F35E-EEDB-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > I think you miss the point. If we claim in order to prevent an > irrational mistake by partner, that is unethical. It seems not to be > illegal, but true bridge players never do anything to help partner. The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. > In the 1963 Laws a defender's claim was treated differently from a > declarer's claim, as it should be. In 1963, I wasn't playing bridge. And while you may be right as to how it should be, that ain't how it is. > Similarly, it is unethical to suggest curtailment of play when you see > that declarer may stumble into a line that will produce more tricks > than those you are conceding. The despicable Ivan Erdos tried this > against me in the 50s, saying "You have to lose a diamond and a heart, > Marv, why play it out?" But Marv then executed the simple squeeze that > Ivan foresaw. Was his claim Illegal? Probably not. Unethical? > Absolutely. I think you're giving a broader definition to "ethical" than the law does. From adam@irvine.com Wed Sep 24 23:29:49 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:29:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:07:13 EDT." <73B5F35E-EEDB-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200309242229.PAA08895@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > > > I think you miss the point. If we claim in order to prevent an > > irrational mistake by partner, that is unethical. It seems not to be > > illegal, but true bridge players never do anything to help partner. > > The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. > > > In the 1963 Laws a defender's claim was treated differently from a > > declarer's claim, as it should be. > > In 1963, I wasn't playing bridge. And while you may be right as to how > it should be, that ain't how it is. > > > Similarly, it is unethical to suggest curtailment of play when you see > > that declarer may stumble into a line that will produce more tricks > > than those you are conceding. The despicable Ivan Erdos tried this > > against me in the 50s, saying "You have to lose a diamond and a heart, > > Marv, why play it out?" But Marv then executed the simple squeeze that > > Ivan foresaw. Was his claim Illegal? Probably not. Unethical? > > Absolutely. > > I think you're giving a broader definition to "ethical" than the law > does. The law doesn't give any definition at all of "ethical". I searched the text and couldn't find that word anywhere. Marv's definition of "ethical" appears to be something along the lines of "That's not the way the game is supposed to be played, even if you can find a loophole in the laws that lets you do it". You appear to be arguing that is somehow an invalid concept---that an action that is "legal but unethical" is something that _a priori_ cannot exist. I don't see why. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Wed Sep 24 23:33:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:33:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Lawspage In-Reply-To: <003101c382da$97025620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c382eb$f0c6ed40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ........... > David comments on some of the answers, but said nothing about question > 10. So I will: >=20 > 10 During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an > explanation of an opponent's bid. >=20 > Answer given: >=20 > TRUE - In addition, explanation of defender's signals can also be > obtained at any time during the play. (Law 20F2.) >=20 > My answer: >=20 > FALSE! >=20 > L20F2:....either defender at his own turn to play may require an > explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the > declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play > convention. >=20 > For defender: "opposing auction." For declarer: "a defender's call." >=20 > There is a difference. >=20 > Also, *call* and *bid* are not synonymous. Declarer can request an > explanation of a double, redouble, or pass, as well as a bid. While > the answer is not wrong in this regard, it doesn't give the complete > picture (as other answers do). >=20 > Those who give answers to quiz questions should take the trouble of > quoting the Laws exactly. Indeed. I looked at the quiz myself some time ago and let me add my comments on = two more questions: 7: By law, the opening lead must be made face down. TRUE My answer: No, this is FALSE! Law 41A describes the correct procedure but does not use the word = "must". According to the "Interpretation of the Laws" this is a major = difference. 19: If declarer leads from the wrong hand, the lead must be corrected = unless either defender accepts. TRUE My answer: The question is improperly formed. Declarer does not have to correct the lead if attention is not called to the irregularity. The answer given is of course correct if attention is called to the irregularity, but not otherwise. Pedantry? No, more a question of precise wording. Regards Sven=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 24 22:43:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:43:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules Message-ID: <000201c382ee$d97ed0a0$a09868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Karel] The SO has a rule that 1NT may be opened on a singleton honour. East is about to lead when N says its not your lead Pd bid NT 1st. E says no you opened 1NT. N says no I opened 1S. All 4 review the bidding and E then leads the HA. N shows out on the 1st round. He has a 5071 shape. 3NT makes, 7D's & 2 aces. TD called and E/W quote the SO rule on opening 1NT. TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. Right/wrong ?? [Nigel] However stupid the SO rule, IMO it should be enforced; so perhaps the TD should take North's self-serving statement with a pinch of salt. Incidentally, the TD should ask North-South whether, With 5071 shape, they open 1S by agreement. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Sep 24 22:21:31 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:21:31 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF In-Reply-To: <2B7AD282-EED5-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: (various things, including:) > 6. The Bylaws of the ACBL make no mention whatsoever of the WBF. [ACBL > Bylaws, in their entirety]. (and drew various conclusions, including:) > 3. The Bylaws of the ACBL are in conflict with the Constitution and > Bylaws of the WBF, at least regarding the administration and > interpretation of the laws of the game. [Items 5 and 7 above]. There is a complication, which I am not sure how to resolve. The ACBL was there first. It *already had* authority over the the laws in North America when the WBF was created, and it may never have officially agreed to cede those powers to the WBF. It may even have originally affiliated itself with the WBF under condition of retaining certain powers. I don't know; that was before my time. It may not even have been written down on paper, while Kaplan et al. were controlling both laws commissions. Notice that the title pages of the 1987 and 1997 law books say "promulgated by the WBF, and agreed upon by the WBFLC, Portland Club, EBL, and ACBL" -- that is, while the WBF is an umbrella organization, the WBFLC is portrayed as an equal of the other three, not an authority over them. (Maybe someone else can comment on the details of how the Portland Club and the EBL laws folks interact with the WBFLC.) As long as I am on the subject of the ACBL and the WBF, I'd like to point out that the original comment that has been cited as an assertion that the ACBLLC doesn't have to listen to the WBFLC, has in fact been taken out of context. The actual wording of Chip Martel's comment in the Fall 1998 ACBLLC minutes: "while decisions of the WBF Laws Commission are subject to the final approval of the Executive, the ACBL Laws Commission is the ultimate authority on Law in the ACBL." I *think* all he is saying is that in the ACBL, the laws commission can tell the board of directors what to do, while in the WBF, the board of directors can tell the laws commission what to do. The board went on to oppose some of the WBFLC's Lille interpretations after that ... which, the longer I stare at the title page of the 1997 law book, the more I think maybe they ARE allowed to do it: the published book was supposed to represent something agreed upon by four bodies, while the 1998 interpretations were issued by just one of them, and represent items on which those four bodies need to reach a consensus before they become part of the book. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. GRB From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 24 23:57:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi all > > I heard this case piece meal 3rd hand but from what I can gather it > goes as follows. The SO has a rule that 1NT may be opened on a > singleton honour. > At one table the bidding proceeds as follows > > N E S W > 1NT 2H(1) 2NT 3C(2) > P P 3D P > 3NT P P Dbl > P P P > > (1) Majors > (2) Apparently Club fit bid for hearts > > Now I wouldn't get hung up about the bidding - I don't think much of it > makes sense and its not really relevant other than they reached 3NT > played by north. > > East is about to lead when N says its not your lead Pd bid NT 1st. E > says no you opened 1NT. N says no I opened 1S. All 4 review the > bidding and E then leads the HA. N shows out on the 1st round. He has > a 5071 shape. What? N is 5071 and rebids 3N when his partner bids D! Something very strange is going on. Now if you tell me that N bid 3D and S rebid NT the story makes some sort of sense. > 3NT makes, 7D's & 2 aces. TD called and E/W quote the SO rule on > opening 1NT. The SO rule on opening 1NT is irrelevant. With a 5071 shape 1N is either a misbid or a psyche. Assuming the auction follows my adjusted pattern there are no grounds for adjustment in either case (although misbid looks very likely). If the auction was really as originally stated I'd suspect a wire on the board. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 24 23:57:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <003201c382df$367597e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > I think you miss the point. If we claim in order to prevent an > irrational mistake by partner, that is unethical. It seems not to be > illegal, but true bridge players never do anything to help partner. If it is not illegal it can't be unethical. To be unethical an action must be both illegal and *known to be illegal* by the perp. As to the original case (very contrived, how can claimer *know* pard has the CJ), so what if a 1500+ like master found an irrational play at the table? Last night I held QT6 with A9543 in dummy, declarer led D8 from hand,small, small, 6!. I pulled (clicked actually) the wrong card, not rational but it happens. The claim laws say I wouldn't have done it (and 99% of the time they would be right). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Sep 24 23:57:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: <200309242150.OAA07855@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > This situation is a bit different, in which the revoke causes the > declarer to concede rather than to claim. As it happens declarer claimed about 8 tricks (conceding 1) so the WBF minute definitely applies. > I suspect you could apply the same principle, though. I'm sure one could, but finding a real-life hand where a revoke leads to a concession without a claim may take some doing:) Tim From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Sep 24 22:32:45 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:32:45 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <000201c382ee$d97ed0a0$a09868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Karel] [1NT opened on 5071 shape] > TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. > Right/wrong ?? > > [Nigel] > > However stupid the SO rule, IMO it should be > enforced The SO rule doesn't come into play at all, unless you establish that there is a partnership agreement / previous history of opening 5-0-7-1 hands with 1NT. Sure, it should be enforced (which means denying redress to E/W when the 1NT bidder opens with 4441 shape), if it applies. I think most of us find the idea that 1NT was North's system bid sufficiently unlikely as to not spend a great deal of time investigating on that front before ruling Result Stands. > Incidentally, the TD should ask North-South > whether, With 5071 shape, they open 1S by > agreement. Fair enough, if you're doing it to try to decide "was it a mispull or a covered-up psych" with a partnership with a history of pulling 1NT opening stunts. (It is quite a common agreement in some places, incidentally.) GRB From jvickers@fish.co.uk Thu Sep 25 00:07:12 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:07:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim after revoke Message-ID: <001701c382f0$acd4e060$d68abc3e@oemcomputer> [Herman:] > Finally, I decided I could take refuge in L12A as a last resort and award > 6S= by East to both sides. L12A1 applies when someone does something that the laws don't cover. This is a non-established revoke, which the laws do cover. [James:] I related this story to another player that evening, and he was incensed that I even dared to hesitate before awarding 6S=. "Adjust the score!" he cried indignantly. I explained to him that I couldn't adjust the score unless the laws empowered me to do so, and (L12A1 notwithstanding) I'm not sure that they do. L70 allows me to adjudicate a contested claim, but the opponents weren't contesting, and it's not clear that declarer can contest his own claim. In any case I can only resolve doubtful points against the claimer, so East is out of luck. I also cannot allow declarer to "reclaim" (L70D). I tried to see if I could stretch the misinformation clauses to apply here (South has misinformed East as to his length in the diamond suit by revoking.) L47D would allow declarer to retract cards played following South's change of card, but as we all know claims are not "plays", so I don't think this works. I don't think this is simply a non-established revoke, it's a non-established revoke followed by a claim, which is certainly not covered explicitly in the laws, so in absence of anything better I'm sticking to L12A1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - [Adam:] >From "Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee Held on January 11th, 2000, in Bermuda": # The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a # defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender # disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has # not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke # and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating # any margin of doubt against the revoker. This situation is a bit different, in which the revoke causes the declarer to concede rather than to claim. I suspect you could apply the same principle, though. [James:] The difference is that no defender has disputed the claim. Of course no Berks and Bucks player would dream of trying to gain from the revoke, but suppose they were not made of such noble stuff - which law or hastily cobbled WBFLC gap-plugging addendum would you cite in support of your ruling? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Adam:] > I have a feeling that this subject was discussed on BLML a year or two ago. More likely a year *and* two ago. And three, and four, etc. It comes up regularly. [James:] Are you sure it didn't just come up once and drag on for several years? James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 25 00:13:52 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:13:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim References: <73B5F35E-EEDB-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006001c382f1$85f10400$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" , Marvin French wrote: > > > I think you miss the point. If we claim in order to prevent an > > irrational mistake by partner, that is unethical. It seems not to be > > illegal, but true bridge players never do anything to help partner. > > The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. > > > In the 1963 Laws a defender's claim was treated differently from a > > declarer's claim, as it should be. > > In 1963, I wasn't playing bridge. And while you may be right as to how > it should be, that ain't how it is. > > > Similarly, it is unethical to suggest curtailment of play when you see > > that declarer may stumble into a line that will produce more tricks > > than those you are conceding. The despicable Ivan Erdos tried this > > against me in the 50s, saying "You have to lose a diamond and a heart, > > Marv, why play it out?" But Marv then executed the simple squeeze that > > Ivan foresaw. Was his claim Illegal? Probably not. Unethical? > > Absolutely. > > I think you're giving a broader definition to "ethical" than the law > does. The Laws do not address the matter. Scope: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure." The Laws do not expressly permit claims made for partner's benefit, nor do they expressly prohibit defensive claims designed to stop a line of play that may disadvantage them. That does not mean these are acceptable actions. When you start helping partner, where does it end? The spirit of the game says that a player should do nothing to help partner, and the greatest satisfaction comes from winning without doing so. Asking questions solely for partner's benefit has been deemed illegal by the WBFLC, although it's not expressly prohibited by the Laws. You disagree with that interpretation, I presume. Like honesty, ethical behavior and good sportsmanship are a matter of personal choice. Dishonest, unethical, or unsportsmanlike players ought to take up poker, not bridge. Bridge is a game for ladies and gentlemen, not for those who think it acceptable to seek advantage by any means not explicitly prohibited by the Laws. And that is all I will have to say on this subject. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 25 00:19:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:19:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <200309242229.PAA08895@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <94664898-EEE5-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 18:29 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > The law doesn't give any definition at all of "ethical". I searched > the text and couldn't find that word anywhere. Marv's definition of > "ethical" appears to be something along the lines of "That's not the > way the game is supposed to be played, even if you can find a loophole > in the laws that lets you do it". You appear to be arguing that is > somehow an invalid concept---that an action that is "legal but > unethical" is something that _a priori_ cannot exist. I don't see > why. Was I arguing? :-) Okay, maybe I was. I have learned, mostly through reading and correspondence (ie, not via a formal course of instruction) and perhaps incorrectly, that the laws of the game define its ethics. If that is the case, then "legal but unethical" is indeed something that cannot exist. If, OTOH, we define "ethics" more broadly (which is I think what Marvin is doing) then there are things that are legal (or at least not illegal) and also unethical. I am not an ethical relativist, but many people are, and I see a danger that in applying a broader definition of ethics to the game, we will run into problems when one subset of players (or a TD) feels that an action is "unethical" while another does not. IAC, the laws allow of redress for damage, and what constitutes damage *is* defined in the laws (I think). They also allow for punishment for (a) violations of correct procedure, which is explicitly defined and (b) disciplinary reasons, which are very much less well defined. Unless a player's alleged unethical behavior falls into one of these categories, I don't see how the laws empower us to deal with it. And if it *does* fall into one of these categories, then as far as I can see the question whether the behavior was ethical is irrelevant. Does that make sense? :-) From adam@irvine.com Thu Sep 25 00:26:56 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:26:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:57:00 BST." Message-ID: <200309242326.QAA10251@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > This situation is a bit different, in which the revoke causes the > > declarer to concede rather than to claim. > > As it happens declarer claimed about 8 tricks (conceding 1) so the WBF > minute definitely applies. > > > I suspect you could apply the same principle, though. > > I'm sure one could, but finding a real-life hand where a revoke leads to a > concession without a claim may take some doing:) Here's an example: Playing in notrump with South, declarer, to lead: -- -- -- AQ53 KT QJ -- 6 -- -- K2 7 A432 -- -- -- Declarer leads the spade ace, West errs by playing low, East revokes by playing a club. Declarer, "knowing" that West has all the remaining spades, concedes the rest. When the revoke is discovered, TD should rule that N-S get two of the last three tricks; although it's not 100% certain that declarer would get it right on West's forced club continuation, this is a doubtful point that should be ruled against the revoker. Not the best possible example, but the best I could do in about two minutes. -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 25 00:38:34 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:38:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim References: Message-ID: <007001c382f5$b99edb20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > I think you miss the point. If we claim in order to prevent an > > irrational mistake by partner, that is unethical. It seems not to be > > illegal, but true bridge players never do anything to help partner. > > If it is not illegal it can't be unethical. To be unethical an action > must be both illegal and *known to be illegal* by the perp. Can't accept that, sorry. > > As to the original case (very contrived, how can claimer *know* pard has > the CJ), Not contrived. The declarer had passed originally with three aces (revealed by a Gerber response and confirmed by the play), so I knew partner had the club jack. so what if a 1500+ like master found an irrational play at the > table? Last night I held QT6 with A9543 in dummy, declarer led D8 from > hand,small, small, 6!. I pulled (clicked actually) the wrong card, not > rational but it happens. The claim laws say I wouldn't have done it (and > 99% of the time they would be right). Oh sure. I am not disputing the way the claim laws are implemented (but I hate that "class of player" business). I'm only saying that claiming with a very weak partner in order to take advantage of the claim laws rather than to save time is unethical (by my definition of the word, which is all that counts with me). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 01:07:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:07:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [big snip] >the WBF should take one of the following actions: > >(a) sanctions against the ACBL, including withdrawal of >recognition of the ACBL as its ZC, withdrawal of >permission for the ACBL to send contestants to WBF >tournaments, and refusal to treat the ACBL, in any way, >as a member or affiliate of the WBF organization > >OR > >(b) acknowledge that the WBF is powerless to govern the >ACBL, and withdraw from North America entirely. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, I vote for option (c). Phillip Augustus, King of France, was the feudal lord of Richard, Duke of Normandy. But Richard, Duke of Normandy was also Richard the Lionheart, King of England. Therefore Phillip and Richard jointly commanded the Third Crusade. Similarly, the WBF and the ACBL each rule their particular kingdoms, despite the WBF being the feudal lord of the ACBL. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nancy@dressing.org Thu Sep 25 01:11:05 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:11:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF References: <2B7AD282-EED5-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000f01c382f9$851e5110$6401a8c0@hare> Have you read page iii, iv, v in the "Northern American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997"? (otherwise known to us ACBLers as the Law Book) Lots of interesting information in those pages including the WBF Laws Commission members, etc. Some explanation of WBF there! How many of us just skip the preface of many of the books we read! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:22 PM Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF > I've just had a look at the WBF and ACBL websites regarding > constitutions and bylaws and other things. I find: > > 1. A member organization of the WBF is a "national bridge organization > (NBO)" which represents the interests of the game in its country (and > only in its country). [WBF Constitution, Article 5, and Bylaws, Article > 2] > > 2. A member of the WBF must "undertake to comply with the Constitution > and Bylaws of the WBF". [WBF Bylaws, Article 2.1(b)] > > 3. The ACBL claims jurisdiction over bridge in Bermuda, Canada, Mexico, > and the US. [ACBL Bylaws, article II] > > 4. NBOs in a geographical area (a zone, as defined by the WBF > Executive) are required to form a "Zonal Conference", which will > "further WBF objectives" within its jurisdiction [WBF Bylaws, Article > 4]. In particular, the WBF Executive has the power to require a ZC to > submit its constitution and bylaws to the WBF Executive for approval. > [WBF Bylaws, Article 4.6] > > 5. The Constitution and Bylaws of the WBF require member organizations > to conform to the rulings of the WBFLC regarding the international laws > of bridge and their interpretation. [WBF Constitution, Article 10, WBF > Bylaws, Article 8.8]. > > 6. The Bylaws of the ACBL make no mention whatsoever of the WBF. [ACBL > Bylaws, in their entirety]. > > 7. The ACBL Laws Commission is assigned, by the ACBL, jurisdiction over > the laws of bridge within its domain [ACBL Bylaws, Article XVI]. > > My conclusions: > > Findings of fact: > > 1. The ACBL is not a member organization of the WBF [items 1, 2, and 3 > above]. > > 2. The ACBL, while it is de jure the WBF Zonal Authority for Zone 2 > (because it was appointed as such by the WBF Executive), does not > acknowledge that in any official document, nor in any official capacity > does it carry out its duties as such. [Items 4 and 6 above]. > > 3. The Bylaws of the ACBL are in conflict with the Constitution and > Bylaws of the WBF, at least regarding the administration and > interpretation of the laws of the game. [Items 5 and 7 above]. > > Opinions: > > 1. It is my opinion that the ACBL should either (a) turn over all NBO > duties and functions for its constituent countries to the designated > and WBF approved NBOs for those countries, or (b) assume all NBO duties > and functions for *one* of those countries. In addition, under option > (a), the ACBL should restructure itself as the Zonal Conference for > Zone 2, and solely as that body or, under option (b), the NBOs of Zone > 2 need to create a *new* ZC. > > 2. It is my opinion that should the ACBL not do one or the other of the > above, and soon, the WBF should take one of the following actions: (a) > sanctions against the ACBL, including withdrawal of recognition of the > ACBL as its ZC, withdrawal of permission for the ACBL to send > contestants to WBF tournaments, and refusal to treat the ACBL, in any > way, as a member or affiliate of the WBF organization OR (b) > acknowledge that the WBF is powerless to govern the ACBL, and withdraw > from North America entirely. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From adam@irvine.com Thu Sep 25 01:19:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:19:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:19:43 EDT." <94664898-EEE5-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200309250019.RAA11662@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 18:29 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > The law doesn't give any definition at all of "ethical". I searched > > the text and couldn't find that word anywhere. Marv's definition of > > "ethical" appears to be something along the lines of "That's not the > > way the game is supposed to be played, even if you can find a loophole > > in the laws that lets you do it". You appear to be arguing that is > > somehow an invalid concept---that an action that is "legal but > > unethical" is something that _a priori_ cannot exist. I don't see > > why. > > Was I arguing? :-) Okay, maybe I was. > > I have learned, mostly through reading and correspondence (ie, not via > a formal course of instruction) and perhaps incorrectly, that the laws > of the game define its ethics. If that is the case, then "legal but > unethical" is indeed something that cannot exist. If, OTOH, we define > "ethics" more broadly (which is I think what Marvin is doing) then > there are things that are legal (or at least not illegal) and also > unethical. I am not an ethical relativist, but many people are, and I > see a danger that in applying a broader definition of ethics to the > game, we will run into problems when one subset of players (or a TD) > feels that an action is "unethical" while another does not. IAC, the > laws allow of redress for damage, and what constitutes damage *is* > defined in the laws (I think). They also allow for punishment for (a) > violations of correct procedure, which is explicitly defined and (b) > disciplinary reasons, which are very much less well defined. Unless a > player's alleged unethical behavior falls into one of these categories, > I don't see how the laws empower us to deal with it. They don't. However, a broader definition of "ethical" (which will vary from person to person) *does* empower us to (1) play the game the way we believe it's supposed to be played, refusing to take advantage of legal loopholes; (2) encourage others to play the same way; (3) with due caution and respect, suggest that players who habitually play a different way are "sharp players" or some other negative adjective, or are violating the spirit of the game; (4) campaign to get the laws changed so that they do deal with such problems. Marvin was doing at least two of these, and I don't see where he was doing anything else---in particular, he never said that someone like his "despicable" example should have been penalized for what he did, nor should the score have been adjusted in his favor. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 01:46:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:46:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] The ACBL and the WBF Message-ID: Nancy T Dressing: >Have you read page iii, iv, v in the "Northern >American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate >Contract Bridge 1997"? (otherwise known to us >ACBLers as the Law Book) Lots of interesting >information in those pages including the WBF >Laws Commission members, etc. Some explanation >of WBF there! > >How many of us just skip the preface of many of >the books we read! > >Nancy http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Laws/node1.html "Through the Thirties, the Laws were promulgated by the Portland Club of London and the Whist Club of New York. From the Forties onwards, the American Contract Bridge League Laws Commission has replaced the Whist Club, while the British Bridge League and European Bridge League have supplemented the Portland Club's efforts. The 1975 Laws were also promulgated by the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission as they have been in 1987 and the current version." The preface then mentions the joint promulgators of the Laws - in the premier position the ACBL Laws Commission, and in second place the WBF Laws Commission. But curiously the American edition of the Laws fails to mention that the ACBL owes allegiance to its feudal liege-lord the WBF. Perhaps this is an American cultural thing. (Australia has a similar cultural thing, with our Prime Minister refusing to mention our country's allegiance to the United Nations.) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nancy@dressing.org Thu Sep 25 02:11:40 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:11:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Inconsistency between L45D and L47 References: Message-ID: <000e01c38301$fb67b6b0$6401a8c0@hare> But law 45D talks about a card *misplayed*. It becomes played "if attention is *not* drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick,..... then I would assume that law 47 in its entirety would apply. N.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesper Dybdal" To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:53 PM Subject: [blml] Inconsistency between L45D and L47 I can't remember whether we've discussed this before, but it seems to me to need correction in the coming laws: L45D says "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2)." The part about defender withdrawing a card played after the error is contradicted by L47F, which says: "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once played may not be withdrawn." The L45D situation should be covered somewhere in L47A-E, but isn't (unless I'm overlooking something obvious). The closest L47 gets to the L45D situation seems to be L47D about plays following an opponent's change of play, but that is not good enough: the card dummy has mistakenly placed in the played position is of course not played, and its withdrawal is therefore not a change of play. My suggestion would be to add to L47E any situation where a defender through a fault from the declaring side is misled about which card dummy has actually led. Alternatively, L47C could be changed to say something about that, since it is about a somewhat similar situation. In addition, L47C explicitly concerns itself with the situation from L45C4b, but L45C4b refers back to L47E, not L47C. That reference seems to be wrong. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 02:16:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:16:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Things to come. Message-ID: >+=3D+ The ultimate circulated draft of the revised EBU >White Book is a substantial work. When the work is >done I hope the EBU will make it available on line. >Not everything in it will apply 'where you are' except >in the cause of stimulating thought. > I do not know how long we will have to wait for >the necessary final touches and approval; perhaps >not too long now. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ The draft of the revised EBU White Book is now with two assessors for proofreading and comment. The deadline for their suggestions to be returned to the EBU is Friday 17th October. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Sep 25 05:13:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 05:13:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim References: <200309250019.RAA11662@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001201c3831b$695464c0$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Adam wrote: > They don't. However, a broader definition of "ethical" (which will > vary from person to person) Is it, then, desirable that the laws of bridge should vary from person to person? As, for example, "for the class of player involved"? > *does* empower us to (1) play the game the > way we believe it's supposed to be played For "we", read "I". My experience is that, if two bridge players are selected at random, the chance that they will think the game ought to be played in "the same way" is closer to 0% than 10%, and will approach asymptotically but will not exceed 40%. > refusing to take advantage > of legal loopholes; Well, we could fix those, if only lunatics were not blinded by concepts such as "equity". > (2) encourage others to play the same way; Any color you want, as long as it's black. > (3) > with due caution and respect, suggest that players who habitually play > a different way are "sharp players" or some other negative adjective, > or are violating the spirit of the game; It's fun to eulogize The people you despise As long as you don't let 'em in your school. > (4) campaign to get the laws > changed so that they do deal with such problems. And the world will be better for this: That one man, scorned and covered with scars, Still strove, with his last ounce of courage, To reach the unreachable star. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 07:06:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:06:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >>(3) with due caution and respect, suggest that players >>who habitually play a different way are "sharp players" or >>some other negative adjective, or are violating the spirit >>of the game; [snip] David Burn: >It's fun to eulogize >The people you despise >As long as you don't let 'em in your school. [snip] Richard James Hills: Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical. "Once the Law Book is up, who cares where Laws come down? That's not my department," says David von Burn. Best wishes Tom Lehrer -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 25 08:22:08 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:22:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <003201c382df$367597e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <2581B8CE-EECA-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <003201c382df$367597e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F7297A0.1030108@hdw.be> Marv has some good points but draws the wrong conclusion: Marvin French wrote: > > Similarly, it is unethical to suggest curtailment of play when you see > that declarer may stumble into a line that will produce more tricks > than those you are conceding. The despicable Ivan Erdos tried this > against me in the 50s, saying "You have to lose a diamond and a heart, > Marv, why play it out?" But Marv then executed the simple squeeze that > Ivan foresaw. Was his claim Illegal? Probably not. Unethical? > Absolutely. > Good story, but the point of it should be that the current laws are better than the 1963 ones. In 1963, you had to refuse the claim and find the squeeze. Nowadays, you are allowed to accept the claim, put all four hands on the table and have dummy find the squeeze. The TD will rule "no acquiescence" and you will get your tricks. The trick that IE tried against you had more chance of working in 1963 than it does now. OK, Marv? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 25 08:31:06 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:31:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: <200309242326.QAA10251@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200309242326.QAA10251@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <3F7299BA.70300@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Here's an example: > > Playing in notrump with South, declarer, to lead: > > -- > -- > -- > AQ53 > KT QJ > -- 6 > -- -- > K2 7 > A432 > -- > -- > -- > > Declarer leads the spade ace, West errs by playing low, East revokes > by playing a club. Declarer, "knowing" that West has all the > remaining spades, concedes the rest. When the revoke is discovered, > TD should rule that N-S get two of the last three tricks; although > it's not 100% certain that declarer would get it right on West's > forced club continuation, this is a doubtful point that should be > ruled against the revoker. > > Not the best possible example, but the best I could do in about two > minutes. > Let me first change Adam's example once more, and give East two clubs. Now there is only one doubtful point remaining: will dummy put the Ace on the club return and give West the king, or not? If this can be called a doubtful point if the claimer is South, then with the revoke the doubtful point gets to the other side. However, Adam's true example, and the original, have an additional twist: when in with spades, East has two possible "normal" lines: cashing the heart or playing the club. It seems as if playing the club is an irrational one from his point of view, but the case is easily changed to make that also a normal line. Now we don't have any "doubtful points", which the resolution tells us shall be ruled against revoker rather than claimer. We only have two normal lines, leading to a different number of tricks. I don't see in the WBFLC recommendation anything to suggest that we should now rule the result from the normal line which is least favourable to revoker rather than claimer. > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 25 10:25:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: <3F7299BA.70300@hdw.be> Message-ID: > > Not the best possible example, but the best I could do in about two > > minutes. I did stipulate "From real life". Yes examples can be constructed and I agree the WBF principle would apply. > > Let me first change Adam's example once more, and give East two clubs. > Now there is only one doubtful point remaining: will dummy put the Ace > on the club return and give West the king, or not? If this can be > called a doubtful point if the claimer is South, then with the revoke > the doubtful point gets to the other side. > > However, Adam's true example, and the original, have an additional > twist: when in with spades, East has two possible "normal" lines: West surely? > cashing the heart or playing the club. It seems as if playing the club > is an irrational one from his point of view, but the case is easily > changed to make that also a normal line. It may be irrational, but since the revoke has been discovered before being established it must be corrected and East's C discard is a penalty card. I would thus rule (in favour of claimer) that he would request a club lead and finesse. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Sep 25 10:25:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <006001c382f1$85f10400$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > When you start helping partner, where does it end? The spirit of the > game says that a player should do nothing to help partner, and the > greatest satisfaction comes from winning without doing so. As far as I am concerned "helping partner" is a key element of the game. Whether by the choice of bids/plays, preventing revokes/leads out of turn, or by reassuring them after something goes wrong. I have also been told by my SO that it is considered legal to, while dummy, suggest that partner claim when it is *impossible* to lose another trick (even by leading from the wrong hand) but declarer hasn't realised. > Asking questions solely for partner's benefit has been deemed illegal by > the WBFLC, although it's not expressly prohibited by the Laws. Prior to the WBFLC interpretation it was widely believed (actually most people haven't read the interpretation, so it is still fairly widely believed) that the legal and ethical course of action when opps had given MI to partner was to seek to have the MI corrected at the table rather than securing an (almost inevitable) favourable adjustment in committee. This was Kaplan's belief when he was playing with Kay and I have never seen his action called unethical (his opponents at the time certainly believed he was acting properly) > You disagree with that interpretation, I presume. The WBFLC have now said that asking a "Kaplan" question is illegal communication (thus it is unethical if one is aware of the interpretation). I preferred Kaplan's interpretation but the WBFLC interpretation (while IMO inferior) seems legal. > Not contrived. The declarer had passed originally with three aces > (revealed by a Gerber response and confirmed by the play), so I knew > partner had the club jack. Partner is very likely to hold the Jack. Personally I would regard the chances of partner choosing to play the J as lower than the chances of declarer having chosen to pass a 13 count. > I'm only saying that claiming with a very weak partner in order to take > advantage of the claim laws rather than to save time is unethical (by my > definition of the word, which is all that counts with me). Claiming with a partner sufficiently weak that playing the CJ would be rational in an attempt to prevent such a play is certainly illegal. It is not only illegal communication but the claimer *knows* he is doing something illegal, thus it is unethical. Now while I may not be able to prove a damn thing against claimer it doesn't make his actions ethical. Claiming in exactly the same position because it hasn't crossed your mind that partner might play the CJ but declarer is dithering because he can't remember if the H in dummy is good is, of course, both legal and ethical. Once we start to separate ethics from the laws we get statements like "It is unethical to psych against weak players". Please don't try and go there! Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 25 10:33:47 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:33:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim after established revoke Message-ID: <3F72B67B.2070700@hdw.be> All the examples cited so far deal with a non-established revoke, but the same problem can arise with an established one. An example: x x x K J x x A x x A Q x Q x x x Q 10x x K x K x x West leads A and K of spades against 3NT. He plays a third spade on which East revokes. South thinks he has a spade which loses to west. He plays hearts, and East wins this with the ace. East does not find the high spade and returns anything. South now claims "I give either a spade or a diamond in the end". He has in fact stated two lines, both equal, both leading to 9 tricks. In both lines the HA is transferred because of the revoke. But in one line East wins the last trick with a spade, which is transferred (11 tricks), in the other one West wins a diamond, and there is no second transferral (10 tricks). Again, this in not simply a "doubtful point", but rather a choice between normal lines in which the benefit of choice ought to be transferred to the claiming side. Anyway, this was just to illustrate to the WBF that they should not write "non-established revoke" in their treatment of these cases. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Sep 25 11:06:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:06:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Things to come. References: Message-ID: <005c01c3834d$9d55c430$0422e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Things to come. >+=+ The ultimate circulated draft of the revised EBU >White Book is a substantial work. When the work is >done I hope the EBU will make it available on line. >Not everything in it will apply 'where you are' except >in the cause of stimulating thought. > I do not know how long we will have to wait for >the necessary final touches and approval; perhaps >not too long now. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard: The draft of the revised EBU White Book is now with two assessors for proofreading and comment. The deadline for their suggestions to be returned to the EBU is Friday 17th October. Grattan: +=+ At yesterday's meeting of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee DWS reported progress. To now he has received some 200 suggestions from the *six* 'proof readers' (including a few from other people like myself). He is assembling his recommended version of the work for the next meeting, 22 October. Members of the committee are meanwhile free to send him any last minute thoughts. The plan is then to reach final agreement on it and publish - the document being dated 2003. ~ G ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Sep 25 13:21:00 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:21:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules Message-ID: <3f72ddac.d44.0@esatclear.ie> Ok I've had various laws quoted at me L25 L40 etc but this seems to come down to Herman's initial response (ie) do you believe the guy or not. This case seems pretty clear cut and I'd say the guy genuinely thought he'd opened 1S ... BUT ... surely we're leaving ourselves open here to all sorts of possible abuse culminating in acting classes for our players and lie detecting courses for our TD's ?? What if this was a psyche ?? Which takes precedence, the SO rule or the players right to psyche ?? Assuming bidding boxes, I find it hard to believe that the bidder got 3 chances to look at his initial bid and not tweak it was 1NT as opposed to 1S. This gives him plenty of time to formulate an innocent strategy ... K. > >On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Karel] >[1NT opened on 5071 shape] >> TD says N clearly made a mistake result stands. >> Right/wrong ?? >> >> [Nigel] >> >> However stupid the SO rule, IMO it should be >> enforced > >The SO rule doesn't come into play at all, unless you establish that there >is a partnership agreement / previous history of opening 5-0-7-1 hands >with 1NT. Sure, it should be enforced (which means denying redress to E/W >when the 1NT bidder opens with 4441 shape), if it applies. > >I think most of us find the idea that 1NT was North's system bid >sufficiently unlikely as to not spend a great deal of time investigating >on that front before ruling Result Stands. > >> Incidentally, the TD should ask North-South >> whether, With 5071 shape, they open 1S by >> agreement. > >Fair enough, if you're doing it to try to decide "was it a mispull or a >covered-up psych" with a partnership with a history of pulling 1NT opening >stunts. (It is quite a common agreement in some places, incidentally.) > >GRB > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- http://www.iol.ie From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 25 13:38:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:38:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim In-Reply-To: <94664898-EEE5-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <200309242229.PAA08895@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030925082824.01f83220@pop.starpower.net> At 07:19 PM 9/24/03, Ed wrote: >On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 18:29 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>The law doesn't give any definition at all of "ethical". I searched >>the text and couldn't find that word anywhere. Marv's definition of >>"ethical" appears to be something along the lines of "That's not the >>way the game is supposed to be played, even if you can find a loophole >>in the laws that lets you do it". You appear to be arguing that is >>somehow an invalid concept---that an action that is "legal but >>unethical" is something that _a priori_ cannot exist. I don't see >>why. > >Was I arguing? :-) Okay, maybe I was. > >I have learned, mostly through reading and correspondence (ie, not via >a formal course of instruction) and perhaps incorrectly, that the laws >of the game define its ethics. If that is the case, then "legal but >unethical" is indeed something that cannot exist. If, OTOH, we define >"ethics" more broadly (which is I think what Marvin is doing) then >there are things that are legal (or at least not illegal) and also >unethical. I am not an ethical relativist, but many people are, and I >see a danger that in applying a broader definition of ethics to the >game, we will run into problems when one subset of players (or a TD) >feels that an action is "unethical" while another does not. IAC, the >laws allow of redress for damage, and what constitutes damage *is* >defined in the laws (I think). They also allow for punishment for (a) >violations of correct procedure, which is explicitly defined and (b) >disciplinary reasons, which are very much less well defined. Unless a >player's alleged unethical behavior falls into one of these >categories, I don't see how the laws empower us to deal with it. And >if it *does* fall into one of these categories, then as far as I can >see the question whether the behavior was ethical is irrelevant. > >Does that make sense? :-) We distinguish between the "letter" and the "spirit" of a law. Laws can often be interpreted in such ways as to find literal readings that obviate their intent. We call these "loopholes". Acting "legally but unethically", to me, means exploiting those loopholes to take an action that is technically legal from a literal reading of the law despite knowing that one is acting contrary to the law's intent. Recent scandals in the U.S. financial markets provide numerous examples of legal but unethical actions taken for personal gain. 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 Sep 25 12:18:12 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:18:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 revokes. References: <818306.1063805675579.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000001c38365$b7916300$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn] Rex tremendae maiestatis Qui salvandos salvas gratis, Salva me, fons pietatis. [Google - Catholic Encyclopaedia] ["Dies Irae" ? Thomas of Celano, C13] King of awesome majesty, Who grants salvation to those that are to be saved, Save me, o fount of Pity --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Sep 25 14:12:01 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:12:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3f72ddac.d44.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3f72ddac.d44.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3F72E9A1.2030609@hdw.be> Genuine concerns, Karel, Karel wrote: > Ok I've had various laws quoted at me L25 L40 etc but this seems to come down > to Herman's initial response (ie) do you believe the guy or not. This case > seems pretty clear cut and I'd say the guy genuinely thought he'd opened 1S > ... BUT ... surely we're leaving ourselves open here to all sorts of possible > abuse culminating in acting classes for our players and lie detecting courses > for our TD's ?? > I do believe most of blml was on the same wavelength here. Which in itself is an indication that lie detection courses are not needed. We've had those, simply by our experiences. > > What if this was a psyche ?? Which takes precedence, the SO rule or the players > right to psyche ?? That is of course a different question. It is my opinion that the SO rule can never abrogate the right to psyche. But we have to be careful with what we call a psyche: Opening 1NT on 5071 is a clear psyche. Opening 1NT on 4441 with a singleton king is not a clear psyche. In most countries, no-one would be calling that a psyche. Calling it a psyche because the SO has ruled that you cannot play it systemically is not on. This is not a psyche. Of course there is a very difficult line somewhere (say at 5152) where the boundary between psyche and non-psyche is not clear-cut. No-one can help us there, I'm afraid, but I do believe this is a very low occurence. Usually this happens to someone who is either known to open 5242 as well - and to him I would not allow it; or to someone who has never opened any 5-card or singleton - and to him I would call it a psyche or misbid. > Assuming bidding boxes, I find it hard to believe that the > bidder got 3 chances to look at his initial bid and not tweak it was 1NT as > opposed to 1S. Yes, but it does happen. From your description, his surprise that he's declarer seemed very genuine. Maybe he's a great actor. > This gives him plenty of time to formulate an innocent strategy > ... But why should he do that? Either it's a mispull or it's not. If it is not a mispull, we will probably rule it's a psyche (and allowed as well). If it is a mispull, then it does not matter when he discovers it. Even if he discovers it within his L25B limit, he does not have to correct it, or say anything. He might very well continue on his inadvertent psyche and try to make the best of it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Sep 25 14:43:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3f72ddac.d44.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > What if this was a psyche ?? Which takes precedence, the SO rule or > the players right to psyche ?? No conflict. The SO rule can only refer to agreements. The SO may not restrict the psyching of natural bids. Tim From adam@irvine.com Thu Sep 25 16:58:50 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:58:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:31:06 +0200." <3F7299BA.70300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200309251558.IAA00241@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Here's an example: > > > > Playing in notrump with South, declarer, to lead: > > > > -- > > -- > > -- > > AQ53 > > KT QJ > > -- 6 > > -- -- > > K2 7 > > A432 > > -- > > -- > > -- > > > > Declarer leads the spade ace, West errs by playing low, East revokes > > by playing a club. Declarer, "knowing" that West has all the > > remaining spades, concedes the rest. When the revoke is discovered, > > TD should rule that N-S get two of the last three tricks; although > > it's not 100% certain that declarer would get it right on West's > > forced club continuation, this is a doubtful point that should be > > ruled against the revoker. > > > > Not the best possible example, but the best I could do in about two > > minutes. > > > > Let me first change Adam's example once more, and give East two clubs. > Now there is only one doubtful point remaining: will dummy put the Ace > on the club return and give West the king, or not? If this can be > called a doubtful point if the claimer is South, then with the revoke > the doubtful point gets to the other side. If East had two clubs left, instead of a club and a heart, then this wouldn't be a doubtful point. Suppose the irregularity had not occurred; then at the point where West wins the spade and East follows, declarer knows that the opponents have nothing left but clubs; thus refusing to finesse would be irrational. That's why I gave East a heart winner. > However, Adam's true example, and the original, have an additional > twist: when in with spades, East has two possible "normal" lines: > cashing the heart or playing the club. I don't follow. Since West failed to unblock (this happened before the irregularity), East isn't getting in with a spade. -- Adam From john@asimere.com Thu Sep 25 17:32:25 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:32:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <002c01c37ee5$ad6cb8e0$87de193e@4nrw70j> References: <000801c37eb2$7d8ae940$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00c701c37eba$803241e0$6d053dd4@m1q9j9> <002c01c37ee5$ad6cb8e0$87de193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <002c01c37ee5$ad6cb8e0$87de193e@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] >=============================== >"The cold neutrality of an impartial judge." > (Edmund Burke) >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ben Schelen" >To: "Sven Pran" ; >"blml" >Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:28 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] The equitable approach > > >> > >> Not so hasty: E could announce his revoke as >> soon as declarer has made up his mind and >> before the cards are quitted. Only not permitted >when IF is equivalent to AS SOON AS. >> >> Must could mean: It is no good to continue play >> with a detected revoke. It restores the possible >> distribution of the hands. >> >+=+ East does not have the option of waiting for > anything when the director puts the question > to him, and I see nothing in the law to say this > will be after declarer has made his choice of > plays. If East has made an illegal play he must > correct it forthwith upon becoming aware of it > - and the Director will ensure he is aware of it. > ~ G ~ +=+ Tut, tut Grattan. Good TD's don't look at players' hands :) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Sep 25 17:44:49 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:44:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim following revoke In-Reply-To: References: <3F7299BA.70300@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article , Tim West-Meads writes >> > Not the best possible example, but the best I could do in about two >> > minutes. > >I did stipulate "From real life". Yes examples can be constructed and I >agree the WBF principle would apply. > >> >> Let me first change Adam's example once more, and give East two clubs. >> Now there is only one doubtful point remaining: will dummy put the Ace >> on the club return and give West the king, or not? If this can be >> called a doubtful point if the claimer is South, then with the revoke >> the doubtful point gets to the other side. >> >> However, Adam's true example, and the original, have an additional >> twist: when in with spades, East has two possible "normal" lines: > >West surely? > >> cashing the heart or playing the club. It seems as if playing the club >> is an irrational one from his point of view, but the case is easily >> changed to make that also a normal line. > >It may be irrational, but since the revoke has been discovered before >being established it must be corrected and East's C discard is a penalty >card. I would thus rule (in favour of claimer) that he would request a >club lead and finesse. > >Tim On the request of a club lead the penalty card is picked up. (ok so declarer knows there are only 2 clubs out) > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 25 17:58:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:58:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c38386$2e60ad90$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ......... > >+=3D+ East does not have the option of waiting for > > anything when the director puts the question > > to him, and I see nothing in the law to say this > > will be after declarer has made his choice of > > plays. If East has made an illegal play he must > > correct it forthwith upon becoming aware of it > > - and the Director will ensure he is aware of it. > > ~ G ~ +=3D+ >=20 > Tut, tut Grattan. Good TD's don't look at players' hands :) Correct. And if after the play has ended it is revealed that East indeed = had revoked and not complied with Law 62A during the fuzz caused by West's revoke he should find himself in serious trouble.=20 I would in case have asked East: "Do you really expect me to believe = that you did not become aware of your own revoke while we were handling your partner's revoke? Sorry man, I just do not believe you, and I adjust the board on the ground that you _intentionally_ violated Law 62A." Sven From nancy@dressing.org Tue Sep 23 15:06:46 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:06:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is there a problem?? Message-ID: <003501c381db$ed203e00$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C381BA.65CD0120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No contributions for 3 days??? Is there a problem???? ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C381BA.65CD0120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No contributions for 3 days???  Is = there a=20 problem????
 
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C381BA.65CD0120-- From HauffHJ@aol.com Thu Sep 25 08:24:12 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:24:12 EDT Subject: [blml] the ACBL and the WBF Message-ID: <37.3e5f4169.2ca3f21c@aol.com> --part1_37.3e5f4169.2ca3f21c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Preference should be given to a reshaped "Law", which would be the base for protocolls. Like other average players I always believed, that there is a unique worldwide bridge-law. But this is not true, there is an american (ACBL) version and an european version, as shown in the earlier papers. So we have to ask, how come that for centuries the game of bridge lived and worked. I believe in this: the words of the "Laws of duplicate Contract Bridge" follow certain priciples and they ask for the use of certain methods, but both can be interpreted. The mechanics are sometimes excactly prescribed - but they reflect the state of art in vigor at the moment of publication. Some are not mentioned at all - ie on-line-play - others are simply touched on the surface, as it is in the case to shape a just and perfect move, or - extreme case - how to find the winner, which is fully at the mercy of the sponsoring organisation (law78D). The principle of exclusion of fortuitousness (god or bad cards) is not mentioned in the law. It is the result of following law78B and in pair tournaments, when the non-scorer gets a "coscore" of zero. Some procedures are not mentioned at all (i.e. all-pass). And sometimes it seems, that the lawmakers of the second generation cretaed rules in favor of top-players (law88). One of the few main principles must remain forever: the "sponsoring organisation" is the overall master of everything in duplicate, she can do whatever she likes, restricted only to the Law. If the WBF runs a tournament, they are the master, and if the ACBL runs a tournament, they are the masters (LAW 80). The law gives a many possibilities to shape details, and this is why new form of play and procedures were developed, i.e. Butler-events, scrambled Mitchel, stop-card. Now here is what is worse then a WBF-ACBL conflict: If strong men of national organisations have the idea to impose the special rules created for national tournaments on local clubs within their jurisdiction, Bridge is going to die. This we learned from public politics. But rules are needed, so how to proceed? The solution lies in something which the modern world calls: "Protoll", a general agreed consent, which is not a legal law ( to national standards). ( While you are reading this text, it was transmitted to you by "http" [hyper text transfer protokoll], which is worldwide recognised, no law). Let me repeat, what Nigel Guthrie once wrote: < 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 nerver enforced. Most rules are as clear as a Rohrschach ink-blot You were just unlucky to meet an imaginative TD who decided to interpret an enforce one.> The question arises, what details must be changed in the law? My opinion : as little as possible. To start with, I propose to have a clear distintion between score and score, of witch the first is a score conforme LAW77, and the second any result, expressed in numerical terms or not. Paul Hauff - Email HauffHJ@aol.com -Mail 61231 Bad Nauheim, Benekestr.5 Bridge Scoring Software - Precision Bridge through high speed computing Download via www. bridgeassistant.com & www.scorer123.com --part1_37.3e5f4169.2ca3f21c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Preference should be given to a reshaped "Law", which=20= would be the base for protocolls.

Like other average players I always believed, that there is a unique worldwi= de bridge-law.
But this is not true, there is an american (ACBL) version and an european ve= rsion, as
shown in the earlier papers.
So we have to ask, how come that for centuries the game of bridge lived and=20= worked.

I believe in this: the words of the "Laws of duplicate Contract Bridge" foll= ow certain priciples and they ask for the use of certain methods, but both c= an be interpreted.
The mechanics are sometimes excactly prescribed - but they reflect
the state of art in vigor at the moment of publication. Some are not mention= ed at all - ie on-line-play -  others are simply touched on the surface= , as it is in the case to shape a just and perfect move, or - extreme case -= how to find the winner, which is fully at the mercy of the sponsoring organ= isation (law78D).
The principle of exclusion of fortuitousness (god or bad cards) is not menti= oned in the law.
It is the result of following law78B and in pair tournaments, when the non-s= corer gets a "coscore" of zero. Some procedures are not mentioned at all (i.= e. all-pass). And sometimes it seems, that the lawmakers of the second gener= ation cretaed rules in favor of top-players (law88).
One of the few main principles must remain forever: the "sponsoring organ= isation" is the overall master of everything in duplicate, she can do whatev= er she likes, restricted only to the Law.  If the WBF runs a tourna= ment, they are the master, and if the ACBL runs a tournament, they are the m= asters (LAW 80).

The law gives a many possibilities to shape details, and this is why new= form of play and procedures were developed, i.e. Butler-events, scrambled M= itchel, stop-card.

Now here is what is worse then a WBF-ACBL conflict:
If strong men of national organisations have the idea to impose the speci= al rules created for national tournaments on local clubs within their jurisd= iction, Bridge is going to die. This we learned from public politics.

But rules are needed, so how to proceed? The solution lies in
something which the modern world calls: "Protoll", a general agreed consent,= which is not a legal law ( to national standards). ( While you are reading=20= this text, it was transmitted to you by "http" [hyper text transfer protokol= l], which is worldwide recognised, no law).
Let me repeat, what Nigel Guthrie once wrote:

< 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 nerver
enforced.

Most rules are as clear as a Rohrschach ink-blot
You were just unlucky to meet an imaginative TD
who decided to interpret an enforce one.>

The question arises, what details  must be changed in the law?
My opinion : as little as possible.

To start with,  I propose to have a clear distintion between score and=20= score, of witch the first is a score conforme LAW77, and the second any resu= lt, expressed in numerical terms or not.

Paul Hauff  - Email=20= HauffHJ@aol.com -Mail  61231 Bad Nauheim, Benekestr.5
Bridge Scoring Software - Precision Bridge  through high speed computin= g
Download via www. bridgeassistant.com  & www.scorer123.com
--part1_37.3e5f4169.2ca3f21c_boundary-- From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Sep 25 22:02:18 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:02:18 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3f72ddac.d44.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c383a8$56c9b570$5a2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Karel > Sent: Friday, 26 September 2003 12:21 a.m. > > > What if this was a psyche ?? Which takes precedence, the SO > rule or the players > right to psyche ?? If the SO rule really says that you may not open 1NT with a singleton then that rule is illegal. The SO cannot direct you as to what you can or can not open they can only direct your partnership agreements to play conventions and light openings L40D "..bidding ... conventions. In addition ... partnership understandings ...". Opening 1NT with a singleton is not automatically a convention so unless there is a significant caveat on the regulation then the SO rule is outside the powers given under L40D.' Wayne Burrows From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 25 22:25:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:25:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3f72ddac.d44.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030925171452.01f900e0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:21 AM 9/25/03, karel wrote: >Ok I've had various laws quoted at me L25 L40 etc but this seems to >come down >to Herman's initial response (ie) do you believe the guy or not. This >case >seems pretty clear cut and I'd say the guy genuinely thought he'd >opened 1S >... BUT ... surely we're leaving ourselves open here to all sorts of >possible >abuse culminating in acting classes for our players and lie detecting >courses >for our TD's ?? > >What if this was a psyche ?? Which takes precedence, the SO rule or >the players >right to psyche ?? Assuming bidding boxes, I find it hard to believe >that the >bidder got 3 chances to look at his initial bid and not tweak it was >1NT as >opposed to 1S. This gives him plenty of time to formulate an innocent >strategy >... As I read the original case, the rule in question regulated partnership agreements. A psych is, by definition, a gross and deliberate violation of one's partnership agreements. So one can have legal agreements and legally choose to violate them by psyching a call that would be illegal if made by agreement. The rule is violated only if the alleged psych has actually been perpetrated by the partnership often enough to have crossed the line to becoming an "implicit agreement" rather than a genuine psych. If the partner of the 1NT opener did nothing to cater to the actual hand held, and had no more reason to suspect 5-0-7-1 distribution than the opponents did, it doesn't matter whether the 1NT opening was accidental or intentional. If it was intentional, it doesn't matter whether opener never realized that he misbid, or realized it somewhere along the line and chose to say nothing. 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 Thu Sep 25 22:18:08 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:18:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defender's Claim References: <2581B8CE-EECA-11D7-B63C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <003201c382df$367597e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3F7297A0.1030108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002501c383ab$6ad50ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > Marv has some good points but draws the wrong conclusion: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > Similarly, it is unethical to suggest curtailment of play when you see > > that declarer may stumble into a line that will produce more tricks > > than those you are conceding. The despicable Ivan Erdos tried this > > against me in the 50s, saying "You have to lose a diamond and a heart, > > Marv, why play it out?" But Marv then executed the simple squeeze that > > Ivan foresaw. Was his claim Illegal? Probably not. Unethical? > > Absolutely. > > > > Good story, but the point of it should be that the current laws are > better than the 1963 ones. In 1963, you had to refuse the claim and > find the squeeze. Agreed. >Nowadays, you are allowed to accept the claim, put > all four hands on the table and have dummy find the squeeze. The TD > will rule "no acquiescence" and you will get your tricks. Yes, provided dummy sees the squeeze that declarer did not see. The majority of players hereabouts are not very good at spotting a squeeze, and would tend to acquiesce in a claim made by an expert. > > The trick that IE tried against you had more chance of working in 1963 > than it does now. > Yes, because now with both partners involved, the squeeze might be spotted. The current laws are better, yes, but I wish there were a separate claim law for defenders, as there was until 1987. E.g., how can a defender be allowed to state a line of defense that involves plays by his partner? The claim law should require that a defensive claim not include tricks to be taken by claimer's partner, with the partner's cards treated as major penalty cards if this rule is violated. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 23:21:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:21:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Things to come. Message-ID: Richard: >>The draft of the revised EBU White Book is now with two >>assessors for proofreading and comment. Grattan: >+=3D+ At yesterday's meeting of the EBU's Laws & Ethics >Committee DWS reported progress. To now he has >received some 200 suggestions from the *six* 'proof >readers' Richard: Sorry, while a good bridge player can count up to 13, us Tasmanians find it difficult to count up to 6 (we get confused deciding which of our 13 fingers to count on). Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 23:39:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:39:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] SO rules Message-ID: Karel asked: >What if this was a psyche ?? Which takes >precedence, the SO rule or the players >right to psyche ?? Richard replies: The late Edgar Kaplan disagreed with the ACBL (and some other SOs) regulation that psyches were only sometimes legal, with it being forbidden to psyche particular conventions. One of EK's reasons was that the regulation required the TD to mindread the answer to this question: - Was a player's hand not corresponding with a player's conventional call caused by a misbid or a psyche? SOs, such as the ABF, which do not have this reg can simply assess both misbids and psyches by the same criteria - if a call is distorted in a particular way repeatedly, it is a Law 75B habitual violation. Then the TD does not have to worry whether it is a repeated deliberate psyche or a repeated inadvertent misbid - either way, the TD rules an identical score adjustment. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 23:49:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:49:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] SO rules Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >Opening 1NT with a singleton is not automatically >a convention Richard James Hills: Is opening 1NT with three voids a convention? If so, where does one draw the line between a 1NT opening bid which is not a convention, and a 1NT opening bid which is a convention? Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From adam@irvine.com Fri Sep 26 00:46:51 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:46:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:49:15 +1000." Message-ID: <200309252346.QAA13279@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Is opening 1NT with three voids a convention? Well, it's certainly not a bid you make with the expectation of making . . . Back when I used to play bridge in college, a kibitzer once set up a deal where one hand had a 13-card suit. The player who got this got so excited, he opened 7NT and then too late realized what he'd done. (Strangely enough, he only went down three.) -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 26 01:50:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:50:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Offtopic 13-card suit (was SO rules) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >Back when I used to play bridge in college, a >kibitzer once set up a deal where one hand had >a 13-card suit. The player who got this got >so excited, he opened 7NT and then too late >realized what he'd done. (Strangely enough, >he only went down three.) Richard James Hills: Gandalf passed his hand over the Door causing shining silver lines to be revealed. They said, "Speak, friend, and enter." "What does it mean by 'speak, friend, and enter'?" asked Merry. "That is plain enough," said Gimli. "If you are a friend, speak the password and the door will open, and you can enter." Further writing appeared on the Door: --- AKQJT98765432 --- --- KQJT8642 A --- --- AKQJ9 864 --- AKQJT8642 9753 --- T7532 9753 Below the hand an inscription said: "South is in seven notrumps. Plan the defence." Boromir scoffed, "What trivial pursuit is this, when the defence has twenty top tricks!" Gandalf replied, "There is more to this than meets the lidless eye," and tanked by the water. Meanwhile Sam was saying goodbye to Bill the pony. He said, "If I was on lead, Bill, I would make one of Mr Frodo's Chronicler leads, and lead my fifth highest diamond." Gandalf chuckled, then burst out laughing. "Of course! You are right Sam - the problem is to prove that you are a friend by finding a friendly defence which lets seven notrumps make!" Puzzled, Boromir queried, "If North could get the lead, sure. But how can South make thirteen tricks on that rubbish when dummy has nothing but lonely hearts?" While the ripples on the pool grew larger, Gandalf explained: "West leads their fifth highest diamond, East playing the eight and South winning with the ten. South now 'cashes' four clubs while West discards their remaining diamonds. Now South can win four more rounds of diamonds while the spade honours are being pitched. South then scores four spades to make seven notrumps." Gleefully, Gandalf tapped the nine of diamonds with his staff while saying, "Friend!" and the Door swung open. Suddenly, Frodo felt his ankle being hooked from under him, as twenty tentacles plotched from the pool. Best wishes Smeagol -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 26 02:31:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:31:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Things to come. References: Message-ID: <003d01c383ce$028ca820$1d2fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Things to come. Richard: >>The draft of the revised EBU White Book is now with two >>assessors for proofreading and comment. Grattan: >+=+ At yesterday's meeting of the EBU's Laws & Ethics >Committee DWS reported progress. To now he has >received some 200 suggestions from the *six* 'proof >readers' Richard: Sorry, while a good bridge player can count up to 13, us Tasmanians find it difficult to count up to 6 (we get confused deciding which of our 13 fingers to count on). Best wishes Richard James < +=+ Yeah, I know. More puzzling is how David can count up to two hundred. +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Sep 26 02:32:29 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:32:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00e801c383ce$1274c510$5a2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 26 September 2003 10:49 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >Opening 1NT with a singleton is not automatically > >a convention > > Richard James Hills: > > Is opening 1NT with three voids a convention? If > so, where does one draw the line between a 1NT > opening bid which is not a convention, and a 1NT > opening bid which is a convention? There is a definition that draws the line. The call must convey a meaning other than willingness to play in NTs. The definition may be flawed but until it is changed that is the standard. Wayne Burrows From Steve.Hurley@dcita.gov.au Fri Sep 26 02:38:46 2003 From: Steve.Hurley@dcita.gov.au (Hurley, Steve) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:38:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Things to come. Message-ID: <88A795EDE17F834E94CBE09FB6EEE0E548B033@g5dccbr0ms12> As long as Richard does not discuss counting on other appendages .... -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:cyaxares@lineone.net] Sent: Friday, 26 September 2003 11:31 To: blml@rtflb.org Cc: bthorp@bigpond.net.au; Hurley, Steve Subject: Re: [blml] Things to come. Grattan Endicott To: Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Things to come. Richard: >>The draft of the revised EBU White Book is now with two >>assessors for proofreading and comment. Grattan: >+=+ At yesterday's meeting of the EBU's Laws & Ethics >Committee DWS reported progress. To now he has >received some 200 suggestions from the *six* 'proof >readers' Richard: Sorry, while a good bridge player can count up to 13, us Tasmanians find it difficult to count up to 6 (we get confused deciding which of our 13 fingers to count on). Best wishes Richard James < +=+ Yeah, I know. More puzzling is how David can count up to two hundred. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 25 19:14:04 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:14:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach References: <000001c38386$2e60ad90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c383f6$3a21e840$6b4187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:58 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach John (MadDog) Probst ......... > >+=+ East does not have the option of waiting for > > anything when the director puts the question > > to him, and I see nothing in the law to say this > > will be after declarer has made his choice of > > plays. If East has made an illegal play he must > > correct it forthwith upon becoming aware of it > > - and the Director will ensure he is aware of it. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Tut, tut Grattan. Good TD's don't look at players' hands :) Correct. And if after the play has ended it is revealed that East indeed had revoked and not complied with Law 62A during the fuzz caused by West's revoke he should find himself in serious trouble. I would in case have asked East: "Do you really expect me to believe that you did not become aware of your own revoke while we were handling your partner's revoke? Sorry man, I just do not believe you, and I adjust the board on the ground that you _intentionally_ violated Law 62A." Sven +=+ Did I say something about looking at hands? The Director arrives at the table where both W and E have failed to follow suit; declarer says to him that there are cards in the suit that have not yet appeared; the Director addresses both W and E with the request that they examine their hands to see if they have revoked..... He does not need to look at the hands, the players E & W will do that. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Sep 26 09:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <000601c383f6$3a21e840$6b4187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Did I say something about looking at hands? > The Director arrives at the table where both W and E have > failed to follow suit; declarer says to him that there are cards in > the suit that have not yet appeared; Actually declarer says "West has revoked". West has already attempted a correction. > the Director addresses both W and E with the request that they examine > their hands to see if they have revoked..... He does not need to look at > the hands, the players E & W will do that. East looks at his hand and says nothing (or says "my partner has revoked as you can see"). The director now allows declarer to change his card and East says "May I withdraw my card under L62C, or should I correct my own revoke under L62A/B?". I see nothing in L62A/B that requires East to correct his revoke *before* declarer makes a choice of plays from the table. Personally I see little alternative to adjusting/penalising using L72b2 (OK John, I'll not give a PP if East is just joking, maybe L72b1 in the unlikely event that East convinces me his SQ was hidden). If I try using L72b4 "I will be told that East was not attempting to conceal his infraction but was allowing the TD to sort out separate infractions in the order in which they occurred. Note: Even if TD did look at the hands he wouldn't see the SQ in East as it had "unluckily" fallen into East's lap at the time. Tim From john@asimere.com Fri Sep 26 11:47:57 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:47:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The equitable approach In-Reply-To: <000601c383f6$3a21e840$6b4187d9@4nrw70j> References: <000001c38386$2e60ad90$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000601c383f6$3a21e840$6b4187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <000601c383f6$3a21e840$6b4187d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] >=============================== >"Man is a history-making creature who >can neither repeat his past nor leave it >behind." ~ W.H. Auden. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:58 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] The equitable approach > > >John (MadDog) Probst >......... >> >+=+ East does not have the option of waiting for >> > anything when the director puts the question >> > to him, and I see nothing in the law to say this >> > will be after declarer has made his choice of >> > plays. If East has made an illegal play he must >> > correct it forthwith upon becoming aware of it >> > - and the Director will ensure he is aware of it. >> > ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> Tut, tut Grattan. Good TD's don't look at players' hands :) > >Correct. And if after the play has ended it is revealed that East indeed had >revoked and not complied with Law 62A during the fuzz caused by West's >revoke he should find himself in serious trouble. > >I would in case have asked East: "Do you really expect me to believe that >you did not become aware of your own revoke while we were handling your >partner's revoke? Sorry man, I just do not believe you, and I adjust the >board on the ground that you _intentionally_ violated Law 62A." > >Sven > >+=+ Did I say something about looking at hands? > The Director arrives at the table where both W and E have >failed to follow suit; declarer says to him that there are cards in >the suit that have not yet appeared; the Director addresses >both W and E Grattan, why should the TD address West? He has been called because East has revoked (infraction), and that is the matter he is dealing with. If I were West I would be sitting in my usual catatonic state, with my hand face down on the table, waiting for the matter to be resolved. I actually think it would be out of order for the TD to address West in this matter, as that potentially could create UI. >with the request that they examine their hands to >see if they have revoked..... He does not need to look at the >hands, the players E & W will do that. > >~ G ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 26 13:17:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:17:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926080654.01f9b820@pop.starpower.net> At 06:49 PM 9/25/03, richard.hills wrote: >Is opening 1NT with three voids a convention? If >so, where does one draw the line between a 1NT >opening bid which is not a convention, and a 1NT >opening bid which is a convention? One could argue that a 1NT opening with three voids is conventional on the grounds that opener demonstrably does not wish to play the hand there. (This presumes a dichotomy between natural and conventional bids, which is reasonable, if not generally accepted.) If there is a line, it is subjective, and must be assessed from the viewpoint of the bidder. A bid whose primary message is "I am willing to play the hand in this contract" cannot be conventional. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Sep 26 13:29:38 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:29:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926080654.01f9b820@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926080654.01f9b820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F743132.80502@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > bidder. A bid whose primary message is "I am willing to play the hand > in this contract" cannot be conventional. > Can it not? 2Di (multi) - reply 2Sp "I am willing to play this hand in 2Sp, since from my hand I can suspect that your hand is weak with spades, but if you were to have hearts, 3 or 4He it is". Quite often not alerted where I play, erroneously ! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 26 13:54:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:54:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3F743132.80502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> The definition in the laws of a conventional call is at best very = imprecise: "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last = denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. = ....." (The remainder of the definition is irrelevant for this discussion) Consider the "gambling" opening bid of 3NT which usually shows a long running minor suit. "Everybody know" that this is a "convention" but according to the = definition in the laws it definitely is not; the caller is perfectly willing to = play in the contract of 3NT, in fact that is exactly why he opens the auction = with this bid. My experience is that in too many cases we have a situation of "I cannot define an elephant, but I know him when I see him" > Herman De Wael > Eric Landau wrote: >=20 > > A bid whose primary message is "I am willing to play the hand > > in this contract" cannot be conventional. > > >=20 > Can it not? >=20 > 2Di (multi) - reply 2Sp >=20 > "I am willing to play this hand in 2Sp, since from my hand I can > suspect that your hand is weak with spades, but if you were to have > hearts, 3 or 4He it is". >=20 > Quite often not alerted where I play, erroneously ! Another good example. According to the laws this bid is _not_ = conventional. (But "everybody know" that it is!). regards Sven From ziid@dspio.com Fri Sep 26 14:07:50 2003 From: ziid@dspio.com (ziid@dspio.com) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:07:50 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) email marketing Message-ID:

If you not hope to receive the similar letter again , please click here remove.Thank you

Go to web site click here



If you not hope to receive the similar letter again , please click here remove.Thank you

From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Sep 26 14:18:14 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:18:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <200309252346.QAA13279@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <012201c38430$f4087f00$51053dd4@m1q9j9> > > > Is opening 1NT with three voids a convention? > > Well, it's certainly not a bid you make with the expectation of making > > Why not: have trust in partner. See below even 10 tricks is possible. Ben > Back when I used to play bridge in college, a kibitzer once set up a > deal where one hand had a 13-card suit. The player who got this got > so excited, he opened 7NT and then too late realized what he'd done. > (Strangely enough, he only went down three.) > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Sep 26 16:28:44 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:28:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c38443$0bd6af00$829468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [TFLB 1997] "Convention 1) A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2) Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference." [Nigel] In real life, a more usual interpretation is "anything unexpected or unusual (or unnatural where 'natural' is relative to what the definer is accustomed)". Thus, in the past, even weak twos have been defined as conventional. Couching bridge law in such woolly and controversial terms is a recipe for confusion and controversy. This sterile argument is easy to avoid: Discard the concepts of "natural" "artificial" and "conventional". Replace them with the dichotomy: "Standard" and "Non-standard". Any single well-defined local standard will do (e.g. Crowhurst Acol, BW Standard, Polish Club or whatever) Ideally, however, "standard" should mean "internationally agreed standard" (e.g. "WBF Standard", as suggested by John A Macgregor). Combined with simple "explain rules" (described before), this would drastically clarify and simplify disclosure. If the standard were international, then it would be another step towards a global game. Richard James Hills and Frances Hinden have kindly pointed out some of the drawbacks of such proposals but most of my correspondents express broad approval. The danger is that if more ordinary players do not publicly express their views for (or against) such proposals, high-powered legislators will expand the ever more complex, subjective, and sophisticated legal structure that is already stifling the game. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Sep 26 16:46:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:46:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <200309252346.QAA13279@mailhub.irvine.com> <012201c38430$f4087f00$51053dd4@m1q9j9> Message-ID: <002701c38445$7276bd20$829468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Question: In the layout below, how can North-South stop East-West from scoring at least 7S or 7N? GA S:- Dealer South H:- D:AQJT98765432 C:A S:- S:AKQJT98 H:- H:AKQJT9 D:K D:- C:KQJT98765432 C:- S:765432 H:8765432 D:- C:- (: Answer: As dealer with his Yarborough, South can open and make 7N :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 26 22:19:21 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:19:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3F743132.80502@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926080654.01f9b820@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030926080654.01f9b820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926171133.009ee510@pop.starpower.net> At 08:29 AM 9/26/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>bidder. A bid whose primary message is "I am willing to play the >>hand in this contract" cannot be conventional. > >Can it not? > >2Di (multi) - reply 2Sp > >"I am willing to play this hand in 2Sp, since from my hand I can >suspect that your hand is weak with spades, but if you were to have >hearts, 3 or 4He it is". > >Quite often not alerted where I play, erroneously ! It can indeed. My "am willing" was an underbid; I should have written "wish". With that rephrasing, 2S is indeed conventional, as it does not mean "I wish to play the hand in 2S", but rather "I wish to play the hand in either 2S or three or more hearts, depending on which suit you are long in". Compare that with, say, 3C, which really does mean "I wish to play the hand in 3C", and would not be conventional, even if you have, for example, an explicit agreement that a 3C bid denies holding more than a singleton in either major. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Sep 26 22:28:02 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:28:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <3F743132.80502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <01d801c38475$16c6e740$9fce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 12:30 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] SO rules > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > bidder. A bid whose primary message is "I am willing to > play the hand > > in this contract" cannot be conventional. > > > > Can it not? > > 2Di (multi) - reply 2Sp > > "I am willing to play this hand in 2Sp, since from my hand I can > suspect that your hand is weak with spades, but if you were to have > hearts, 3 or 4He it is". > > Quite often not alerted where I play, erroneously ! Alert and convention are not synonymous. 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 ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 26 22:35:49 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:35:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3F743132.80502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926172506.009f5aa0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:54 AM 9/26/03, Sven wrote: >The definition in the laws of a conventional call is at best very >imprecise: > >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination >named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. >....." > >(The remainder of the definition is irrelevant for this discussion) > >Consider the "gambling" opening bid of 3NT which usually shows a long >running minor suit. > >"Everybody know" that this is a "convention" but according to the >definition >in the laws it definitely is not; the caller is perfectly willing to >play in >the contract of 3NT, in fact that is exactly why he opens the auction with >this bid. > >My experience is that in too many cases we have a situation of "I cannot >define an elephant, but I know him when I see him" The "gambling" 3NT presents an interesting dichotomy, as it means different things to different people. There is the old-fashioned gambling 3NT, made with a solid minor and outside stoppers, which says "I wish to play in 3NT because I expect to take nine tricks on the strength of my long, running suit". Partner is expected to pass, or possibly raise with fast tricks. Then there is the modern gambling 3NT, made with a solid minor and (presumptively) no side stoppers, or one at most. It says "I have a long, running suit; I wish to play in 3NT if you can provide side stoppers, otherwise I wish to play in my suit". Partner is being offered an explicit pass-or-pull choice. My definition of the elephant says that the latter is a convention but the former is a natural bid. Alertable where I play, and, I would expect, just about everywhere, but alertable and conventional are entirely different things. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 26 22:34:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:34:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926171133.009ee510@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001001c38476$08a7ae00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ......... > It can indeed. My "am willing" was an underbid; I should have written > "wish". >=20 > With that rephrasing, 2S is indeed conventional, as it does not mean = "I > wish to play the hand in 2S", but rather "I wish to play the hand in > either 2S or three or more hearts, depending on which suit you are = long > in". =20 The laws say: "... shows willingness to ...", they do not use the word "wish" or any other word to that effect. And how do you consider the opening bid 3N which shows a long, running = minor suit? The bidder certainly "wishes to play this hand in 3N" (but = responder may still overrule him like he may overrule any "wish" expressed by = whatever undisputable non-conventional call a player makes). Thus, according to the laws this opening bid is definitely not = conventional, but every player I know will automatically classify that bid as being conventional. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 26 23:09:26 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:09:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001201c38443$0bd6af00$829468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030926174340.009f5ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:28 AM 9/26/03, Nigel wrote: >[TFLB 1997] >"Convention 1) A call that, by partnership agreement, >conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in >the denomination named (or in the last denomination >named), or high-card strength or length (three cards >or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall >strength does not make a call a convention. > 2) Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning >by agreement rather than inference." > >[Nigel] > >In real life, a more usual interpretation is "anything >unexpected or unusual (or unnatural where 'natural' >is relative to what the definer is accustomed)". That was once true, but players have, for the most part, learned better at this point. (Praise the Lord!) >Thus, in the past, even weak twos have been defined as >conventional. Right; the ACBL tried that. And eventually wound up banning any weak two bid that didn't contain 5-11 HCP, exactly six cards in the suit bid, and at least two honors in the suit. It was a travesty and a practical disaster, and was soon rethought and repealed. >Couching bridge law in such woolly and controversial >terms is a recipe for confusion and controversy. So we should use "standard" and "non-standard" instead? Everybody understands exactly what those mean? I'll take my chances with "conventional" and "natural", thank you. >This sterile argument is easy to avoid: Discard the >concepts of "natural" "artificial" and "conventional". >Replace them with the dichotomy: > "Standard" and "Non-standard". >Any single well-defined local standard will do >(e.g. Crowhurst Acol, BW Standard, Polish Club or >whatever) Wonderful. Then SOs will be allowed to regulate not just "conventions", but any "non-standard" calls. So we can have rules requiring everybody to memorize, understand and use exactly the same methods for every situation. And we will. And it won't vaguely resemble bridge as we know and love it. At least we'll be able to have a fine bonfire with all those old bridge books. >Ideally, however, "standard" should mean >"internationally agreed standard" (e.g. "WBF Standard", >as suggested by John A Macgregor). This gets better. Do we have an "internationally agreed standard"? Does anybody believe that anyone is capable of defining a sensible one? The best minds in North American bridge have tried for decades, with notable lack of success, to define "Standard American", which has been generally used to describe a range of systems an order of magnitude more similar to one another than those played by large numbers of players worldwide. >Combined with simple "explain rules" (described >before), >this would drastically clarify and simplify disclosure. Perhaps for those who have committed the "international standard system" to memory; certainly not for anyone else. Are we to make doing so a requirement to enter any competitive bridge event? >If the standard were international, then it would be >another step towards a global game. Which nobody wants, except some of those who travel internationally to play bridge. Our local sectionals get players from a couple of hundred miles away. Although no two pairs play exactly the same system, just about everybody in the room plays something that, by international standard, is pretty similar. And any time anyone in the room opened the bidding with a major, they would be required to alert, because millions of people in China play four-card majors, and therefore it was incorporated into the "international standard system". >Richard James Hills and Frances Hinden have kindly >pointed out some of the drawbacks of such proposals >but most of my correspondents express broad approval. > >The danger is that if more ordinary players do not >publicly express their views for (or against) such >proposals, high-powered legislators will expand the >ever more complex, subjective, and sophisticated >legal structure that is already stifling the game. Ordinary players, IMO, do not favor such proposals. The only ones who want one standard for all localities are those who play in various different localities. They are a tiny minority, despite being well-represented in this forum. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Sep 26 23:37:33 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:37:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <001001c38476$08a7ae00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <01f001c3847e$cc7c74c0$9fce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 9:35 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > Eric Landau > ......... > > It can indeed. My "am willing" was an underbid; I should > have written > > "wish". > > > > With that rephrasing, 2S is indeed conventional, as it does > not mean "I > > wish to play the hand in 2S", but rather "I wish to play the hand in > > either 2S or three or more hearts, depending on which suit > you are long > > in". > > The laws say: "... shows willingness to ...", they do not > use the word > "wish" or any other word to that effect. > > And how do you consider the opening bid 3N which shows a > long, running minor > suit? The bidder certainly "wishes to play this hand in 3N" > (but responder > may still overrule him like he may overrule any "wish" > expressed by whatever > undisputable non-conventional call a player makes). > > Thus, according to the laws this opening bid is definitely > not conventional, > but every player I know will automatically classify that bid as being > conventional. You can't know me as I classify it as non-conventional by definition. Wayne > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From bbickford@charter.net Fri Sep 26 23:42:33 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:42:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <01f001c3847e$cc7c74c0$9fce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00c401c3847f$7a1a68d0$92147244@D2GX7R11> Count me also in the group of non-conventional. I also consider my modification (minor or major i.e. any suit) to be non-conventional. I have no problem playing there but partner can overrule!! Cheers......................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'blml'" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 6:37 PM Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Sven Pran > > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 9:35 a.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > > > > Eric Landau > > ......... > > > It can indeed. My "am willing" was an underbid; I should > > have written > > > "wish". > > > > > > With that rephrasing, 2S is indeed conventional, as it does > > not mean "I > > > wish to play the hand in 2S", but rather "I wish to play the hand in > > > either 2S or three or more hearts, depending on which suit > > you are long > > > in". > > > > The laws say: "... shows willingness to ...", they do not > > use the word > > "wish" or any other word to that effect. > > > > And how do you consider the opening bid 3N which shows a > > long, running minor > > suit? The bidder certainly "wishes to play this hand in 3N" > > (but responder > > may still overrule him like he may overrule any "wish" > > expressed by whatever > > undisputable non-conventional call a player makes). > > > > Thus, according to the laws this opening bid is definitely > > not conventional, > > but every player I know will automatically classify that bid as being > > conventional. > > You can't know me as I classify it as non-conventional by definition. > > Wayne > > > > 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 Sat Sep 27 00:42:07 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:42:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <01f001c3847e$cc7c74c0$9fce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001801c38487$cbf6b3e0$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: >You can't know me as I classify it as non-conventional by definition. That, with respect, does not matter. A call is conventional if it conveys: a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named; or high-card strength or length [there]. Now, a 3NT opening that shows a solid minor conveys, ipso facto, a meaning other than willingness to play in 3NT. It is not enough to say that my call conveys enough about my hand that partner is able to judge whether my willingness to play in 3NT is justified; the inferences available to partner are sufficient that some "other meaning" has clearly been conveyed. The definition of "convention" in the Laws is stupid beyond belief (for which I will get the usual flak from Ton Kooijman), but the task of defining a "convention" has defeated the finest minds for some years. This is a pity, because the question of whether or not a call is "conventional" is crucial in determining the outcome of cases judged under L27B2, but I cannot help that. However, an opening bid of 3NT that shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing whatever may be found opposite is a convention; this much is completely obvious. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 27 01:11:02 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:11:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030926174340.009f5ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002601c3848b$d6858120$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Eric wrote a vast amount of good sense, culminating in: > Ordinary players, IMO, do not favor such proposals. The only ones who > want one standard for all localities are those who play in various > different localities. They are a tiny minority, despite being > well-represented in this forum. He is quite right. Of this I am certain: if an event is confined as to location, or otherwise (to a class of player, perhaps), then the people in charge of that event should have absolute discretion over what methods may be employed, and what should and should not be alerted. Moreover, if players from some other location (or in a different class) attempt to cite the regulations of some "superior" body in defense of their failure to obey the local rules, the on-site organizers should have power to order anything up to and including the immediate execution of such players. There is a huge dichotomy in the "game of bridge" as presently constituted. It arises chiefly because, uniquely among games, no one knows what the rules of the game are. While this persists, everyone who provides an environment in which bridge is played is entitled to make up a set of rules and say: "These are the rules in this environment". The continued existence of BLML is a striking proof of the fact that no one knows what the rules are; the current incarnation of the WBFLC does not hold out much hope that anyone in my lifetime will know what the rules are. In that context, it is entirely right and proper that anyone holding local jurisdiction shall be able to say: "As far as we in this locality are concerned, the rules are these", and that no man shall gainsay him. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Sep 27 01:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > more) there. ....." > Consider the "gambling" opening bid of 3NT which usually shows a long > running minor suit. > > "Everybody know" that this is a "convention" but according to the > definition in the laws it definitely is not; the caller is perfectly > willing to play in the contract of 3NT Come off it Sven. Surely "I have a solid seven card minor" is a meaning "other than..." Sure the bidder is prepared to play in 3N opposite stoppers and an entry but there is definite "other" information. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 27 01:44:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:44:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030926174340.009f5ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501c38490$83fc1a40$0b9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Eric Landau] Wonderful. Then SOs will be allowed to regulate not just "conventions", but any "non-standard" calls. So we can have rules requiring everybody to memorize, understand and use exactly the same methods for every situation. And we will. And it won't vaguely resemble bridge as we know and love it. At least we'll be able to have a fine bonfire with all those old bridge books. [Nigel] Your last suggestion lit up my wife's eyes with anticipatory reflections; but you misunderstand me; I love weird systems; I advocate more freedom rather than less. Currently to facilitate disclosure, players are expected to learn alert rules that change from year to year and country to country. Learning a standard system would entail similar effort. As now, if you or an opponent doesn't know disclosure standards, then you just have to explain more. [Eric] Do we have an "internationally agreed standard"? [Nigel] John A Macgregor has pointed out that "WBF standard" is a reasonable candidate; but any well defined system would be fine a.g. BW Standard, Polish club... [Eric commenting on "Combined with simple explain rules described before), a standar system would clarify and simplify disclosure] Perhaps for those who have committed the "international standard system" to memory; certainly not for anyone else. [Nigel] Explain rules are simpler and clearer if there is a standard system but they can accommodate more complex and sophisticated standards such as the tower of Babel underpinnng current alert laws. [Eric] Are we to make [learning the rules] a requirement to enter any competitive bridge event? [Nigel] No [Eric] Nobody wants [a global game with international standards], except some of those who travel internationally to play bridge. Our local sectionals get players from a couple of hundred miles away. Although no two pairs play exactly the same system, just about everybody in the room plays something that, by international standard, is pretty similar. And any time anyone in the room opened the bidding with a major, they would be required to alert, because millions of people in China play four-card majors, and therefore it was incorporated into the "international standard system". [Nigel] You are right. Many people would have to alert calls that are regarded as commonplace locally. I agree that is a drawback even if it does make the game fairer for strangers and foreigners. After all, you could find yourself playing against Chinese/Polish/ Italians/... even in America. [Eric] Ordinary players, IMO, do not favor such proposals. The only ones who want one standard for all localities are those who play in various different localities. They are a tiny minority, despite being well-represented in this forum. [Nigel] There is a lot of truth in what you say and we all hate restriction. Obviously we don't advocate that we all play a standard system because it would ruin the game. We want more diversity of system rather than less; but I reckon an agreed standard facilitaties disclosure of such departures. Admittedly a comprehensive international standard system would also be useful for individial competition, pick up partnerships, last minute substitutions, "no-fear" competitions for beginners, learning materials for novices, as well as a toe-hold for bridge publicity and news dissemination. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Sep 27 02:21:44 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:21:44 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c38495$b991cec0$b4ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 12:32 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > Sven wrote: > > > > "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than > > willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three > cards or > > more) there. ....." > > > Consider the "gambling" opening bid of 3NT which usually > shows a long > > running minor suit. > > > > "Everybody know" that this is a "convention" but according to the > > definition in the laws it definitely is not; the caller is > perfectly > > willing to play in the contract of 3NT > > Come off it Sven. Surely "I have a solid seven card minor" > is a meaning > "other than..." Sure the bidder is prepared to play in 3N opposite > stoppers and an entry but there is definite "other" information. Come off it Tim. Surely "I have a balanced hand" is a meaning "other than..." Sure the bidder is prepared to play in 3N opposite 'balanced-ish" but there is definite "other" information. Wayne PS I am referring to 3NT = 25-27 Balanced or some such. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Sep 27 02:25:22 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:25:22 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <001801c38487$cbf6b3e0$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004401c38496$3e330e00$b4ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 11:42 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] SO rules > > > Wayne wrote: > > >You can't know me as I classify it as non-conventional by definition. > > That, with respect, does not matter. A call is conventional if it > conveys: > > a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named; or > high-card strength or length [there]. > > Now, a 3NT opening that shows a solid minor conveys, ipso facto, a > meaning other than willingness to play in 3NT. It is not enough to say > that my call conveys enough about my hand that partner is > able to judge > whether my willingness to play in 3NT is justified; the inferences > available to partner are sufficient that some "other meaning" has > clearly been conveyed. > > The definition of "convention" in the Laws is stupid beyond > belief I agree. >(for > which I will get the usual flak from Ton Kooijman), but the task of > defining a "convention" has defeated the finest minds for some years. > This is a pity, because the question of whether or not a call is > "conventional" is crucial in determining the outcome of cases judged > under L27B2, but I cannot help that. However, an opening bid > of 3NT that > shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing whatever may be > found opposite is a convention; this much is completely obvious. Not to me its not. You seem to be suggesting that 3NT = 25+ or something is non-conventional but 3NT = 20-22 would be conventional. Your criteria certainly doesn't apply to other bids so why would it apply to 3NT. e.g. 3S on KQJxxxxx and out would become a convention because you do not hope to make 3S opposite whatever may be found opposite. Wayne > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From toddz@att.net Sat Sep 27 02:43:23 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:43:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <002601c3848b$d6858120$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 8:11 PM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > There is a huge dichotomy in the "game of bridge" as presently > constituted. It arises chiefly because, uniquely among > games, no one knows what the rules of the game are. While this > persists, everyone who provides an environment in which bridge > is played is entitled to make up a set of rules It is neither unique among games nor necessarily problematic. Pinochle, for instance, has no monolithic organization governing its rules. Depending on local custom, such variations of the game include the method of bidding, minimum bids, the passing of cards, the absolute need to declare some melds, the method of scoring, the amount that double melds score, the rules for winning, and the penalty for a renege (though it's usually much more severe than bridge's penalty for revoking). Pinochle players are in a habit of asking, "How do you play," when sitting to play with a new group. Spades is similarly plagued. We could, and do, ask less of bridge players, who are so invested in one method of playing the game that they cannot adjust their behavior to suit local customs. Are you sure you're not American? -Todd From toddz@att.net Sat Sep 27 02:43:24 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:43:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001201c38443$0bd6af00$829468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 11:29 AM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Standard > > The danger is that if more ordinary players do not > publicly express their views for (or against) such > proposals, high-powered legislators will expand the > ever more complex, subjective, and sophisticated > legal structure that is already stifling the game. But that would require getting involved. If I want a simpler, more enjoyable game, how do I get that without making my life more complicated? -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 27 02:51:56 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:51:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <004401c38496$3e330e00$b4ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: >However, an opening bid of 3NT that shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing whatever may be found opposite is a convention; this much is completely obvious. >Not to me its not. I cannot help that either. One requires, and tends to assume, a degree of preparedness for rational discussion, although one has long ceased to hope that prospective interlocutors will be aware of the function of an apostrophe. >You seem to be suggesting that 3NT = 25+ or something is non-conventional >but 3NT = 20-22 would be conventional. No, I do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. But if you took the trouble to read what other people wrote, instead of being convinced of the rectitude of your own position, then... well, who knows? You have not given any thought whatever to the meaning of the words "other than" in the Laws, preferring to subscribe to what is known in these circles as the "West-Meads Fallacy". But this kind of solipsism is not unknown. David Burn London, England From toddz@att.net Sat Sep 27 03:09:12 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:09:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <004401c38496$3e330e00$b4ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: wayne@ebridgenz.com > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:25 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > However, an opening bid of 3NT that > > shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing > > whatever may be > > found opposite is a convention; this much is > > completely obvious. > > Not to me its not. It's easier if you read the definition of convention as "any call that shows a meaning other than or in addition to...." In the case of 3NT on a long, solid minor, you may have willingness to play 3NT, but you have also shown having a long, solid minor, and hence gambling 3NT is conventional. > Your criteria certainly doesn't apply to other bids so > why would it apply to 3NT. > > e.g. 3S on KQJxxxxx and out would become a convention > because you do not > hope to make 3S opposite whatever may be found opposite. He's being uncharacteristically sloppy. When you bid 3S on that hand, you have a clear willingness to play it. As long as there aren't any further meanings to the bid tripping over the definition (e.g. promissing or denying outside entries), it's not conventional. -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 27 03:33:32 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:33:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <007201c3849f$be935920$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Todd wrote: >It [the fact that no one knows the rules] is neither unique among games nor necessarily problematic. It is unique among games that attempt to claim recognition as "sports". It is unique among games that have a world-wide governing body that attempts to define "the rules". This, to my way of thinking, is not merely necessarily, but sufficiently, problematic. > We could, and do, ask less of bridge players, who are so invested > in one method of playing the game that they cannot adjust their > behavior to suit local customs. Are you sure you're not American? Yes. Can you give me the address of the Pinochle Laws Mailing List? David Burn London, England From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Sep 27 02:10:14 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:10:14 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > It is neither unique among games nor necessarily problematic. Not unique, but very problematic indeed. > Pinochle, for instance, has no monolithic organization governing > its rules. Depending on local custom, such variations of the game > include the method of bidding, minimum bids, the passing of cards, > the absolute need to declare some melds, the method of scoring, > the amount that double melds score, the rules for winning, and the > penalty for a renege (though it's usually much more severe than > bridge's penalty for revoking). Pinochle players are in a habit > of asking, "How do you play," when sitting to play with a new > group. Spades is similarly plagued. I am just one person, and can't speak for any of the other millions of card players out there.... but: This paragraph above is precisely the reason why I play pinochle only with my family when I visit them, and essentially NEVER play spades. It's also one reason why I prefer duplicate to rubber bridge. (In my area the rubber players insist on "everyone keeps their own score," not taking differences after the rubber, so that the idiots who pitch 1100s back and forth tend to win no matter how well you play.) It is a BIG advantage for me to know I can go anywhere, look up the bridge club in the phone book or on the ACBL's web site, show up, and know exactly what rules I am going to be playing by. (Well, almost - still some variety in number of boards and such, but not much else.) GRB [Sorry you get this twice, Todd - accidentally replied privately not to the list.] From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 27 03:50:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:50:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: Message-ID: <008801c384a2$160376c0$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Todd wrote: > > e.g. 3S on KQJxxxxx and out would become a convention > > because you do not > > hope to make 3S opposite whatever may be found opposite. > He's being uncharacteristically sloppy. When you bid 3S on that > hand, you have a clear willingness to play it. As long as there > aren't any further meanings to the bid tripping over the > definition (e.g. promissing or denying outside entries), it's not > conventional. Quite so. When one opens 1S on AQxxx KJxx Ax xx, one obviously does not undertake to make 1S opposite "whatever may be found opposite". As I have said, there is a starting point for rational discussion. If that starting point is such that I have been assumed to advocate that a 3S opening on KQJ eighth is "conventional", then you will have to explain the meaning of "rational discussion" to me. As far as I am concerned, it consists in assuming that others involved are not complete idiots. But... David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Sep 27 04:23:12 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:23:12 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004001c384a6$b4a38a00$c72e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Zimnoch [mailto:toddz@att.net] > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 2:09 p.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wayne@ebridgenz.com > > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:25 PM > > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > > However, an opening bid of 3NT that > > > shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing > > > whatever may be > > > found opposite is a convention; this much is > > > completely obvious. > > > > Not to me its not. > > It's easier if you read the definition of convention as > "any call > that shows a meaning other than or in addition to...." In the > case of 3NT on a long, solid minor, you may have willingness to > play 3NT, but you have also shown having a long, solid minor, and > hence gambling 3NT is conventional. Using this standard everything is a convention. Therefore I assume that this is not what was intended by the lawmakers. e.g. In the case of 3NT on 25+ balanced, you may have willingness to play 3NT, but you have also some cards in every suit and hence 3NT 25+ is conventional. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Sep 27 04:32:10 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:32:10 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004401c384a7$f55948e0$c72e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 1:52 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] SO rules > > > Wayne wrote: > > >However, an opening bid of 3NT that shows other than a hand > that hopes > to make 3NT facing whatever may be found opposite is a > convention; this > much is completely obvious. > > >Not to me its not. > > I cannot help that either. One requires, and tends to assume, a degree > of preparedness for rational discussion, although one has > long ceased to > hope that prospective interlocutors will be aware of the > function of an > apostrophe. Your statement "an opening bid of 3NT that shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing whatever may be found opposite is a convention" is the irrational one in this debate. There is no connection between 'hoping to make' and 'willing to play'. > > >You seem to be suggesting that 3NT = 25+ or something is > non-conventional > >but 3NT = 20-22 would be conventional. > > No, I do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. Assuming your aforementioned rationality I guess the contrary is that 25+ is conventional and 20-22 is not. > But if you took the trouble > to read what other people wrote, instead of being convinced of the > rectitude of your own position, then... well, who knows? You wrote and I repeat "an opening bid of 3NT that shows other than a hand that hopes to make 3NT facing whatever may be found opposite is a convention" While I can imagine hoping to make 3NT with a balanced 25 points opposite a yarborough I can not imagine hoping the same with a 20 count. My statement follows directly from the nonsense that you wrote. > You have not > given any thought whatever to the meaning of the words "other than" in > the Laws, preferring to subscribe to what is known in these circles as > the "West-Meads Fallacy". But this kind of solipsism is not unknown. I have given much thought to those words. However a meaning "other than" which shows one long suit is IMO no different than another meaning "other than" that shows at least two cards in every suit. Therefore I rationally came to the conclusion that the law must mean something different than that by "other than'. If not then (virtually) every call is a convention. Wayne Burrows > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Sep 27 08:19:24 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:19:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO Rules Message-ID: David Burn: >The definition of "convention" in the Laws is >stupid beyond belief (for which I will get the >usual flak from Ton Kooijman), .... ... Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? (Luke 6:3) David Burn: >... but the task of defining a "convention" has >defeated the finest minds for some years. Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law. (Codex Bezae ad Lucam 6:4). From toddz@att.net Sat Sep 27 08:33:55 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:33:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <007201c3849f$be935920$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > It is unique among games that attempt to claim > recognition as "sports". > It is unique among games that have a world-wide > governing body that > attempts to define "the rules". This, to my way of > thinking, is not > merely necessarily, but sufficiently, problematic. Again, no. North American MLB has one different rule depending on whether your franchise is American League or National League. One of those necessarily differs from the way baseball is played at the Olympics (if indeed, it even continues to be an Olympic sport). There are more rule differences when you consider little league vs. the MLB -- length of game, size of field, legal bats, a mercy rule, necessity of sliding, etc. Not a problem at all. Basketball rules differ between the Olympics and the NBA. The most obvious is that the length of the game differs. The NBA forbids goal tending, but the Olympics do not. A mild problem. NBA players are schooled in the rules differences before playing in the Olympics. Hockey? Different size rink. Different icing, passing, and offside rules. Different penalties for fighting. Bridge just shows that the inability to adhere to an international standard is not a uniquely American problem. Differences in rules are only problematic when people object to there being different rules. Personally, I would object more to yet another change in the alert procedure than I would object to the alert rules being different in some place I don't play. > Yes. Can you give me the address of the Pinochle Laws > Mailing List? I've already given you every address I have for the PLML. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Sat Sep 27 09:12:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:12:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c384cf$0da48b90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ........ > Come off it Sven. Surely "I have a solid seven card minor" is a = meaning > "other than..." Sure the bidder is prepared to play in 3N opposite > stoppers and an entry but there is definite "other" information. Yes Tim. Gordon was actually the one who in a direct mail to me made me see the impact of reading the definition: ... conveys a meaning other than willingness ... to be understood "instead of or in addition to such willingness" rather = than just "instead of such willingness". There is obviously a difference, and after seeing it I feel much more comfortable with that definition. regards Sven =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Sep 27 09:47:50 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:47:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> References: <004401c38496$3e330e00$b4ce36d2@Desktop> <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3F754EB6.4070104@hdw.be> David, Yellow card. David Burn wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > >>However, an opening bid of 3NT that shows other than a hand that hopes > > to make 3NT facing whatever may be found opposite is a convention; this > much is completely obvious. > David, you are entitled to believe what you wish. > >>Not to me its not. > and so is Wayne. > > I cannot help that either. One requires, and tends to assume, a degree > of preparedness for rational discussion, although one has long ceased to > hope that prospective interlocutors will be aware of the function of an > apostrophe. > "preparedness for rational discussion" apparently equals "agreeing with what DB considers obvious". FWIW, I don't consider this obvious either. But of course we already know I am not willing to have rational discussions either. > >>You seem to be suggesting that 3NT = 25+ or something is > > non-conventional > >>but 3NT = 20-22 would be conventional. > > > No, I do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. But if you took the trouble > to read what other people wrote, instead of being convinced of the > rectitude of your own position, then... well, who knows? You have not > given any thought whatever to the meaning of the words "other than" in > the Laws, preferring to subscribe to what is known in these circles as > the "West-Meads Fallacy". But this kind of solipsism is not unknown. > While I generally like David's ways of expressing things, here he has completely lost me. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Sep 27 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <002601c3848b$d6858120$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: Ah well, that should make the next international law book a damn sight shorter. "Do what thou will is the whole of the law". Problem solved. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Sep 27 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <004301c38495$b991cec0$b4ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > Come off it Tim. Surely "I have a balanced hand" is a meaning "other > than..." Sure the bidder is prepared to play in 3N opposite > 'balanced-ish" but there is definite "other" information. > > I am referring to 3NT = 25-27 Balanced or some such. Personally I think restricting NT bids to balanced hands is ridiculous. "3NT=24-28, no void, no small singleton/doubleton" shows willingness to play and length (3+) or high cards in every suit - not conventional. However that is by-the-by. Nobody is ever going to rule that restricting NT calls to balanced hands makes them conventional. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Sep 27 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Wrote: > You have not given any thought whatever to the meaning of the words > "other than" in the Laws, preferring to subscribe to what is known in > these circles as the "West-Meads Fallacy". But this kind of solipsism is > not unknown. Phew! I was beginning to get worried - I had thought DALB and I were arguing from the same point of view on this issue. I am sure that merely attaching a point range to a bid does not make it conventional. Thus "3N, *hoping* to make opposite whatever is there 20-22 (or indeed 25-34)" does not become conventional. I am equally sure that opening 1H (Showing H, denying an 11 card minor) is not conventional either. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Sep 27 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000501c38490$83fc1a40$0b9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Currently to facilitate disclosure, players are > expected to learn alert rules that change from year > to year and country to country. Learning a standard > system would entail similar effort. Learning an alert chart/rules takes about half an hour (if very complex), it is not a problem if visiting a country to learn the appropriate rules. Learning a system takes months (and most never achieve it). Learning a system one is never going to play merely so as to be aware of when one's own system deviates would be a monstrous waste of time. Tim From tom.cornelis@pi.be Sat Sep 27 10:20:29 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:20:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <004401c38496$3e330e00$b4ce36d2@Desktop> <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> <3F754EB6.4070104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002a01c384d8$9942a570$a68bdbd5@cornelis> " ... other than willingness to play in the denomination named (...), or high-card strength or length (...) there." "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." As I understand it, a call is therefore a convention if a) the call is artificial and forcing b) the call is natural and shows extra information other than overall strength c) the call is artificial and not forcing AND shows extra information other than overall strength The definition currently used covers all cases, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Best regards, Tom. From svenpran@online.no Sat Sep 27 10:29:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:29:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Convention - was SO rules Message-ID: <000001c384d9$cafaf580$6900a8c0@WINXP> Be it clear that no word, clause, expression or sentence means anything except by some agreement on what that meaning shall be. (I knew a family in which the word "mother" meant grandma, they used the word "mummy" when others say mother). In duplicate contract bridge the words allowed during the auction only convey meanings according to agreement. (If I say "one spade" to a = farmer who has no knowledge of our game he shall probably have a very clear understanding of what he believes I am talking about, as will a jeweler = who hears me saying "two diamonds"). I have in my library a book titled "Bridge"; it was issued in 1907 and describes a game preceding auction bridge. In that game the "auction" consisted of the dealer either deciding the denomination in which the = deal should be played or leaving that decision to his partner, after which = either opponent could double, and if they doubled then the dealer or his = partner could redouble after which either opponent could again double, this double/redouble process continuing until neither side wanted to make any further double or redouble as the case might be. In this "auction" saying "spade" (the lowest ranked denomination) = conveyed no "positive" meaning at all, it was simply the least evil among evils. = (The "language" included no such call as "pass") So why do I write this? Simply to point out that the entire "language" = we use during the auction of duplicate contract bridge is founded on "agreements" or "conventions" on what information is to be understood.=20 Culbertson defined one such more or less complete language in the = thirties (he was not the only bridge language inventor but his language dominated = the bridge world for years). In this language he defined for instance the "takeout double" as a conventional bid because it conveyed a meaning = other than increasing the value of the undertrick penalties expected. We cannot define the term "conventional" as needed in the laws without a reference language of all "non-conventional" calls. This reference = language could be a particular system (Culbertson's Gold book or Goren's Bridge = in a nutshell just to mention two) or it could be a precise definition on the inherent meaning of each possible call. The current definition of "conventional" in the laws attempts to do just that when stating: "... by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning = other than ..." (where "other than" includes both "instead of" and "in = addition to"). However, the trouble is that even this definition (as some has pointed = out) is still broad enough to possibly include every call available in the "language". Maybe I must revert to "I cannot define an elephant, but I know him when = I see him"? (For a moment I did in fact believe that now I could define = him!) Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 27 11:34:42 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:34:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <004401c38496$3e330e00$b4ce36d2@Desktop> <005c01c38499$ef043940$f5b88051@pbncomputer> <3F754EB6.4070104@hdw.be> <002a01c384d8$9942a570$a68bdbd5@cornelis> Message-ID: <003301c384e3$0a783ac0$399c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tom Cornelis] As I understand it, a call is therefore a convention if a) the call is artificial and forcing b) the call is natural and shows extra information other than overall strength c) the call is artificial and not forcing AND shows extra information other than overall strength The definition currently used covers all cases, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. [Nigel] A bid is conventional if it is... (1) artificial. (2) natural but forcing by agreement (3) natural but conveys extra info other than about strength. I suppose that one might eventually get a workable definition by pursing such an approach. But as far as disclosure is concerned, it is not as simple as that. I believe that many natural bids are alertable, if their completely natural meaning is unexpected. (a) In the UK... (i) a penalty double of a pre-empt is alertable (ii) a pre-emptive raise of an opening bid is alertable. (iii) a weak two is alertable. (b) In France, I'm told that a 1C bid promising at least 4 cards is alertable. (c) In the US, I believe that a 9-11 1NT opener is alertable. And so on ad infinitum.... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Sep 27 14:21:35 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:21:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Inconsistency between L45D and L47 In-Reply-To: <000e01c38301$fb67b6b0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <000e01c38301$fb67b6b0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:11:40 -0400, "Nancy T Dressing" wrote: >But law 45D talks about a card *misplayed*. It becomes played "if = attention >is *not* drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick,..... >then I would assume that law 47 in its entirety would apply. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. I am concerned about the situation where declarer asks for a card, dummy places a different card in the played position, dummy's LHO plays a card under the assumption that the card dummy took is actually played, and now the problem is discovered. The wrong card from dummy was not played in the legal sense, since L45B tells us that the card played is the one mentioned by declarer. Therefore, replacing dummy's wrong card with the correct one is not a "change of play", and L47D therefore does not apply to the card that dummy's LHO played before the change. L47 lacks a clause allowing that defender to withdraw his card. According to L47F he is therefore not allowed to withdraw it; but according to L45D, he is allowed to withdraw it. Of course, there is no doubt that L45D is the one we should follow. The danger is that a TD might read L47 and not L45D in such a situation. It seems to me that the primary (and very sensible) purpose of L47 is precisely to allow TD's to just check L47 whenever there is a question of allowing a card to be withdrawn or not. I use L47 in that way myself, and I am not at all sure that I have never misruled this situation because it is not mentioned in L47. It is IMO important that L47 is repaired to actually mention all situations where you are allowed to withdraw a card. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From toddz@att.net Sat Sep 27 18:39:33 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:39:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > [Sorry you get this twice, Todd - accidentally replied > privately not to the list.] No problem. Everyone else seems to be in a habit of replying to all, so I get two copies of all responses to my posts. I've learned to live with it -- it's gone from being irksome to being a peeve. -Todd From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 27 20:47:08 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:47:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <001401c38530$256e0ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > > [Sorry you get this twice, Todd - accidentally replied > > privately not to the list.] > > No problem. Everyone else seems to be in a habit of replying to > all, so I get two copies of all responses to my posts. I've > learned to live with it -- it's gone from being irksome to being a > peeve. > Another peeve of mine is having to move BLML from the Cc line to the To line. Is it really necessary to post to BLML by using the Cc line? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sat Sep 27 21:09:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:09:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001401c38530$256e0ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c38533$3cdc9060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French .......... > Another peeve of mine is having to move BLML from the Cc line to the To > line. Is it really necessary to post to BLML by using the Cc line? No, I guess what they do is to press "reply to" (like I do) but instead of replacing the original senders address now appearing in the "to" field with "blml" they just add "blml" in the "cc" field. A little rehearsal in "netiquette" could be in order. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 26 08:12:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:12:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: Message-ID: <000a01c38533$91a76980$5424e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:49 PM Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules Is opening 1NT with three voids a convention? +=+ If done by agreement it might qualify under the footmote to Law 40E2 as a highly unusual method. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 26 18:29:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:29:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: Argh. Here I am wondering why a message I posted in this thread generated no replies, and it turns out to be because I didn't post it in this thread, I sent it to Nigel. What I get for posting when I'm half asleep, I guess. Sorry, Nigel. :-) On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 11:28 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > In real life, a more usual interpretation is "anything > unexpected or unusual (or unnatural where 'natural' > is relative to what the definer is accustomed)". Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines "convention", inter alia, as "a practice in bidding or playing that conveys information between partners in a card game (as bridge)". By that definition, *every* call is conventional. I don't subscribe to Nigel's desire for a defined "standard" system, so let me propose an alternative: Define bids as either "natural", conveying the meaning that bidder has an appropriate holding (4+ cards, I'm not averse to 3+ in a minor) in the suit bid or, for NT, in all (unbid) suits, and the strength, given partner's indicated strength, to play at the bid level, and no additional meaning, or "artificial", meaning "not natural". Define "natural" doubles and redoubles as conveying the opinion that the current contract will not/will make, all other doubles or redoubles being "artificial". Define a "natural" pass as meaning "I have nothing (further) to say", all other passes being "artificial". Change the laws to refer to "artificial" calls where they now refer to conventional calls. No doubt there are holes in this, but it seems a workable starting place. From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 28 01:09:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:09:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c38554$c0669040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ......... > I don't subscribe to Nigel's desire for a defined "standard" system, so > let me propose an alternative: > > Define bids as either "natural", conveying the meaning that bidder has > an appropriate holding (4+ cards, I'm not averse to 3+ in a minor) in > the suit bid or, for NT, in all (unbid) suits, and the strength, given > partner's indicated strength, to play at the bid level, and no > additional meaning, or "artificial", meaning "not natural". Define > "natural" doubles and redoubles as conveying the opinion that the > current contract will not/will make, all other doubles or redoubles > being "artificial". Define a "natural" pass as meaning "I have nothing > (further) to say", all other passes being "artificial". Change the laws > to refer to "artificial" calls where they now refer to conventional > calls. > > No doubt there are holes in this, but it seems a workable starting > place. Not a bad idea. It appears to me that you suggest in so many words defining a "standard system" for the purpose of identifying as "artificial" any call that does not comply with the definition for the call in this "standard system"? Whether we use the word "artificial" or "conventional" is in my opinion irrelevant once we know exactly what we are talking about. (It would appear to me that today we do not know) Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 28 04:02:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:02:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000901c38558$ad004c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <422F9684-F160-11D7-A274-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Sep 27, 2003, at 20:37 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > double = will not, redouble = will, I guess you mean. Yes. > And then define standard treatments: Urm. I didn't want to go in the direction of defining a 'standard' system. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Sep 28 05:14:54 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:14:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <001001c38577$1236f5a0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Ed wrote: > Define bids as either "natural", conveying the meaning that bidder has > an appropriate holding (4+ cards, I'm not averse to 3+ in a minor) in > the suit bid or, for NT, in all (unbid) suits... > No doubt there are holes in this, but it seems a workable starting > place. If one is in the habit, as many players are, of responding 1NT to 1S on such as: 43 65 842 KQJ963 is this "natural"? David Burn London, England From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 28 08:36:28 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:36:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <001001c38577$1236f5a0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001201c38593$50fdc180$334587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > If one is in the habit, as many players are, of responding >1NT to 1S on such as: > > 43 65 842 KQJ963 > > is this "natural"? > +=+ Does the 1NT bid convey by parnership agreement any meaning other than a willingness to play in the contract of 1NT? There is, of course, a probable implicit agreement that the hands on which a 1NT response may be made include hands of this type (to be disclosed unless this is deemed a matter of general bridge knowledge). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 28 10:15:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:15:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001001c38577$1236f5a0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000101c385a1$1ab00d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Burn > Sent: 28. september 2003 06:15 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > Ed wrote: > > > Define bids as either "natural", conveying the meaning that bidder has > > an appropriate holding (4+ cards, I'm not averse to 3+ in a minor) in > > the suit bid or, for NT, in all (unbid) suits... > > > No doubt there are holes in this, but it seems a workable starting > > place. > > If one is in the habit, as many players are, of responding 1NT to 1S on > such as: > > 43 65 842 KQJ963 > > is this "natural"? > > David Burn > London, England Nobody can tell because the term "natural" is really undefined in the context of bridge. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Sep 28 11:24:44 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:24:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] SO rules References: <200309252346.QAA13279@mailhub.irvine.com> <012201c38430$f4087f00$51053dd4@m1q9j9> <002701c38445$7276bd20$829468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003601c385a7$219129a0$979c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <005801c385aa$f8a1e580$979c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> David Burn argues that it isn't "Natural" to open 3NT with say xx xx xx AKQJTxx. Others claim that it's natural because it makes opposite the right dummy. I posted the deal below as a minimalist example about which to argue. At GA, first in hand is it "natural" to open 7NT with a trickless Yarborough? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Question: In the layout below, how can North-South stop East-West from scoring at least 7S or 7N? GA S:- Dealer South H:- D:AQJT98765432 C:A S:- S:AKQJT98 H:- H:AKQJT9 D:K D:- C:KQJT98765432 C:- S:765432 H:8765432 D:- C:- (: Answer: As dealer with his Yarborough, South can open and make 7N :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From borders_36@email.com Sun Sep 28 16:28:58 2003 From: borders_36@email.com (rachmaninoff) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:28:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Do you trust your girlfriend 100%? Are You SURE? Message-ID: <20030928152057.98F822B929@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQo8aHRtbD4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPHRpdGxlPlVudGl0bGVkIERvY3VtZW50PC90aXRsZT4N CjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFy c2V0PWlzby04ODU5LTEiPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KDQo8Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMDAwMDk5IiB0ZXh0 PSJ5ZWxsb3ciIGxpbms9IiNDQ0NDQ0MiIHZsaW5rPSIjQ0NDQ0NDIiBhbGluaz0iI0NDQ0NDQyIg bGVmdG1hcmdpbj0iMCIgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBtYXJnaW53aWR0aD0iMCIgbWFyZ2luaGVpZ2h0 PSIwIj4NCjx0YWJsZSB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIiBjZWxs cGFkZGluZz0iMCIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjEiPg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxi cj48YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj48Yj48YnI+VGhpbmsgeW91ciBwYXJ0 bmVyIG1pZ2h0IGJlIGNoZWF0aW5nPyBVc2Ugb3VyIHN5c3RlbSB0byBzcHkgb24gdGhlbSBieSBz ZW5kaW5nIGEgc2ltcGxlIGVtYWlsPGJyPjxCUj48L3RkPg0KPC90cj4NCjx0cj48dGQgYWxpZ249 ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ29vdGxlLnVzL2luZGV4LnBocD9hZmls PTEwMzkiPjxiPjx1PkNvbWUgYW5kIHRha2UgYSBsb29rIGF0IGhvdyBlYXN5IGl0IGFsbCByZWFs bHkgaXMuLjwvYT48YnI+PGJyPjwvdGQ+PC90cj4NCjwvdGFibGU+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+ DQo= From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Sep 28 17:35:30 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:35:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <001001c38577$1236f5a0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <001201c38593$50fdc180$334587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001001c385de$9eeef440$7fef7f50@Default> > > If one is in the habit, as many players are, of responding > >1NT to 1S on such as: > > > > 43 65 842 KQJ963 > > > > is this "natural"? > > > +=+ Does the 1NT bid convey by parnership agreement > any meaning other than a willingness to play in the > contract of 1NT? > There is, of course, a probable implicit agreement > that the hands on which a 1NT response may be > made include hands of this type (to be disclosed > unless this is deemed a matter of general bridge > knowledge). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, You are to smart not to realise that this is utter nonsense. 1S-1NT in any normal system means not enough points for a two over one and not enough spades to raise spades (give or take a couple of weird conventions for special cases). So 1S-1NT does not (necessarily) show willingness to play in the contract of 1NT. You might easily have something silly like - xx QJ10xxxx QJ10xx and this is not a hand with which you want to play any number of NT. Anyway this is common sense or 'general bridge knowledge' and has nothing to do with a 'implicit agreement'. Or with 'partnership agreement' far that matter. The problem here is that the 'normal' meaning of 1NT is not 'natural'. But because it is 'normal' we don't consider it artificial (which it probably is given a sensible definition) or conventional. Anyway this whole (very old) discussion makes no sense without clear definitions of the words we use. But to add some spice a statement. Opening 3NT on a solid minor is a far more 'natural' bid than 1S-1NT and it is almost as 'normal'. Please criticise. Anyway if senior members of the WBFLC still cannot handle defining elementary cases like a 3NT opening or 1S-1NT (both standard examples) then what the hell did the WBFLC do the last 30 odd years? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > "Would there be this eternal seeking if > the found existed?" > ~ Antonio Porchia. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 5:14 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > > > > If one is in the habit, as many players are, of responding > >1NT to 1S on such as: > > > > 43 65 842 KQJ963 > > > > is this "natural"? > > > +=+ Does the 1NT bid convey by parnership agreement > any meaning other than a willingness to play in the > contract of 1NT? > There is, of course, a probable implicit agreement > that the hands on which a 1NT response may be > made include hands of this type (to be disclosed > unless this is deemed a matter of general bridge > knowledge). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 28 19:57:21 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:57:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal Message-ID: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session Bd: 28 Dlr: West Vul N/S Q 9 4 5 4 3 A4 9 8 7 3 2 10 8 AK 5 K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 K 8 7 Q 6 5 K Q 10 6 4 A J J 7 6 3 2 A J J 10 9 3 2 5 West North East South 1C P 1H 1NT P(1) P Dbl 2D 2H 2S Dbl All Pass (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement according to their Convention Card) The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the club ace. The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these comments were made after the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they were made after dummy came down.) The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled that the table result would stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W were concerned that an agreement appeared to exist because of North's free 2S bid and his later statement that he figured his partner had spades. They believed that North's successful fielding of his partner's 2D bid indicated that some implicit agreement existed. If there was, then they believed that North owed them an explanation before he bid rather than after the hand. The Committee Decision: Normally in cases of misinformation versus misbid, the alleged offenders bear a heavy burden to show that a call was a misbid. In this case the Director determined that sandwich notrumps were not on N/S's CC and concluded that there had been a misbid. The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free 2S bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince the Committee otherwise but were they were not present at the hearing. Therefore, the Committee found that there had been misinformation. If E/W had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, they would have been very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee changed the contract to 4H by East making five, for both pairs. The Committee briefly considered whether South's pull of 1NT doubled to 2D was aided by unauthorized information from North's failure to Alert 1NT and his subsequent explanation of the bid as natural. They rejected that approach since they believed that passing 1NT doubled was not a logical alternative. Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief that before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North had already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in this case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agreement was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North laterdecided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits he was required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after his partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I would allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S doubled made two, +670 for N/S, to stand. Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather were upset with the result. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the table result to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result are the only logical decisions. I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to make it fit. What does BLML think? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Sep 28 20:10:11 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:10:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001001c38577$1236f5a0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <012001c385f4$298dd020$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Sunday, 28 September 2003 4:15 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > Ed wrote: > > > Define bids as either "natural", conveying the meaning that > bidder has > > an appropriate holding (4+ cards, I'm not averse to 3+ in a > minor) in > > the suit bid or, for NT, in all (unbid) suits... > > > No doubt there are holes in this, but it seems a workable starting > > place. > > If one is in the habit, as many players are, of responding > 1NT to 1S on > such as: > > 43 65 842 KQJ963 > > is this "natural"? "natural" is not well defined. It is standard in that as you state many players so respond. It maybe conventional. More so with: 4 65 8432 KQJ963 IMO the key here is that we are responding 1NT not so much that we are willing to play in 1NT but that we are not willing to overstate our values. In a perfect world of willingness we would wish to show our willingness to play in clubs rather than NTs. Of course this does not preclude the possibility of finally resting in NTs. Wayne > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Sep 28 20:15:46 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:15:46 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001001c385de$9eeef440$7fef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <012101c385f4$f0f35860$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 4:35 a.m. > To: grandeval; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > Grattan, > > You are to smart not to realise that this is utter nonsense. > 1S-1NT in any > normal system means not enough points for a two over one and > not enough > spades to raise spades (give or take a couple of weird conventions for > special cases). So 1S-1NT does not (necessarily) show > willingness to play in > the contract of 1NT. You might easily have something silly like - xx > QJ10xxxx QJ10xx and this is not a hand with which you want to play any > number of NT. Anyway this is common sense or 'general bridge > knowledge' and > has nothing to do with a 'implicit agreement'. Or with 'partnership > agreement' far that matter. It is precisely a matter or partnership agreement. It just so happens that it is a 'standard' agreement unless you specifically play forcing 1NT or some other artificial arrangement. Wayne From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Sep 28 20:29:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:29:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <001001c38577$1236f5a0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <001201c38593$50fdc180$334587d9@4nrw70j> <001001c385de$9eeef440$7fef7f50@Default> Message-ID: <001001c385f6$ebc04040$f99868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] Anyway if senior members of the WBFLC still cannot handle defining elementary cases like a 3NT opening or 1S-1NT (both standard examples) thenwhat the hell did the WBFLC do the last 30 odd years? [Nigel] As Sven points out words like "natural" have limited meaning in the context of a game -- other than perhaps "hallowed by usage" or "natural to me" or "conforming to a stardard system". I's a relatively easy task to formulate incomplete, complex, sophisticated, subjective laws that SOs, ACs and TDs are free to interpret in any way that they feel appropriate. It is a far harder task to phrase simple, universal, consistent, comprehensive, clear, unambiguous, rules that are as objective as possible. Defining basic terms and using them consistently is a reasonable first step. So we cannot expect the the WBFLC to initiate any attempt to do so. The pathetic fallacy we fall into is obvious when we give the matter any thought. Law is not designed for the convenience of those who must comply with it. It's raison d'etre is to provide employment and entertainment for those who decree it, formulate it, and enforce it. Only when ordinary people stand up and protest their views is there any attempt to make the rules simple or fair. This is as true of the microcosm of Bridge as it is of the macrocosm of the outside world. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Sep 28 20:30:28 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:30:28 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <005801c385aa$f8a1e580$979c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <013301c385f6$febf3a20$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Sunday, 28 September 2003 10:25 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] SO rules > > > David Burn argues that it isn't "Natural" to open > 3NT with say xx xx xx AKQJTxx. Others claim > that it's natural because it makes opposite the > right dummy. I posted the deal below as a > minimalist example about which to argue. > > At GA, first in hand is it "natural" to open 7NT > with a trickless Yarborough? I don't know about "natural" but by definition a 7NT is always not conventional since you can hardly be offering to play in an alternative denomination. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Sep 28 20:35:33 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:35:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <002a01c384d8$9942a570$a68bdbd5@cornelis> Message-ID: <014301c385f7$b4456950$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Cornelis > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 9:20 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] SO rules > > > " ... other than willingness to play in the denomination > named (...), or > high-card strength or length (...) there." > "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > convention." > > As I understand it, a call is therefore a convention if > a) the call is artificial and forcing > b) the call is natural and shows extra information other than overall > strength > c) the call is artificial and not forcing AND shows extra > information other > than overall strength > > The definition currently used covers all cases, so I don't > see what all the > fuss is about. The problem lies in "b)" and maybe "c)". Almost every call shows extra information other than overall strength. I was directing in an online tournament recently and someone claimed that 1C needed an alert since it was made on a hand with 44 in the minors. Now I always open 1C with 44 in minors (excepting some 4441s and balanced hands in 1NT range) but five-card major players may always open 1D with 44 in minors. Therefore necessarily both methods mine and some five-card major system show different extra information. Wayne From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Sep 28 20:41:11 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:41:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <012001c385f4$298dd020$cbe436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > "natural" is not well defined. > > It is standard in that as you state many players so respond. > > It maybe conventional. > > More so with: > > 4 65 8432 KQJ963 > > IMO the key here is that we are responding 1NT not so much that we are > willing to play in 1NT but that we are not willing to overstate our > values. In a perfect world of willingness we would wish to show our > willingness to play in clubs rather than NTs. Of course this does not > preclude the possibility of finally resting in NTs. Exactly so. The difficulty in attempting to distinguish only among "natural" and "conventional" is that in a number of cases (a small number, be it said), one is compelled to make a call that falls between the two, and to which one might attribute the name "catch-all". Obviously, the "natural" thing to do at almost every stage of an auction is to bid the denomination in which, given the information to date, the partnership is most likely to want to play at the level at which the partnership is most likely to want to play it. But, for reasons of efficiency, one cannot always do this. Hence, one opens a three-card minor in preference to a four-card major, which is an "unnatural" thing to do, because one plays five-card majors. Or, one responds 1NT to 1M on a weak hand with a long suit because one plays a two-level response as promising far more values than are actually held. Now, some of these bids are so "unnatural" as clearly to be "conventional" (as for example a Precision 1D opening that may be a 4-4-2-3 shape, where 1D is the least "natural" of possible openings). Others, while potentially "unnatural" in the extreme, are sufficiently well-known the world over that to class them as "conventions" seems ridiculous; to respond 1NT to 1S on such as x x QJ10xxx Qxxx is what just about everyone would do from here to the nor'nor'west of Nome, and one would not expect there to be any problems relating to disclosure when they are employed. My view is that a call is "natural" if: it shows 4+ cards in the suit bid; or (explicitly) expresses the view that the denomination named is (on the information so far) most likely to be the denomination of the partnership's best contract; or, while doing neither of these things, has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that its use will almost never be unexpected. A call is "conventional" if it is not "natural". David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Sep 28 21:06:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:06:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <014701c385fc$03b62f70$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 8:56 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > Wayne wrote: > > > Come off it Tim. Surely "I have a balanced hand" is a > meaning "other > > than..." Sure the bidder is prepared to play in 3N opposite > > 'balanced-ish" but there is definite "other" information. > > > > I am referring to 3NT = 25-27 Balanced or some such. > > Personally I think restricting NT bids to balanced hands is > ridiculous. > "3NT=24-28, no void, no small singleton/doubleton" shows > willingness to > play and length (3+) or high cards in every suit - not conventional. > > However that is by-the-by. Nobody is ever going to rule that > restricting > NT calls to balanced hands makes them conventional. Similarly nobody should argue that restricting them to source of tricks hands makes them conventional. At least not according to the current definition of convention. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Sep 28 22:38:03 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:38:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <018001c38608$d19f6350$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 7:41 a.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > Wayne wrote: > > > "natural" is not well defined. > > > > It is standard in that as you state many players so respond. > > > > It maybe conventional. > > > > More so with: > > > > 4 65 8432 KQJ963 > > > > IMO the key here is that we are responding 1NT not so much > that we are > > willing to play in 1NT but that we are not willing to overstate our > > values. In a perfect world of willingness we would wish to show our > > willingness to play in clubs rather than NTs. Of course > this does not > > preclude the possibility of finally resting in NTs. > > Exactly so. The difficulty in attempting to distinguish only among > "natural" and "conventional" is that in a number of cases (a small > number, be it said), one is compelled to make a call that > falls between > the two, and to which one might attribute the name "catch-all". I guess that is why the laws avoid this difficulty by having no "between". Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. > > Obviously, the "natural" thing to do at almost every stage of > an auction > is to bid the denomination in which, given the information to > date, the > partnership is most likely to want to play at the level at which the > partnership is most likely to want to play it. I do not believe that this is obvious. The natural thing to do is to make the call that will enable partner to best place the contract either by bidding it or by passing our bid at this or some subsequent stage of the auction. Examples A "natural" long suit game try after suit agreement. With an ordinary x54x hand I do not open 1H and rebid 2D over partner's 1S response because I think our partnership is most likely to want to play in diamonds at the two level. I bid 2D because it "naturally" gives partner the most useful information. Even a 1NT opening on 12-14 Balanced or whatever range. I do not bid because it is most likely to be the 'best' final contract but because it gives partner the 'best' description of my hand (in our methods). Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 28 23:01:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:01:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <018001c38608$d19f6350$cbe436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3860c$23936e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ......... > I guess that is why the laws avoid this difficulty by having no > "between". >=20 > Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. >=20 The problem with the laws is that with the current definition of "conventional" calls every possible call satisfies this definition, thus = all calls are (according to the definition in the laws) "conventional". This is obviously not the intention of the laws, but it illustrates the problem we have with inadequate definitions. (Actually there cannot be any such thing as a "non-conventional" call. because of the language we use during the auction there must be some agreement, some "convention" on the information intended to be conveyed = by each possible call we make). What we need is a precise specification, a definition of what criteria a call must satisfy to qualify as being "non-conventional" (or "natural" = if we prefer that term). All calls not satisfying such criteria can then by = this same definition unambiguously be classified as "conventional". So wise guys: Try beginning with forming the precise specifications for = each of the thirty-six different possible "opening" calls in order for them = to be classified as "normal" (or "non-conventional"): Question 1: What constitutes a "natural" pass in an opening position? Question 2: Is there any dependency on the pass being called by the = first, second, third or last hand? (No other call than pass preceding) Continue with the remaining 70 similar questions! Have fun! Regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Sep 28 23:17:38 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:17:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <018001c38608$d19f6350$cbe436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <005601c3860e$537449e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: >I guess that is why the laws avoid this difficulty by having no "between". They do not "avoid a difficulty" thereby, but create one, in that the "in-between" bids cannot be categorised or described. What I have attempted to do is to provide a way out of this difficulty. >Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. No, it is not. This is tantamount to saying that a rainbow is either red or not red. > >Obviously, the "natural" thing to do at almost every stage of an auction is to bid the denomination in which, given the information to date, the partnership is most likely to want to play at the level at which the partnership is most likely to want to play it. >The natural thing to do is to make the call that will enable partner to best place the contract either by bidding it or by passing our bid at this or some subsequent stage of the auction. You are confusing "natural" with "normal"; that is to say, you regard it as a "natural" thing to do to make the most descriptive possible call within the partnership framework, or perhaps to make some interrogatory call. That is the "normal" thing to do, but it does not necessarily (or at all) render the bid "natural" in terms of specialised bridge jargon. If, for example, one responds 2NT to partner's 1M opening with a game-forcing raise including four trumps, that is the "natural" thing to do within the partnership methods in that it will enable the partnership to conduct the subsequent auction with maximal efficiency. However, no one - not even you - would describe 2NT as a "natural" bid. >Examples >A "natural" long suit game try after suit agreement. Indeed; such a call is "natural" per my definition also. >With an ordinary x54x hand I do not open 1H and rebid 2D over partner's 1S response because I think our partnership is most likely to want to play in diamonds at the two level. Well, you have bid hearts and partner has not raised them. He has bid spades, and you cannot raise them. The "natural" (and "normal") thing to do is to suggest some other denomination. Unless partner has significant extra values, about which at the moment you know nothing, he may very well decide that two diamonds represents the partnership's best contract. At the moment you bid two diamonds, your expectation is that this may very well be so. Again, you must try to distinguish between making a "normal" bid and making a "natural" bid; in this case, the distinction is not great, while in the case of a "gambling 3NT" opening, it is very great indeed. It is a sine qua non of a "natural" bid that, unless some other denomination has obviously been explicitly agreed a priori, a "natural" bid suggests that the partnership's best denomination may very well be that of the bid. This is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary one. Moreover, a "conventional" bid is one that explicitly does not so suggest. >I bid 2D because it "naturally" gives partner the most useful information. Once again, the distinction between "natural" and "normal" appears to me to be unclear in your mind. >Even a 1NT opening on 12-14 Balanced or whatever range. I do not bid because it is most likely to be the 'best' final contract but because it gives partner the 'best' description of my hand (in our methods). Exactly so. All bids that give partner a description of your hand are "normal", but very far from all of them are "natural". Put it this way. If you have six hearts and your partner opens 1NT, you would say that the "natural" thing to do is to show hearts, as of course it is. But that does not make 2D showing hearts a "natural" bid, merely a "normal" bid (if that is your partnership method). David Burn London, England From toddz@att.net Mon Sep 29 00:14:35 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:14:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <005601c3860e$537449e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > >Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. > > No, it is not. This is tantamount to saying that a > rainbow is either red or not red. Or a hooker is either breasts or not breasts. What's with the meretricious analogies? There is a definition for convention in the laws that divides the set of all (call, meaning) tuples into exactly two sets -- those satisfying the definition and those not satisfying the definition. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 29 00:26:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:26:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c38617$e5ea6760$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Todd > Zimnoch > Sent: 29. september 2003 01:15 > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: RE: [blml] Standard >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Burn > > To: 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > > >Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. > > > > No, it is not. This is tantamount to saying that a > > rainbow is either red or not red. >=20 > Or a hooker is either breasts or not breasts. What's with the > meretricious analogies? >=20 > There is a definition for convention in the laws that divides the > set of all (call, meaning) tuples into exactly two sets -- those > satisfying the definition and those not satisfying the definition. >=20 > -Todd And every possible call satisfies the criteria for being a = "conventional" call! (As so many posters have already noted in one way or another) Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 00:42:39 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:42:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000001c38617$e5ea6760$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <022401c3861a$39ef94a0$cbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 11:26 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Standard > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Todd > > Zimnoch > > Sent: 29. september 2003 01:15 > > To: 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: RE: [blml] Standard > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Burn > > > To: 'Bridge Laws' > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > > > > >Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. > > > > > > No, it is not. This is tantamount to saying that a > > > rainbow is either red or not red. > > > > Or a hooker is either breasts or not breasts. What's with the > > meretricious analogies? > > > > There is a definition for convention in the laws that > divides the > > set of all (call, meaning) tuples into exactly two sets -- those > > satisfying the definition and those not satisfying the definition. > > > > -Todd > > And every possible call satisfies the criteria for being a > "conventional" > call! (As so many posters have already noted in one way or another) I do not believe this. One interpretation of the definition means that every call satisfies the definition. This is clear evidence that that interpretation is erroneous. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From toddz@att.net Mon Sep 29 00:49:31 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:49:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000001c38617$e5ea6760$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Standard > > And every possible call satisfies the criteria for > being a "conventional" > call! (As so many posters have already noted in one way > or another) Of course! And the ACBL have already taken advantage of this by regulating any and all calls they care to, since they are, after all, all conventional. I haven't believed the assertion that all calls are conventional. The only type of calls where I have trouble with either the definition or its use are calls like "1NT in first seat all the time." Since it has no meaning whatsoever, by the definition it wouldn't be conventional, but that just seems wrong. Similarly, fert passes seem to slide right by the definition, since they only show strength. -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 01:22:13 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:22:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <022401c3861a$39ef94a0$cbe436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <006f01c3861f$bb255500$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: >One interpretation of the definition means that every call satisfies the definition. >This is clear evidence that that interpretation is erroneous. The same fallacy persists. Of course, every call is "conventional" in the wider sense of the term, but it is a huge error to bring one's understanding of the wider sense of any term into an area where terminological restrictions obviously apply. One might imagine answering a question in a mathematics examination: "What is a group?" and saying that a "group" is a number of musicians collectively responsible for various songs. Of course it is, for you will find that definition of a "group" in any dictionary, but you would score 0% for giving that answer in your exam, and rightly so. The people who write the laws are as guilty of this kind of error as are the contributors to this list, but it should be recognised for what it is - an error. The balance between terms that have a specific meaning in the context of the game of bridge and terms that have a general meaning in the wider sense is a very difficult one to strike - think, for example, of "equity", or "irrational". But to say that a definition in the laws of the game is "erroneous" because, if the word defined and the terms in which it is defined lead to an absurdity if those words are given their wider meanings, is to argue speciously. Moreover, one must distinguish between a "meaning" and an "implication". If a bid of, say, three spades shows at least six spades, it is ridiculous to argue that it is a "convention" simply because, in denying eight hearts, it conveys some "meaning" other than that related to the denomination named. That is not what is "wrong" with the current definition; that is simply what is "wrong" with the way in which people think about the current definition, of which the "every call is a convention" is a prime example of muddle-headedness, not to say childishness. The difficulty is that the present laws do not distinguish sufficiently well between areas in which words are to be interpreted according to their wider, "everyday", meanings, and areas in which words are to be interpreted in a highly restrictive context. This is not an insuperable difficulty, but it requires a great deal of thought and no little diligence. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 01:20:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:20:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: Sven wrote: >The problem with the laws is that with the >current definition of "conventional" calls >every possible call satisfies this >definition, thus all calls are (according >to the definition in the laws) >"conventional". > >This is obviously not the intention of the >laws, but it illustrates the problem we >have with inadequate definitions. > >(Actually there cannot be any such thing as >a "non-conventional" call, because of the >language we use during the auction there >must be some agreement, some "convention" >on the information intended to be conveyed >by each possible call we make). [snip] Richard James replies: Never say never. Suppose there are four hypothetical hobbits, whose auctions always proceed: Dealer LHO CHO RHO 1NT Pass Pass Pass The LHO, CHO and RHO hobbits are always willing to play in 1NT, so none of the passes can be conventional. And 1NT does not "convey a meaning other than", since all dealer's hands are opened 1NT. Therefore, there is not only such a thing as a non-conventional call, there is also such a thing as an entirely non-conventional auction. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 29 01:26:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:26:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <022401c3861a$39ef94a0$cbe436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c38620$57af0830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ........... > > > There is a definition for convention in the laws that > > divides the > > > set of all (call, meaning) tuples into exactly two sets -- those > > > satisfying the definition and those not satisfying the definition. > > > > > > -Todd > > > > And every possible call satisfies the criteria for being a > > "conventional" > > call! (As so many posters have already noted in one way or another) >=20 > I do not believe this. >=20 > One interpretation of the definition means that every call satisfies > the definition. >=20 > This is clear evidence that that interpretation is erroneous. Are you sure that it is not evidence of a too imprecise definition? I am perfectly aware that this interpretation was never intended, that = is not the question.=20 The important question is whether the definition in the laws is = sufficiently precise to serve its purpose?=20 Isn't this very discussion an offspring from the fact that nobody seems = able (assisted by the definition) to draw the line between conventional and non-conventional calls? Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Sep 29 01:43:38 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:43:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <012001c385f4$298dd020$cbe436d2@Desktop> <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006301c38622$b9beb8c0$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn] My view is that a call is "natural" if: [1] it shows 4+ cards in the suit bid; or [2] (explicitly) expresses the view that the denomination named is (on the information so far) most likely to be the denomination of the partnership's best contract; or [3] while doing neither of these things, has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that its use will almost never be unexpected. A call is "conventional" if it is not "natural". [Nigel] Good stuff, David! but may I be the first to post some obligatory quibbles. (a) If I deal myself xx xx xx AKQJTxx and partner has an average hand, then no-trump is quite likely to be the denomination of the partnership's best contract (on the information so far). So by your first definition a no-trump bid is natural. How does that square with your earlier claim that a 3NT opening is unnatural? [: Yes I do realise that I may have wrong-sided the contract :] (b) Suppose, by agreement, I open 1S with four spades, even when holding a balanced Yarborough. Under your definition my bid is quite natural. So should it be alertable? (c) Your third definition above opens up a bag of worms. Under your definition, which, if any, of these are natural? and does your decision depend on where and at what level, you play? (i) Prepared minor e.g 1C on xxxx xxx AKQ AKQ (ii) 2C reply to 1S with say xxx AKxx xxx AJx (iii) Long suit trial bid. (iv) Fit jump. (v) Bid to show stopper for notrump. (vi) Fourth suit forcing. (vii) Cue bid of ace or king. (viii) Lead directional bid. (ix) Short suit trial bid. (x) Cue bid of singleton or void. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 24/09/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 01:40:23 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:40:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <005601c3860e$537449e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004401c38622$49a4e820$c5ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 10:18 a.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > Wayne wrote: > > >I guess that is why the laws avoid this difficulty by having no > "between". > > They do not "avoid a difficulty" thereby, but create one, in that the > "in-between" bids cannot be categorised or described. What I have > attempted to do is to provide a way out of this difficulty. "no between " means quite simply "no between " so there are no bids that "cannot be categorised" > > >Some bid or call is either conventional or not conventional. > > No, it is not. This is tantamount to saying that a rainbow is > either red > or not red. Nope. It says that any bid either meets the definition for convention or it does not. > > > >Obviously, the "natural" thing to do at almost every stage of an > auction is to bid the denomination in which, given the information to > date, the partnership is most likely to want to play at the level at > which the partnership is most likely to want to play it. > > >The natural thing to do is to make the call that will enable > partner to > best place the contract either by bidding it or by passing our bid at > this or some subsequent stage of the auction. > > You are confusing "natural" with "normal"; No I am not confused but I may not have explained very well. And since "natural" is not defined in the laws maybe we are on shaky ground. My NO defines "natural", as maybe others do. The NZCBAs definition is IMO worse than useless as a general definition. "Natural" A bid in a suit not already bid by partner that promises at least 2 cards if clubs, at least 3 cards if diamonds, and at least 4 cards if a major. Consequently in NZ NTs are never natural nor are raises. :-> that is to say, > you regard it > as a "natural" thing to do to make the most descriptive possible call > within the partnership framework, or perhaps to make some > interrogatory > call. That is the "normal" thing to do, but it does not > necessarily (or > at all) render the bid "natural" in terms of specialised > bridge jargon. I agree that the normal thing to do in a partnership is not necessarily natural. I am trying to say that a "natural" call is not limited to a contract that you expect to make or be the best contract. A call can be "natural" and forcing. > If, for example, one responds 2NT to partner's 1M opening with a > game-forcing raise including four trumps, that is the > "natural" thing to > do within the partnership methods in that it will enable the > partnership > to conduct the subsequent auction with maximal efficiency. However, no > one - not even you - would describe 2NT as a "natural" bid. Correct. > > >Examples > > >A "natural" long suit game try after suit agreement. > > Indeed; such a call is "natural" per my definition also. This is not obvious to me. Your definition is: "My view is that a call is "natural" if: it shows 4+ cards in the suit bid; or (explicitly) expresses the view that the denomination named is (on the information so far) most likely to be the denomination of the partnership's best contract; or, while doing neither of these things, has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that its use will almost never be unexpected." Unless it falls into the last category you mention. > > >With an ordinary x54x hand I do not open 1H and rebid 2D > over partner's > 1S response because I think our partnership is most likely to want to > play in diamonds at the two level. > > Well, you have bid hearts and partner has not raised them. He has bid > spades, and you cannot raise them. The "natural" (and > "normal") thing to > do is to suggest some other denomination. Unless partner has > significant > extra values, about which at the moment you know nothing, he may very > well decide that two diamonds represents the partnership's best > contract. At the moment you bid two diamonds, your expectation is that > this may very well be so. Again, you must try to distinguish between > making a "normal" bid and making a "natural" bid; Yes this bid is "normal". What I am trying to say is that it is "natural" because it shows "naturally" a feature in ones hand and despite the fact that you may not judge that diamonds is the most likely contract. You merely judge that diamonds is a possible contract. >in this case, the > distinction is not great, while in the case of a "gambling > 3NT" opening, > it is very great indeed. It is a sine qua non of a "natural" bid that, > unless some other denomination has obviously been explicitly agreed a > priori, a "natural" bid suggests that the partnership's best > denomination may very well be that of the bid. This is not a > sufficient > condition, but it is a necessary one. Moreover, a > "conventional" bid is > one that explicitly does not so suggest. A gambling 3NT suggests that NT may be the final denomination. > > >I bid 2D because it "naturally" gives partner the most useful > information. > > Once again, the distinction between "natural" and "normal" > appears to me > to be unclear in your mind. > > >Even a 1NT opening on 12-14 Balanced or whatever range. I do not bid > because it is most likely to be the 'best' final contract but > because it > gives partner the 'best' description of my hand (in our methods). > > Exactly so. All bids that give partner a description of your hand are > "normal", but very far from all of them are "natural". > > Put it this way. If you have six hearts and your partner > opens 1NT, you > would say that the "natural" thing to do is to show hearts, > as of course > it is. But that does not make 2D showing hearts a "natural" > bid, merely > a "normal" bid (if that is your partnership method). Showing hearts by bidding hearts is "natural". Showing hearts by bidding something else is not "natural". Wayne > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 01:44:29 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:44:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004601c38622$de0a8fb0$c5ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Todd Zimnoch > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 11:50 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Standard > > > The only type of calls where I have trouble with either the > definition or its use are calls like "1NT in first seat all the > time." Since it has no meaning whatsoever, by the definition it > wouldn't be conventional, but that just seems wrong. Similarly, > fert passes seem to slide right by the definition, since they only > show strength. > > -Todd There is a separate definition for a conventional pass. It is confusing that it is not in the same place but it is there in the laws. L30C "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named." Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 01:56:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:56:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 14:57 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result are the only logical > decisions. > I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment > they > wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to make it fit. > > What does BLML think? I dunno. I know what I think. :-) I believe that North bid 2S because he inferred (correctly) from the auction that South had misbid. That being the case, perhaps South's 2D bid bears closer examination. It's true that Law 16 speaks to "logical alternatives", but what of Law 73C? It doesn't mention logical alternatives, it simply says that a player (South in this case) must carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. North's explanation is UI to South, whatever their agreement. Now, in bidding 2D, is South within the bounds of Law 73C? I don't believe he is. Therefore, I rule that South has violated that law, and I adjust the score under Law 12C2 to 1NT doubled, down 5 it looks like to me. -1400 to NS, +1400 to EW. At least, that's what I want to do. But Law 73F doesn't seem to cover that possibility. 73F1 puts us right back in the "logical alternative" game. So... does the fact that Law 73C requires "carefully avoid[ing] taking advantage" make pass a logical alternative? If so, my ruling should stand. If not, then table result (because IMO 1NT was a misbid). But what do I know? "I am only an egg." From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 02:06:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:06:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <188343DF-F219-11D7-B108-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 15:41 US/Eastern, David Burn wrote: > My view is that a call is "natural" if: it shows 4+ cards in the suit > bid; or (explicitly) expresses the view that the denomination named is > (on the information so far) most likely to be the denomination of the > partnership's best contract; or, while doing neither of these things, > has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that its use will > almost never be unexpected. A call is "conventional" if it is not > "natural". Well, that's certainly better than my definition. :-) But what of "artificial"? Is that a subset of "conventional"? Hm. By your definition, a takeout double is natural. :-) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 02:13:08 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:13:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <008101c38626$d7e9aa40$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: >Therefore, there is not only such a thing as a non-conventional call, there is also such a thing as an entirely non-conventional auction. I am noved to re-examine the word "childishness" that I used in an earlier post. It was, perhaps, not strong enough. For pity's sake, can we all please acknowledge that the current definitions are not adequate, and start applying our brains to the matter at hand. David Burn London, England From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Sep 29 02:34:22 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:34:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030928212417.01e49fd0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 02:57 PM 9/28/2003, Marvin French wrote: >Subject: Unauthorized Information >Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session >Bd: 28 >Dlr: West Vul N/S > Q 9 4 > 5 4 3 > A4 > 9 8 7 3 2 > >10 8 AK 5 >K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 >K 8 7 Q 6 5 >K Q 10 6 4 A J > > J 7 6 3 2 > A J > J 10 9 3 2 > 5 > >West North East South >1C P 1H 1NT > P(1) P Dbl 2D > 2H 2S Dbl All Pass > >(1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement >according to their Convention Card) > >The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the club >ace. >The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to >North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North >said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these >comments were made after the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they >were made after dummy came down.) > >The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in >accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps >listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly >suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been >no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled >that the table result would stand. (ruling and one dissent deleted) >Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I >believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think >the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when >dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather >were upset with the result. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later >bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point >the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I >think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe >that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to >prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong >decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the >table result to stand. > >DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, >Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold > >Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result are the only logical decisions. >I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they >wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to make it fit. I'm with Aaron's dissent here, and I would rule 1NT doubled down a bunch. I would agree that this is not misinformation, as we have the convention card as evidence. However, South has about the hand he thinks he showed (he even has a heart stopper), and given that, passing 1NTx is a logical alternative, and bidding 2D is made more attractive by the UI. North expressed a preference for playing 1NT, and even now that it is doubled, North may want to stay there or play 2C. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 02:46:24 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:46:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <004401c38622$49a4e820$c5ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <009001c3862b$7dbf2360$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > "no between " means quite simply "no between " so there are no bids > that "cannot be categorised" and again: > Nope. It says that any bid either meets the definition for convention > or it does not. This is hopeless, and I really do not propose to waste my time further with it. If the definition were as you (and Todd) say, then there would be no argument at all as to whether a call is or is not conventional. There is such an argument. Therefore, the definition is not as you (and Todd) say. As I have been at some lengths to point out, and as others (including you and Todd) have pointed out, this is because the definition is flawed. It is flawed in such a way that it cannot, in fact, be said of any bid that it "meets the definition". For, if the words in the definition are regarded as having their wider English usage, then every call is indeed a convention (in contradiction of your expressed view that the "gambling 3NT" is not); while if the words are interpreted as having their narrower "bridge" usage, then any call unrelated to the denomination named is a convention, and so are calls in some way related to the denomination named but conveying certain inferences over and above those that would "normally" be attributable to them (this also in contradiction of your expressed view that the "gambling 3NT" is not a convention). >Showing hearts by bidding hearts is "natural". >Showing hearts by bidding something else is not "natural". Very well, then. Showing solid clubs by bidding clubs is "natural". Showing solid clubs (or diamonds, without specifying which) by opening 3NT is not "natural". Why, in the name of reason, did you say that it was? David Burn London, England From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Sep 29 02:49:43 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:49:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <000001c3842d$470795a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3F743132.80502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030928213743.01e5dd50@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:54 AM 9/26/2003, Sven Pran wrote: >The definition in the laws of a conventional call is at best very imprecise: > > >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination >named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. ....." > >(The remainder of the definition is irrelevant for this discussion) > >Consider the "gambling" opening bid of 3NT which usually shows a long >running minor suit. > >"Everybody know" that this is a "convention" but according to the definition >in the laws it definitely is not; the caller is perfectly willing to play in >the contract of 3NT, in fact that is exactly why he opens the auction with >this bid. But it also conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination, or high-card strength or length; it shows a solid minor suit. Similarly, Flannery 2H is a convention, because it shows four spades, which is a meaning unrelated to hearts or high-card strength. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 02:21:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:21:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <85F56473-F21F-11D7-B108-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> I think I'm going blind or something. Yet again I sent a message intended for the list to the original poster. On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 20:44 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > L30C > "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than > a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or > denies > values other than in the last suit named." Interesting. Specified by whom, and when? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 02:21:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:21:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <91ACDD77-F21F-11D7-B108-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 20:44 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > L30C > "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than > a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or > denies > values other than in the last suit named." Interesting. Specified by whom, and when? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 02:21:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:21:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: Arrggh!!! On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 20:44 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > L30C > "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than > a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or > denies > values other than in the last suit named." Interesting. Specified by whom, and when? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 02:01:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:01:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules Message-ID: On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 15:30 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > I don't know about "natural" but by definition a > 7NT is always not conventional since you can hardly > be offering to play in an alternative denomination. So "conventional" means, at least in part, "offering to play in an alternative denomination"? Is this a sufficient condition, or merely a necessary one? From sphboc@msn.com Mon Sep 29 03:01:51 2003 From: sphboc@msn.com (Steven Haver) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:01:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events Message-ID: Per prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication itself is fairly-common procedure in Europe. I am interested in finding out a little more about procedures; especially when multiple team matches per session are involved. I am "presuming" that, due to security, all plays of a given pre-duplicated deal have to occur during the same match. ie, that once a match is completed, all deals played during that match become freely-available public knowledge. Given this, and assuming the use of some form of dealing machine, exactly what does the Director place upon each table, at start of second and subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to hand out a ready-to-play board, this would tend to involve use of more physical boards. Thus, it "might make sense" to distribute only the cards, expect the players to replace these in boards, and come back--a few minutes later--to collect the just-replaced cards. I play primarily ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested in exactly how process is handled. More or less related, is it customary to also print and distribute "curtain cards"? Steven P Haver/602-242-9708/8330 n 19th av 1083 phx az 85021 _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 03:16:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:16:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: My head hurts. I'm gonna quit posting for a while. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 02:54:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:54:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes Message-ID: The ACBL Laws Commission wrote: >>#### No. 1 >>Richard Colker brought up the problems in law >>interpretation that can result from the use of the >>words "irregularity" and "infraction" in the >>current laws. >>Specifically, does "the irregularity" in 12C2 refer >>to a player's illegal choice of calls after a >>hesitation or does it instead refer to both the >>hesitation and the illegal choice? There was a >>consensus that the irregularity referred to in 12C2 >>may include the event that transmitted the >>unauthorized information. Marvin L. French replied: >Which leads to making "if the irregularity had not >occurred" in L12C2 apply just prior to the UI, not >to the misuse of the UI. [snip] >I consider both of these interpretations to be >garbage, and wonder if any on BLML, especially those >on the WBFLC, agree with them. Richard James Hills continues: First point. In my opinion, the words "infraction" and "irregularity" are synonymous in the 1997 edition of the Laws. In my opinion, in the 2005 edition of the Laws, the WBF Laws Commission should undertake one of two possible alternatives: a) remove all appearances of "infraction", replacing them with "irregularity", or b) define both "infraction" and "irregularity" in the Chapter 1 Definitions, clearly distinguishing which is which. Second point. A hesitation is an irregularity contrary to Law 73A1. A subsequent illegal call is an irregularity contrary to Law 16A. Therefore, when Law 12C2 is used to adjust the score after UI, *two* infractions have occurred - but Law 12C2 refers only to "the" infraction. On another thread, where the correct application of Law 64C after multiple revokes was discussed, there was some debate about whether *all* revokes were cancelled by Law 64C, or only the revokes disadvantageous to the NOS were cancelled. Similarly, the previous interpretation of Law 12C2 was that only the final infraction - the use of UI - would be cancelled if and only if that was disadvantageous to the NOS. The new ACBL Laws Commission interpretation seems to put the OS in a Catch-22 situation. For example: a) North makes a slow penalty double, b) South's preferred LA would be to remove an in-tempo penalty double, c) South now ethically chooses the other LA of passing North's penalty double, d) South's virtue is rewarded when defending the East- West contract doubled is a top, e) The ACBL Laws Commission cancels North's hesitation, and adjusts the score to what would have happened if South had bid instead of passing. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 03:08:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:08:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: Richard wrote: >>Therefore, there is not only such a thing as a >>non-conventional call, there is also such a thing >>as an entirely non-conventional auction. David replied: >I am moved to re-examine the word "childishness" >that I used in an earlier post. It was, perhaps, >not strong enough. For pity's sake, can we all >please acknowledge that the current definitions >are not adequate, and start applying our brains to >the matter at hand. > >David Burn >London, England Richard continues: Sure the current definitions are not adequate. I like Grattan's suggestion to cut the Gordian knot - abolish all references to "convention" in the 2005 Laws, replacing them with references to "partnership agreements". The Grattan solution has two disadvantages from some points of view. Firstly, those blmlers who do not trust their SOs will be horrified at the new power SOs will be given to regulate *all* bids (rather than merely Law 40D "conventional" bids). Secondly, the Grattan solution will require Law 27B2 to be simplified, thus horrifying blmlers who will have fewer complex laws to write esoteric posts about. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 03:26:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:26:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events Message-ID: Steven Haver: [snip] >Given this, and assuming the use of some form of >dealing machine, exactly what does the Director >place upon each table, at start of second and >subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to >hand out a ready-to-play board, this would tend to >involve use of more physical boards. [snip] Typical Canberra Sunday Swiss: Match 1 - preduplicated boards 1-8 distributed Match 2 - preduplicated boards 9-16 distributed Match 3 - preduplicated boards 17-24 distributed lunch break & hand records Match 4 - preduplicated boards 1-8 distributed Match 5 - preduplicated boards 9-16 distributed Match 6 - preduplicated boards 17-24 distributed prize giving & hand records With an odd number of teams, there is a slight modification of the format. Three teams play a triangular match over matches 1 & 2. Another three teams play a triangular match over matches 5 & 6. For security over the lunch break, a further three teams play a triangular half-match over match 3, then the same three teams play a triangular half-match over match 4. The triangle uses the American Whist movement, so additional boards need to be preduplicated for the triangle. In Australia, we have lots of physical boards, so that players are *never* required to duplicate boards for other players. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 03:50:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:50:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <00de01c38634$7631c360$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: >Sure the current definitions are not adequate. I like Grattan's suggestion to cut the Gordian knot - abolish all references to "convention" in the 2005 Laws, replacing them with references to "partnership agreements". Higgledy piggledy Thomas Stearns Eliot Wrote a whole poem to Carry a word. What was it, now? "Poly philoprogenitive" - I do not like it. I think it absurd. David Burn London, England From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 04:00:17 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:00:17 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <188343DF-F219-11D7-B108-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 1:06 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > > On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 15:41 US/Eastern, David Burn wrote: > > > My view is that a call is "natural" if: it shows 4+ cards > in the suit > > bid; or (explicitly) expresses the view that the > denomination named is > > (on the information so far) most likely to be the > denomination of the > > partnership's best contract; or, while doing neither of > these things, > > has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that > its use will > > almost never be unexpected. A call is "conventional" if it is not > > "natural". > > Well, that's certainly better than my definition. :-) But what of > "artificial"? Is that a subset of "conventional"? > > Hm. By your definition, a takeout double is natural. :-) And a penalty double (in a TO double situation) is ... ? Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 04:05:48 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:05:48 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030928213743.01e5dd50@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <009701c38636$9b766750$c5ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David J. Grabiner > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 1:50 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > At 08:54 AM 9/26/2003, Sven Pran wrote: > >The definition in the laws of a conventional call is at best > very imprecise: > > > > > >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than > >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the > last denomination > >named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > more) there. ....." > > > >(The remainder of the definition is irrelevant for this discussion) > > > >Consider the "gambling" opening bid of 3NT which usually shows a long > >running minor suit. > > > >"Everybody know" that this is a "convention" but according > to the definition > >in the laws it definitely is not; the caller is perfectly > willing to play in > >the contract of 3NT, in fact that is exactly why he opens > the auction with > >this bid. > > But it also conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the > denomination, or high-card strength or length; it shows a > solid minor suit. And opening 1H shows a meaning other than willingness to play in hearts - I do not have longer spades or diamonds or clubs. I think we have been here. If you interpret the definition in that way every call is a convention. I for one see no difference in 'and I have a long suit' to 'and I have no longer suit' or 'and at least 1 or 2 of every suit' etc etc Wayne From toddz@att.net Mon Sep 29 04:25:35 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:25:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <009001c3862b$7dbf2360$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > This is hopeless, and I really do not propose to waste > my time further with it. Good. Perhaps your further efforts will be useful and not wasted. > If the definition were as you (and Todd) say, > then there would > be no argument at all as to whether a call is or is not > conventional. There is such an argument. Which calls can you not decide are conventional or not? Perhaps I can help you? > Therefore, the definition is not as you (and Todd) say. There are other conclusions that can be made since you have not arrived at your contradiction through logical means. -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 04:41:15 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:41:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > > Hm. By your definition, a takeout double is natural. :-) I had not talked about doubles, though I had (foolishly) referred to "calls" rather than "bids". I see little wrong with the notion that, "double" and "redouble" having obvious meanings in the restricted context, a double is "natural" if it expresses only the opinion that the last named potential contract will not make, and "conventional" otherwise (this includes the notion that the double suggests a particular opening lead, for that is a "meaning other than..."). A redouble is natural if it conveys the meaning that the last named (doubled) contract will make, and conventional otherwise. > And a penalty double (in a TO double situation) is ... ? Forget all the nonsense you think you have learned. Earlier, Nigel Guthrie posted something that asked me what classification I would adopt in a number of situations that would be understood by almost no bridge players ("prepared minor" and the like). Anyone who asks questions like that has not the faintest idea what is really going on; in order to establish a definition of "natural", or "conventional", or anything else, it is necessary to obliterate from one's memory everything that one thinks one knows about how to play bridge well, and remember only that which is necessary in order to play bridge at all. All bids are not forcing (this, more than any other concept, is the hardest to grasp among people who cannot reconcile "what the rules ought to be" with "what I know about bridge"). If you bid a suit, you have it If it is the first time either of your partnership has bid the suit, it is your best guess as to what suit should be trumps. If you bid no trumps, it is because you do not want to suggest any suit as trumps. If you double, it is because you think they are going down; if you redouble, it is because you wish to express an opinion contrary to that of the man who has doubled you. Can we please start from there, and build from the ground up, instead of trying to conduct a foundation from the top of the skyscraper? "A TO double situation" is a meaningless phrase in this context. It is an even huger error than almost all previous ones, it is an even huger error that Herman's views on claims, to expect that you can construct the laws of bridge from the point of view of anyone who knows any more than the order of the suits. You cannot. Do not try, and do not ask questions such as "Given that I come from New Zealand (where we don't alert anything), or from St John's Wood (where we all forgive one another for cheating), or from the Dutch Bridge Federation (where we have to put up with Japp and can therefore not be expected to be other than demented), why are the laws not as they are in my home town?" Just think in the simplest terms you can. After all, someone has to. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 05:17:50 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:17:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <010601c38640$ab6110c0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Todd wrote: > >This is hopeless, and I really do not propose to waste my time further with it. > Good. Perhaps your further efforts will be useful and not wasted. > Which calls can you not decide are conventional or not? Perhaps I can help you? I can decide which calls are or are not "conventional" according to the laws. So, it appears, can you (see below). Others have decided that calls I would describe as "conventional" are not, and vice versa. Given that (at least temporarily) I ascribe to those others the same powers of reason that I ascribe to myself, I concluded only that the definition itself cannot be adequate, for if it were, there would be no such doubt. At least, that is what I concluded when I was trying, as gently as I could, not to tell the "every call is a convention" school that they should grow up, or failing that, at least attempt to evolve. > There are other conclusions that can be made since you have not arrived at your contradiction through logical means. I agree with you entirely, and I apologise. Reading through earlier posts without paying attention, I thought that you had supported the "every call is a convention" school. It is now obvious to me that you had not, and in this respect as well as all others, your grasp of logic and common sense is impeccable :) David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Sep 29 05:32:19 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:32:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <020e01c38642$ac393660$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn] Earlier, Nigel Guthrie posted something that asked me what classification I would adopt in a number of situations that would be understood by almost no bridge players ("prepared minor" and the like). Anyone who asks questions like that has not the faintest idea what is really going on; [Nigel] The accolade of another David flame! Inter alia, I asked if a bid could be "natural" or not depending on where or at what level it was made? The example he ridicules is xxxx xxx AKQ AKQ -- I asked if it is "natural", according to David's definition, to open 1C with such a hand. If David's definition fails to discriminate even in my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. [David] in order to establish a definition of "natural", or "conventional", or anything else, it is necessary to obliterate from one's memory everything that one thinks one knows about how to play bridge well, and remember only that which is necessary in order to play bridge at all. [Nigel] Oh dear! Again, this appears to contradicts the third part of David's definition of "natural" where he wrote "while doing neither of these things, has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that its use will almost never be unexpected". Or have are we meant to obliterate our Bridge experience from memory ... and then remember it again? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 24/09/2003 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 06:24:47 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:24:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <020e01c38642$ac393660$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000701c3864a$05d8c4e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Nigel wrote: > If David's definition fails to discriminate even in > my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. Your cases are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "simple". That is why you do not know what is going on; you are far too clever. For most of the time that bridge has existed, no one would have even contemplated responding 2C to 1S on a strong 3-4-3-3 shape. But you, with your acquired techniques that you now call "simple" in order to pass yourself off as one able to talk about the game at the higher levels, think that 2C might be the "natural" thing to bid. It is the "normal" thing to bid among, as I have suggested, the better 0.001% of players in the world. But "natural" it most assuredly is not. > Or have are we meant to obliterate our Bridge > experience > from memory ... and then remember it again? Whatever "have are we" means, of course we have are. 1NT over 1M on some 1-1-7-4 is just about OK, because they do that in Timbuktu. 2C over 1M on a 3-4-3-3 is not. But you persist in asking me to draw a line, when what has not yet begun to be established is whether or not a line shall be drawn. To that extent, your questions exhibit a degree of pseudo-sophistication that conceals a fundamental ignorance. Regulation may exist, depending on the level (or some other commonality) of the players, that determines what is or is not "common knowledge" - that is, what is or is not disclosable (by virtue of being unexpected). But what is or is not disclosable has nothing whatever to do with what is or is not "natural". David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 06:23:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:23:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >The accolade of another David flame! > >Inter alia, I asked if a bid could be "natural" or >not depending on where or at what level it was made? > >The example he ridicules is xxxx xxx AKQ AKQ >-- I asked if it is "natural", according to David's >definition, to open 1C with such a hand. > >If David's definition fails to discriminate even in >my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. Richard James Hills: The Chapter 1 definition of convention states that ".....or length (three cards or more) there....." So, under current Law, opening 1C with a three-card club suit does not automatically make 1C a convention. Therefore, under the current constraints of Law 40D, an SO is not permitted to ban the use of five-card major systems which use three-card minor openings. However, an SO is equally not permitted to ban any five-card minor systems which use three-card majors. This has not prevented the ACBL from ruling that opening one-of-a-major with less than four cards is a convention. Therefore, the current Chapter 1 definition of "convention" is not only logically flawed, but it is also unsuited for current practical uses. This topic surfaced on blml last year, and the year before, with the same lack of resolution. Deja vu. In my opinion, David Burn is correct in thinking that a Law change is necessary in 2005. And I fully agree that changing from the 1997 bipolar classification (conventional or non-conventional) to a Burned 2005 tripolar classification (conventional or natural or non-conventional) will be an improvement. At the very least, it would make the ACBL ruling prohibiting three-card majors a legal ruling. But my personal preference, if I was El Supremo of the WBF, would be to rewrite the 2005 Law 40D to read: "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of partnership agreements." Again this is deja vu, having been proposed as a 2005 Laws change last year, and the year before. Best best wishes wishes Richard Richard James James Hills Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 29 06:33:36 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:33:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes References: Message-ID: <001f01c3864b$3ca7b980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Second point. A hesitation is an irregularity contrary > to Law 73A1. A subsequent illegal call is an > irregularity contrary to Law 16A. Therefore, when Law > 12C2 is used to adjust the score after UI, *two* > infractions have occurred - but Law 12C2 refers only to > "the" infraction. This is a new one on me, that if I think a long time before acting, I am committing an infraction. Someone else please say this isn't so. Asking a question is also UI, so it's an infraction? No. 73C and 73F1 are the applicable laws when ruling on the existence of an infraction, not 73A1. Acting on UI from a hesitation is the infraction, not the hesitation itself (assuming no criminal intent). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 29 06:53:28 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:53:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: Message-ID: <002401c3864e$02598c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote; >So, under current Law, opening 1C with a three-card club suit does not automatically make 1C a convention. Therefore, under the current constraints of Law 40D, an SO is not permitted to ban the use of five-card major systems which use three-card minor openings. >However, an SO is equally not permitted to ban any five-card minor systems which use three-card majors. This has not prevented the ACBL from ruling that opening one-of-a-major with less than four cards is a convention. I think not. ACBL Convention Charts do not include this item. Here is the applicable regulation from the ACBL website: CANAPE SYSTEMS The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such niceties. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 29 08:35:21 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:35:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F77E0B9.8050205@hdw.be> Marvin French wrote: > What does BLML think? > I think the AC probably got it right, and I find the dissenting opinions totally beside the point. Allow me to elaborate in the original: > Subject: Unauthorized Information > Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session > Bd: 28 > Dlr: West Vul N/S > Q 9 4 > 5 4 3 > A4 > 9 8 7 3 2 > > 10 8 AK 5 > K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 > K 8 7 Q 6 5 > K Q 10 6 4 A J > > J 7 6 3 2 > A J > J 10 9 3 2 > 5 > > West North East South > 1C P 1H 1NT > P(1) P Dbl 2D > 2H 2S Dbl All Pass > > (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement > according to their Convention Card) > > The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the club > ace. > The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to > North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North > said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these > comments were made after the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they > were made after dummy came down.) > "I finally realized that" can be interpreted in two ways: either it is: - "I realized that you thought we were playing that convention" or it is: - "I realized from my hand that this is what you actually had". In the first instance, there is some partnership understanding, in the second, there is not. It is up to the TD and AC to decide which one it is, nothing more or less. > The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in > accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps > listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly > suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been > no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled > that the table result would stand. > The first sentence is relevant, the second one is not. There can be no question of criticizing EW's actions (they are not WIoG) so the fact that East can see that south cannot be strong is b**t. > The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to > attend the hearing. E/W were concerned that an agreement > appeared to exist because of North's free 2S bid and his later statement > that he figured his partner had spades. They believed that North's > successful fielding of his partner's 2D bid indicated that some implicit > agreement existed. If there was, then they believed that North owed them > an explanation before he bid rather than after the hand. > Correct statement of opinion. > The Committee Decision: Normally in cases of misinformation versus misbid, > the alleged offenders bear a heavy burden to show that a call was a misbid. > In this case the Director determined that sandwich notrumps were not on > N/S's CC and concluded that there had been a misbid. > The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free 2S > bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to > conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince the > Committee otherwise but were they were not present > at the hearing. Therefore, the Committee found that there had been > misinformation. If E/W had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, > they would have been very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee > changed the contract to 4H by East making five, for both pairs. > Perfectly normal. NS ought to have been in committee to explain the remark "I finally realized that". > The Committee briefly considered whether South's pull of 1NT doubled to 2D > was aided by unauthorized information from North's failure to Alert 1NT and > his subsequent explanation of the bid as natural. They rejected that > approach since they believed that passing 1NT doubled was not a logical > alternative. > Perfect. > Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief that > before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed > that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North had > already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding > that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in this > case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and > the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, > mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agreement > was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North > laterdecided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error > and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits he was > required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) Irrelevant. The AC decided that it was not a misbid. The laws DO regulate that North ought to have told the table that he believes his first explanation was wrong. The dissenter merely restates that he does not agree with the AC decision. OK. He voted and was in a minority. No need for a dissenting opinion, simply to see in words what everyone knows.(if it's a misbid, North must not say anything). > Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after his > partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I would > allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S doubled > made two, +670 for N/S, to stand. > Completely irrelevant. East has done nothing wild or irrational, so he should get his result changed if the AC decides there was MI. > Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I > believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think > the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when > dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather > were upset with the result. True but Irrelevant. > Second, since North passed 1NT and only later > bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point > the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I True but irrelevant. > think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe > that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to > prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong > decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the > table result to stand. > How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force South to pass? > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, > Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold > > Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result are the only logical decisions. > I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they > wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to make it fit. > Marv, you surprise me. What jiggling of the laws is there? The AC decided it was not a misbid. Perfect ruling from there on. End of story. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Sphboc@aol.com Sat Sep 27 15:55:51 2003 From: Sphboc@aol.com (Sphboc@aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:55:51 EDT Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events Message-ID: <199.202fea95.2ca6fef7@aol.com> --part1_199.202fea95.2ca6fef7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Per prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication itself is fairly-common procedure in Europe. I am interested in finding out a little more about procedures; especially when multiple team matches per session are involved. I am "presuming" that, due to security, all plays of a given pre-duplicated deal have to occur during the same match. ie, that once a match is completed, all deals played during that match become freely-available public knowledge. Given this, and assuming the use of some form of dealing machine, exactly what does the Director place upon each table, at start of second and subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to hand out a ready-to-play board, this would tend to involve use of more physical boards. Thus, it "might make sense" to distribute only the cards, expect the players to replace these in boards, and come back--a few minutes later--to collect the just-replaced cards. I play primarily ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested in exactly how process is handled. More or less related, is it customary to also print and distribute "curtain cards"? Steven P Haver/602-242-9708/8330 n 19th av 1083 phx az 85021 --part1_199.202fea95.2ca6fef7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Per prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication=20= itself is fairly-common procedure in Europe.  I am interested in findin= g out a little more about procedures; especially when multiple team matches=20= per session are involved. 

I am "presuming" that, due to security, all plays of a given pre-duplicated=20= deal have to occur during the same match.  ie, that once a match is com= pleted, all deals played during that match become freely-available public kn= owledge. 

Given this, and assuming the use of some form of dealing machine, exactly wh= at does the Director place upon each table, at start of second and subsequen= t matches?  Altho it would be "ideal" to hand out a ready-to-play board= , this would tend to involve use of more physical boards.  Thus, it "mi= ght make sense" to distribute only the cards, expect the players to replace=20= these in boards, and come back--a few minutes later--to collect the just-rep= laced cards.

I play primarily ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested in exac= tly how process is handled.  More or less related, is it customary to a= lso print and distribute "curtain cards"?



Steven P Haver/602-242-9708/8330 n 19th av 1083 phx az 85021
--part1_199.202fea95.2ca6fef7_boundary-- From tom.cornelis@pi.be Sun Sep 28 18:36:15 2003 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:36:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] VPs Message-ID: <000a01c385e7$05bc6c40$d38bdbd5@cornelis> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C385F7.C825E990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, First of all, I'm going to describe the problem. When calculating team tournaments, often some kind of VP-scale is used. = This scale takes into account that the more boards you play, the more = IMPs you score. However, it cannot take into account the number of flat boards that is = likely to occur. The seriousness of this problem increases with the = decrease of the number of boards that is played. The reason is quite = clear. The number of IMPs of both teams are totalized, and the = difference is converted to VPs. Statistically, a bigger number of flat = boards will decrease the difference. The VP-scale is constructed in such = a manner, that on average, acceptable results (when the tournament is = finished) are obtained. According to me this is unsatisfactory, for several reasons: 1) In some tournaments, different board sets are used per match (for = matches in the same round). 2) In a certain number rounds, a greater or lower number of flat boards = will occur. 3) When a good team meets a bad team, they good team will have a poor = win if a lot of flat boards occur. It seems unfair that all the = competing teams of the same strength have a good win against a poor = team, when one doens't, only because a lot of flat boards occur. 4) There are many VP-scales instead of one (a practical reason). The solution: use one VP-scale, that makes the number of boards played = irrelevant, and therefore also the number of flat boards. This VP-scale would convert the ratio of IMPs to VPs, which would = eliminate the statistical disadvantages of the current scales. A possible scale would be: up to 1%: 0-25; up to 5%: 1-25; up to 10%: 2-25; up to 15%: 3-25; up to 20%: 4-25; up to 25%: 5-25; up to 30%: 6-24; up to 35%: 7-23; up to 40%: 8-22; up to 45%: 9-21; up to 50%: 10-20; up to 60%: 11-19; up to 70%: 12-18; up to 80%: 13-17; up to 90%: 14-16; up to 100%: 15-15. The specific scale that should be used is of course a matter of = discussion on its own. Ex-aequos could be separated by the average = ratio. The team that holds the higher average ratio, would end up in the = higher position. What do you think about this? Best regards, Tom. PS: when I write "flat", I mean: having a very high likelyhood to be = flat when comparing the scores (not counting the very rare disaster that = will happen on an uninteresting board). ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C385F7.C825E990 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
First of all, I'm going to describe the = problem.
When calculating team tournaments, = often some kind=20 of VP-scale is used. This scale takes into account that the more = boards you=20 play, the more IMPs you score.
However, it cannot take into account = the number of=20 flat boards that is likely to occur. The seriousness of this problem = increases=20 with the decrease of the number of boards that is played. The reason is = quite=20 clear. The number of IMPs of both teams are totalized, and the = difference is=20 converted to VPs. Statistically, a bigger number of flat boards = will=20 decrease the difference. The VP-scale is constructed in such a manner, = that on=20 average, acceptable results (when the tournament is finished) are=20 obtained.
 
According to me this is unsatisfactory, = for several reasons:
1) In some tournaments, different board = sets are=20 used per match (for matches in the same round).
2) In a certain = number rounds, a greater=20 or lower number of flat boards will occur.
3) When a good team meets a bad team, = they good=20 team will have a poor win if a lot of flat boards occur. It seems unfair = that=20 all the competing teams of the same strength have a good win against a = poor=20 team, when one doens't, only because a lot of flat boards = occur.
4) There are many VP-scales instead of = one (a=20 practical reason).
 
The solution: use one VP-scale, = that makes the=20 number of boards played irrelevant, and therefore also the number of = flat=20 boards.
This VP-scale would convert the ratio = of IMPs to=20 VPs, which would eliminate the statistical disadvantages of the current=20 scales.
A possible scale would be:
up to 1%: 0-25;
up to 5%: 1-25;
up to 10%: 2-25;
up to 15%: 3-25;
up to 20%: 4-25;
up to 25%: 5-25;
up to 30%: 6-24;
up to 35%: 7-23;
up to 40%: 8-22;
up to 45%: 9-21;
up to 50%: 10-20;
up to 60%: 11-19;
up to 70%: 12-18;
up to 80%: 13-17;
up to 90%: 14-16;
up to 100%: 15-15.
The specific scale that should be used is of course a matter of = discussion=20 on its own. Ex-aequos could be separated by the average ratio. The team = that=20 holds the higher average ratio, would end up in the higher = position.
 
What do you think about this?
 
Best regards,
 
Tom.
 
PS: when I write "flat", I mean: having a very high likelyhood to = be flat=20 when comparing the scores (not counting the very rare disaster = that=20 will happen on an uninteresting=20 board).
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C385F7.C825E990-- From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Sep 29 09:18:00 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:18:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3F77E0B9.8050205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c38662$35817760$7ae17f50@Default> Herman: > The first sentence is relevant, the second one is not. There can be no > question of criticizing EW's actions (they are not WIoG) so the fact > that East can see that south cannot be strong is b**t. Why dear Herman. Silver Ribbon is a quite serious level of competition. As long as making mistakes remains legal, players are supposed to take this possibility into account. The fact that east knows from the very beginning what is going on IS RELEVANT INFO and not b**t. Besides any serious player knows this is a common mixup situation. Herman: > Perfectly normal. NS ought to have been in committee to explain the > remark "I finally realized that". Why were NS not on AC. Probably the common pairs problem, EW needed some points and NS left early. If this is the case the TD/AC has IMHO an obligation to take up the NS defence to protect not NS (who obviously are out of contention) but the field. For me I don't need NS to explain to me 'I finally realized that'. East knew this in the first round of bidding and any remotely sane player at this level would realize this in the 2nd or 3rd round of bidding. Including west. Nothing in the auction suggest there is any kind of NS 'being naughty'. Also the CC is consistent with the NS story and both the TD and AC basically accepted it (apart from some legal jiggling). Herman: > Irrelevant. The AC decided that it was not a misbid. The laws DO > regulate that North ought to have told the table that he believes his > first explanation was wrong. The dissenter merely restates that he > does not agree with the AC decision. OK. He voted and was in a > minority. No need for a dissenting opinion, simply to see in words > what everyone knows.(if it's a misbid, North must not say anything). Well they did not really said misinformation. They said there was insufficient proof it was a misbid. The main reason being NS were not there. But this is lazy and immoral if my assumption of the 'pairs appeal' is true. In that case NS are irrelevant and EW need to come with a good story why they should be given some points at the expense of the field. Other than in Europe a dissenting opinion is normal in the States. Who are you Herman to say that there is no need for a dissenting opinion. This is decided by the person stating this opinion. > Completely irrelevant. East has done nothing wild or irrational, so he > should get his result changed if the AC decides there was MI. Wild and irrational is subjective. For me it means something else than for you. At this level doubling 2S can 'easily' be considered 'wild'. Anyway east had all information all the time. He knew south had a twosuiter and north's eventual 2S was bid on that assumption. He decided to double a partscore were the opponents were odds on to have two eightcards fit. Now if east is a very poor player I might protect him because the above needs a certain level of bridge logic. But a good east player can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Maybe NS are not perfect (who is) but nothing they could have said would have added anything to what east already knew. Or in other words, the fact that you know the opps have a mixup doesn't guarantee you a good score. Herman > How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force > South to pass? For once I agree with you on a matter of bridge judgement. This south hand will not pass 1NT* whatever what. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NABC appeal > Marvin French wrote: > > > What does BLML think? > > > > I think the AC probably got it right, and I find the dissenting > opinions totally beside the point. Allow me to elaborate in the original: > > > Subject: Unauthorized Information > > Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session > > Bd: 28 > > Dlr: West Vul N/S > > Q 9 4 > > 5 4 3 > > A4 > > 9 8 7 3 2 > > > > 10 8 AK 5 > > K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 > > K 8 7 Q 6 5 > > K Q 10 6 4 A J > > > > J 7 6 3 2 > > A J > > J 10 9 3 2 > > 5 > > > > West North East South > > 1C P 1H 1NT > > P(1) P Dbl 2D > > 2H 2S Dbl All Pass > > > > (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement > > according to their Convention Card) > > > > The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the club > > ace. > > The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to > > North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North > > said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these > > comments were made after the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they > > were made after dummy came down.) > > > > "I finally realized that" can be interpreted in two ways: > either it is: > - "I realized that you thought we were playing that convention" > or it is: > - "I realized from my hand that this is what you actually had". > > In the first instance, there is some partnership understanding, in the > second, there is not. It is up to the TD and AC to decide which one it > is, nothing more or less. > > > The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in > > accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps > > listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly > > suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been > > no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled > > that the table result would stand. > > > > The first sentence is relevant, the second one is not. There can be no > question of criticizing EW's actions (they are not WIoG) so the fact > that East can see that south cannot be strong is b**t. > > > The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to > > attend the hearing. E/W were concerned that an agreement > > appeared to exist because of North's free 2S bid and his later statement > > that he figured his partner had spades. They believed that North's > > successful fielding of his partner's 2D bid indicated that some implicit > > agreement existed. If there was, then they believed that North owed them > > an explanation before he bid rather than after the hand. > > > > Correct statement of opinion. > > > The Committee Decision: Normally in cases of misinformation versus misbid, > > the alleged offenders bear a heavy burden to show that a call was a misbid. > > In this case the Director determined that sandwich notrumps were not on > > N/S's CC and concluded that there had been a misbid. > > The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free 2S > > bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to > > conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince the > > Committee otherwise but were they were not present > > at the hearing. Therefore, the Committee found that there had been > > misinformation. If E/W had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, > > they would have been very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee > > changed the contract to 4H by East making five, for both pairs. > > > > Perfectly normal. NS ought to have been in committee to explain the > remark "I finally realized that". > > > The Committee briefly considered whether South's pull of 1NT doubled to 2D > > was aided by unauthorized information from North's failure to Alert 1NT and > > his subsequent explanation of the bid as natural. They rejected that > > approach since they believed that passing 1NT doubled was not a logical > > alternative. > > > > Perfect. > > > Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief that > > before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed > > that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North had > > already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding > > that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in this > > case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and > > the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, > > mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agreement > > was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North > > laterdecided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error > > and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits he was > > required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) > > Irrelevant. The AC decided that it was not a misbid. The laws DO > regulate that North ought to have told the table that he believes his > first explanation was wrong. The dissenter merely restates that he > does not agree with the AC decision. OK. He voted and was in a > minority. No need for a dissenting opinion, simply to see in words > what everyone knows.(if it's a misbid, North must not say anything). > > > Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after his > > partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I would > > allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S doubled > > made two, +670 for N/S, to stand. > > > > Completely irrelevant. East has done nothing wild or irrational, so he > should get his result changed if the AC decides there was MI. > > > Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I > > believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think > > the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when > > dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather > > were upset with the result. > > True but Irrelevant. > > > Second, since North passed 1NT and only later > > bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point > > the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I > > True but irrelevant. > > > think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe > > that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to > > prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong > > decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the > > table result to stand. > > > > How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force > South to pass? > > > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > > Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, > > Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold > > > > Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result are the only logical decisions. > > I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they > > wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to make it fit. > > > > Marv, you surprise me. > What jiggling of the laws is there? The AC decided it was not a > misbid. Perfect ruling from there on. End of story. > > > -- > 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 Sep 29 09:32:30 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:32:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <020e01c38642$ac393660$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000701c3864a$05d8c4e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001501c38664$3af6a4c0$7ae17f50@Default> David, I agree with you that defining a good set of definitions is hard work. In a way those definitions are the fundaments of the laws. Without clear definitions of the words we use, all laws are meaningless. This is a task of the WBFLC. The WBFLC doesn't deliver so far. I admire that you came up with some constructive thoughts. So far they are far from Nigel-proof, which is actually quite a good test. Definitions should be clear. If you want to divide the set of bridge-calls in say conventional and non-conventional calls you need a mathematical type of definition so that every monkey can decide for any given call. One of the reasons the current laws and all current discussions IMHO get nowhere is because 'we' think one dimensional. Just look at the last 20 odd mails. Attempts at defining conventional gets poluted with concepts like 'artificial', 'natural', 'normal', 'standard'. Your own proposed definition also falls for that trap. Either say 'conventional' and say 'artificial' is the same concept for the laws or it is not in which case we also need a definition for 'artificial' which once again should enable every monkey to decide to split the set of all bridge-calls in two disjunct sub-sets. So to start with we need a couple of 'objective' concepts. (Non-)artificial might be such a concept if defined in terms such as 'shows 4+ cards in the suit bid'. After that the going gets though. We also need some definitions of concepts like 'normal'. Example: 1NT-2D as a transfer is normal but not natural, 1NT-2D showing diamonds is natural but not normal. This is subjective by definition for whatever is normal in France might not be in England. Now since most players only play local this is maybe not too bad. The few players that move around have to put in a little bit of effort to get the hang of another setting. But this only works if 'local' becomes not too 'small'. All NCBO's their own definitions of 'normal' ok. And for the big ones their might even be some different set of definitions. In the end the biggest NCBO's are 100 to 1000 times as big as the smallest. But if every village and every club gets to decide on 'normal' I guess we are lost. For what we need 'normal' anyway. Well the whole 'alerting if unexpected thing'. Besides even David uses it in his proposed definition of 'conventional'. Which I think is a very bad idea because there seems to be no way to define 'normal' in a objective way. So the moment you include 'normal' in another definition you are lost. Anyway, this discussion is too hard. I (or David or ....) cannot solve this in a couple of hours. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > Nigel wrote: > > > If David's definition fails to discriminate even in > > my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. > > Your cases are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "simple". That is > why you do not know what is going on; you are far too clever. For most > of the time that bridge has existed, no one would have even contemplated > responding 2C to 1S on a strong 3-4-3-3 shape. But you, with your > acquired techniques that you now call "simple" in order to pass yourself > off as one able to talk about the game at the higher levels, think that > 2C might be the "natural" thing to bid. It is the "normal" thing to bid > among, as I have suggested, the better 0.001% of players in the world. > But "natural" it most assuredly is not. > > > Or have are we meant to obliterate our Bridge > > experience > > from memory ... and then remember it again? > > Whatever "have are we" means, of course we have are. 1NT over 1M on some > 1-1-7-4 is just about OK, because they do that in Timbuktu. 2C over 1M > on a 3-4-3-3 is not. But you persist in asking me to draw a line, when > what has not yet begun to be established is whether or not a line shall > be drawn. To that extent, your questions exhibit a degree of > pseudo-sophistication that conceals a fundamental ignorance. > > Regulation may exist, depending on the level (or some other commonality) > of the players, that determines what is or is not "common knowledge" - > that is, what is or is not disclosable (by virtue of being unexpected). > But what is or is not disclosable has nothing whatever to do with what > is or is not "natural". > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 29 09:36:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:36:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <000601c38662$35817760$7ae17f50@Default> References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3F77E0B9.8050205@hdw.be> <000601c38662$35817760$7ae17f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F77EF08.4090604@hdw.be> Hallo Jaap, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>The first sentence is relevant, the second one is not. There can be no >>question of criticizing EW's actions (they are not WIoG) so the fact >>that East can see that south cannot be strong is b**t. > > > Why dear Herman. Silver Ribbon is a quite serious level of competition. As > long as making mistakes remains legal, players are supposed to take this > possibility into account. The fact that east knows from the very beginning > what is going on IS RELEVANT INFO and not b**t. Besides any serious player > knows this is a common mixup situation. > Sorry Jaap, but it is not relevant. Either NS have misbid or misinformed. The fact that East can see from his own cards that the explanation will not be correct is only important if we are going to rule that East has attempted a WIoG action. Which nobody seems to be suggesting. > Herman: > >>Perfectly normal. NS ought to have been in committee to explain the >>remark "I finally realized that". > > > Why were NS not on AC. Probably the common pairs problem, EW needed some > points and NS left early. If this is the case the TD/AC has IMHO an > obligation to take up the NS defence to protect not NS (who obviously are > out of contention) but the field. > I agree with you completely on this one. > For me I don't need NS to explain to me 'I finally realized that'. East knew > this in the first round of bidding and any remotely sane player at this > level would realize this in the 2nd or 3rd round of bidding. Including west. > > Nothing in the auction suggest there is any kind of NS 'being naughty'. Also > the CC is consistent with the NS story and both the TD and AC basically > accepted it (apart from some legal jiggling). > Basically they did, indeed. And then their opinion about there being more than what was on the CC differed. I have no real opinion on this decision, I was not there. > > Herman: > >>Irrelevant. The AC decided that it was not a misbid. The laws DO >>regulate that North ought to have told the table that he believes his >>first explanation was wrong. The dissenter merely restates that he >>does not agree with the AC decision. OK. He voted and was in a >>minority. No need for a dissenting opinion, simply to see in words >>what everyone knows.(if it's a misbid, North must not say anything). > > > Well they did not really said misinformation. They said there was > insufficient proof it was a misbid. And in what manner is that not the same thing ? > The main reason being NS were not there. > But this is lazy and immoral if my assumption of the 'pairs appeal' is true. > In that case NS are irrelevant and EW need to come with a good story why > they should be given some points at the expense of the field. > I agree that NS not being there badly damaged their case. > Other than in Europe a dissenting opinion is normal in the States. Who are > you Herman to say that there is no need for a dissenting opinion. This is > decided by the person stating this opinion. > > I have no problems with dissenting opinions. But they should add something to the story. Basically, what the first dissenter writes consists of: -I don't agree with the decision that it was not a misbid; -I'm telling you what the ruling must be if it is a misbid. Well, IMHO, the second part is unimportant - we all know what the ruling is then, while the first is only interesting if the dissenter tells us why he believes this. He gives us no reasons why he does not agree. That makes his contribution mere paper wasting. All we know additionally is that it was a majority decision, not a unanimous one. >>Completely irrelevant. East has done nothing wild or irrational, so he >>should get his result changed if the AC decides there was MI. > > > Wild and irrational is subjective. For me it means something else than for > you. At this level doubling 2S can 'easily' be considered 'wild'. > OK, but then dissenter should say so. He does no such thing. He simply states that East might have worked it out. Well, so what? He didn't, and I don't hear any suggestions that he should suffer from that. > Anyway east had all information all the time. He knew south had a twosuiter > and north's eventual 2S was bid on that assumption. He decided to double a > partscore were the opponents were odds on to have two eightcards fit. Now if > east is a very poor player I might protect him because the above needs a > certain level of bridge logic. But a good east player can go to hell as far > as I am concerned. Maybe NS are not perfect (who is) but nothing they could > have said would have added anything to what east already knew. Or in other > words, the fact that you know the opps have a mixup doesn't guarantee you a > good score. > Aha, now you _are_ stating that East ought not get the benefit of a score adjustment, because he _did_ perpetrate a WIoG action. OK, you are entitled to that opinion. I would not dare to disagree with you on a matter of bridge judgment. But I don't read the dissenters original as suggesting that line of ruling. > Herman > >>How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force >>South to pass? > > > For once I agree with you on a matter of bridge judgement. This south hand > will not pass 1NT* whatever what. > I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl Mon Sep 29 09:31:29 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:31:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <020e01c38642$ac393660$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000701c3864a$05d8c4e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001601c38664$4ff34360$7ae17f50@Default> David, I agree with you that defining a good set of definitions is hard work. In a way those definitions are the fundaments of the laws. Without clear definitions of the words we use, all laws are meaningless. This is a task of the WBFLC. The WBFLC doesn't deliver so far. I admire that you came up with some constructive thoughts. So far they are far from Nigel-proof, which is actually quite a good test. Definitions should be clear. If you want to divide the set of bridge-calls in say conventional and non-conventional calls you need a mathematical type of definition so that every monkey can decide for any given call. One of the reasons the current laws and all current discussions IMHO get nowhere is because 'we' think one dimensional. Just look at the last 20 odd mails. Attempts at defining conventional gets poluted with concepts like 'artificial', 'natural', 'normal', 'standard'. Your own proposed definition also falls for that trap. Either say 'conventional' and say 'artificial' is the same concept for the laws or it is not in which case we also need a definition for 'artificial' which once again should enable every monkey to decide to split the set of all bridge-calls in two disjunct sub-sets. So to start with we need a couple of 'objective' concepts. (Non-)artificial might be such a concept if defined in terms such as 'shows 4+ cards in the suit bid'. After that the going gets though. We also need some definitions of concepts like 'normal'. Example: 1NT-2D as a transfer is normal but not natural, 1NT-2D showing diamonds is natural but not normal. This is subjective by definition for whatever is normal in France might not be in England. Now since most players only play local this is maybe not too bad. The few players that move around have to put in a little bit of effort to get the hang of another setting. But this only works if 'local' becomes not too 'small'. All NCBO's their own definitions of 'normal' ok. And for the big ones their might even be some different set of definitions. In the end the biggest NCBO's are 100 to 1000 times as big as the smallest. But if every village and every club gets to decide on 'normal' I guess we are lost. For what we need 'normal' anyway. Well the whole 'alerting if unexpected thing'. Besides even David uses it in his proposed definition of 'conventional'. Which I think is a very bad idea because there seems to be no way to define 'normal' in a objective way. So the moment you include 'normal' in another definition you are lost. Anyway, this discussion is too hard. I (or David or ....) cannot solve this in a couple of hours. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > Nigel wrote: > > > If David's definition fails to discriminate even in > > my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. > > Your cases are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "simple". That is > why you do not know what is going on; you are far too clever. For most > of the time that bridge has existed, no one would have even contemplated > responding 2C to 1S on a strong 3-4-3-3 shape. But you, with your > acquired techniques that you now call "simple" in order to pass yourself > off as one able to talk about the game at the higher levels, think that > 2C might be the "natural" thing to bid. It is the "normal" thing to bid > among, as I have suggested, the better 0.001% of players in the world. > But "natural" it most assuredly is not. > > > Or have are we meant to obliterate our Bridge > > experience > > from memory ... and then remember it again? > > Whatever "have are we" means, of course we have are. 1NT over 1M on some > 1-1-7-4 is just about OK, because they do that in Timbuktu. 2C over 1M > on a 3-4-3-3 is not. But you persist in asking me to draw a line, when > what has not yet begun to be established is whether or not a line shall > be drawn. To that extent, your questions exhibit a degree of > pseudo-sophistication that conceals a fundamental ignorance. > > Regulation may exist, depending on the level (or some other commonality) > of the players, that determines what is or is not "common knowledge" - > that is, what is or is not disclosable (by virtue of being unexpected). > But what is or is not disclosable has nothing whatever to do with what > is or is not "natural". > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 29 09:13:16 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:13:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes References: Message-ID: <00a001c38666$f5964cc0$ee53e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes The ACBL Laws Commission wrote: >>#### No. 1 >>There was a >>consensus that the irregularity referred to in 12C2 >>may include the event that transmitted the >>unauthorized information. Marvin L. French replied: >I consider both of these interpretations to be >garbage, and wonder if any on BLML, especially >those on the WBFLC, agree with them. +=+ As written (and I am unsure that the draft has been agreed as yet) it says "may include" - not "includes". This does at least provide braking distance before the ACBL drives over the edge of the cliff. Of course there will be those who will believe it intends to be all inclusive, and for all I know that may indeed be what the Commission had in mind. But for the moment perhaps we should read the minute as it is presented rather than confuse ourselves with assumptions. My understanding is that Law 73D1 is included in the ACBL Law Book as it is in the official version of the laws promulgated by the WBF. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 29 09:44:10 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:44:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: Message-ID: <00a101c38666$f6681bb0$ee53e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) Nigel Guthrie: >The accolade of another David flame! > >Inter alia, I asked if a bid could be "natural" or >not depending on where or at what level it was made? > >The example he ridicules is xxxx xxx AKQ AKQ >-- I asked if it is "natural", according to David's >definition, to open 1C with such a hand. > >If David's definition fails to discriminate even in >my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. Richard James Hills: The Chapter 1 definition of convention states that ".....or length (three cards or more) there....." So, under current Law, opening 1C with a three-card club suit does not automatically make 1C a convention. Therefore, under the current constraints of Law 40D, an SO is not permitted to ban the use of five-card major systems which use three-card minor openings. However, an SO is equally not permitted to ban any five-card minor systems which use three-card majors. This has not prevented the ACBL from ruling that opening one-of-a-major with less than four cards is a convention. Therefore, the current Chapter 1 definition of "convention" is not only logically flawed, but it is also unsuited for current practical uses. This topic surfaced on blml last year, and the year before, with the same lack of resolution. Deja vu. In my opinion, David Burn is correct in thinking that a Law change is necessary in 2005. And I fully agree that changing from the 1997 bipolar classification (conventional or non-conventional) to a Burned 2005 tripolar classification (conventional or natural or non-conventional) will be an improvement. At the very least, it would make the ACBL ruling prohibiting three-card majors a legal ruling. But my personal preference, if I was El Supremo of the WBF, would be to rewrite the 2005 Law 40D to read: "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of partnership agreements." Again this is deja vu, having been proposed as a 2005 Laws change last year, and the year before. Best best wishes wishes Richard Richard James James Hills Hills +=+ It is a pleasure to see subscribers grappling with the problems of redrafting, defining and interpreting. And they have only the opinions of a few to accommodate or to distract them, not the disparate opinions of eight coequal Zonal Authorities and 118 NBOs, together with the vagrant comments of a number of individuals who have also been prompted to send us their thoughts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 29 09:50:54 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:50:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: Message-ID: <00a301c38666$f88c8250$ee53e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 3:16 AM Subject: [blml] (no subject) > My head hurts. I'm gonna quit posting for a while. :-) > +=+ Is this perhaps a 'Standard' Deviation? +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 29 09:57:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:57:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c38667$ad7e60c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steven Haver ......... > Per prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication itself is fairly- > common > procedure in Europe. I am interested in finding out a little more = about > procedures; especially when multiple team matches per session are > involved. >=20 > I am "presuming" that, due to security, all plays of a given pre- > duplicated > deal have to occur during the same match. ie, that once a match is > completed, all deals played during that match become freely-available > public > knowledge. >=20 > Given this, and assuming the use of some form of dealing machine, = exactly > what does the Director place upon each table, at start of second and > subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to hand out a = ready-to-play > board, this would tend to involve use of more physical boards. Thus, = it > "might make sense" to distribute only the cards, expect the players to > replace these in boards, and come back--a few minutes later--to = collect > the > just-replaced cards. >=20 > I play primarily ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested = in > exactly how process is handled. More or less related, is it customary = to > also print and distribute "curtain cards"? I can answer briefly for the practice in Norway: We are not very happy with three-way matches so our matches for teams of four regularly include sit-outs when there is an odd number of = participating teams. The result is that all matches are between two teams and = identical in setup. All simultaneously played matches are played with the same deals, and we provide a sufficient number of pre-duplicated boards to keep the = arrangement going smoothly.=20 After each match we usually publish printouts of the boards played = during that match, frequently including reports (tabulations) for each board of = all contracts played and the results obtained. Did this answer your questions? Regards Sven=20 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Sep 29 10:19:58 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:19:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3F77E0B9.8050205@hdw.be> <000601c38662$35817760$7ae17f50@Default> <3F77EF08.4090604@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002501c3866a$dca28680$7ae17f50@Default> Herman, What is WIoG ? And than one more detail: Herman: > Either NS have misbid or misinformed. On AC I tend to allow some variations of grey. Here it seems to be misbid although they cannot really proof it (but then nobody can ever really proof it) so I have no real problem to treat it legally as MI. But MI in this sense is just a legal trick to enable score adjustments against NS. It doesn't necessarily imply the opponents actually got wrong information let alone that they were damaged. So whatever the legal jiggling to 'attack' NS, this doesn't change the fact that EW have to come up with some realistic damage of whatever NS did to them. And NS didn't do a great deal to start with, if any. And where is the damage for EW ? I am open minded but east (if he is a decent player) will have a hard time selling me he was lacking any relevant info the moment he doubled 2S. Herman: > He simply > states that East might have worked it out. Well, so what? He didn't, > and I don't hear any suggestions that he should suffer from that. In a way I just say that. East is at the table and has a responsibility to protect himself. In the context of the bidding it is rather obvious what has happened. Anyway east (assuming a decent player), if he still had some doubts, could have asked north another question before doubling 2S. I am sure a question like 'why didn't you bid 2S earlier' would have given north the opportunity to say that he now took the view his partner had a twosuiter (it is rather extreme to expect North to say so unprovoked, North might well be right that the system is 1NT strong). The whole discussion whether the original explanation was according to system and how well NS knew their system and how well NS knew each other could be postponed and is IMHO hardly relevant at this stage. Jaap: > At this level doubling 2S can 'easily' be considered 'wild'. Maybe I shouldnot have said that. If this really was an MI case where east had no idea what was going on of course I would not consider doubling 'irrational'. The whole point is that IMO east took a bad decision in full knowledge of the situation. Is this what you call WIoG ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NABC appeal > Hallo Jaap, > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman: > > > >>The first sentence is relevant, the second one is not. There can be no > >>question of criticizing EW's actions (they are not WIoG) so the fact > >>that East can see that south cannot be strong is b**t. > > > > > > Why dear Herman. Silver Ribbon is a quite serious level of competition. As > > long as making mistakes remains legal, players are supposed to take this > > possibility into account. The fact that east knows from the very beginning > > what is going on IS RELEVANT INFO and not b**t. Besides any serious player > > knows this is a common mixup situation. > > > > Sorry Jaap, but it is not relevant. > Either NS have misbid or misinformed. The fact that East can see from > his own cards that the explanation will not be correct is only > important if we are going to rule that East has attempted a WIoG > action. Which nobody seems to be suggesting. > > > Herman: > > > >>Perfectly normal. NS ought to have been in committee to explain the > >>remark "I finally realized that". > > > > > > Why were NS not on AC. Probably the common pairs problem, EW needed some > > points and NS left early. If this is the case the TD/AC has IMHO an > > obligation to take up the NS defence to protect not NS (who obviously are > > out of contention) but the field. > > > > I agree with you completely on this one. > > > For me I don't need NS to explain to me 'I finally realized that'. East knew > > this in the first round of bidding and any remotely sane player at this > > level would realize this in the 2nd or 3rd round of bidding. Including west. > > > > Nothing in the auction suggest there is any kind of NS 'being naughty'. Also > > the CC is consistent with the NS story and both the TD and AC basically > > accepted it (apart from some legal jiggling). > > > > Basically they did, indeed. And then their opinion about there being > more than what was on the CC differed. I have no real opinion on this > decision, I was not there. > > > > > Herman: > > > >>Irrelevant. The AC decided that it was not a misbid. The laws DO > >>regulate that North ought to have told the table that he believes his > >>first explanation was wrong. The dissenter merely restates that he > >>does not agree with the AC decision. OK. He voted and was in a > >>minority. No need for a dissenting opinion, simply to see in words > >>what everyone knows.(if it's a misbid, North must not say anything). > > > > > > Well they did not really said misinformation. They said there was > > insufficient proof it was a misbid. > > And in what manner is that not the same thing ? > > > The main reason being NS were not there. > > But this is lazy and immoral if my assumption of the 'pairs appeal' is true. > > In that case NS are irrelevant and EW need to come with a good story why > > they should be given some points at the expense of the field. > > > > I agree that NS not being there badly damaged their case. > > > Other than in Europe a dissenting opinion is normal in the States. Who are > > you Herman to say that there is no need for a dissenting opinion. This is > > decided by the person stating this opinion. > > > > > > I have no problems with dissenting opinions. But they should add > something to the story. Basically, what the first dissenter writes > consists of: > -I don't agree with the decision that it was not a misbid; > -I'm telling you what the ruling must be if it is a misbid. > > Well, IMHO, the second part is unimportant - we all know what the > ruling is then, while the first is only interesting if the dissenter > tells us why he believes this. He gives us no reasons why he does not > agree. That makes his contribution mere paper wasting. > All we know additionally is that it was a majority decision, not a > unanimous one. > > >>Completely irrelevant. East has done nothing wild or irrational, so he > >>should get his result changed if the AC decides there was MI. > > > > > > Wild and irrational is subjective. For me it means something else than for > > you. At this level doubling 2S can 'easily' be considered 'wild'. > > > > OK, but then dissenter should say so. He does no such thing. He simply > states that East might have worked it out. Well, so what? He didn't, > and I don't hear any suggestions that he should suffer from that. > > > Anyway east had all information all the time. He knew south had a twosuiter > > and north's eventual 2S was bid on that assumption. He decided to double a > > partscore were the opponents were odds on to have two eightcards fit. Now if > > east is a very poor player I might protect him because the above needs a > > certain level of bridge logic. But a good east player can go to hell as far > > as I am concerned. Maybe NS are not perfect (who is) but nothing they could > > have said would have added anything to what east already knew. Or in other > > words, the fact that you know the opps have a mixup doesn't guarantee you a > > good score. > > > > Aha, now you _are_ stating that East ought not get the benefit of a > score adjustment, because he _did_ perpetrate a WIoG action. OK, you > are entitled to that opinion. I would not dare to disagree with you on > a matter of bridge judgment. > But I don't read the dissenters original as suggesting that line of > ruling. > > > Herman > > > >>How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force > >>South to pass? > > > > > > For once I agree with you on a matter of bridge judgement. This south hand > > will not pass 1NT* whatever what. > > > > I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks. > > > Jaap > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Sep 29 10:38:20 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:38:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <002501c3866a$dca28680$7ae17f50@Default> References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3F77E0B9.8050205@hdw.be> <000601c38662$35817760$7ae17f50@Default> <3F77EF08.4090604@hdw.be> <002501c3866a$dca28680$7ae17f50@Default> Message-ID: <3F77FD8C.4020002@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > What is WIoG ? Wild Irrational or Gambling. I now realize that WGoI is the more common order. > > And than one more detail: > > Herman: > >>Either NS have misbid or misinformed. > > > On AC I tend to allow some variations of grey. > As in "a little bit pregnant" ? misbidding is not disallowed, misinforming is. Can something be "slightly disallowed" ? > Here it seems to be misbid although they cannot really proof it (but then > nobody can ever really proof it) so I have no real problem to treat it > legally as MI. But MI in this sense is just a legal trick to enable score > adjustments against NS. It doesn't necessarily imply the opponents actually > got wrong information let alone that they were damaged. > ?????? > So whatever the legal jiggling to 'attack' NS, this doesn't change the fact > that EW have to come up with some realistic damage of whatever NS did to > them. And NS didn't do a great deal to start with, if any. And where is the > damage for EW ? I am open minded but east (if he is a decent player) will > have a hard time selling me he was lacking any relevant info the moment he > doubled 2S. > So you are ruling MI, no damage. OK, possible as well. > > Herman: > >>He simply >>states that East might have worked it out. Well, so what? He didn't, >>and I don't hear any suggestions that he should suffer from that. > > > In a way I just say that. East is at the table and has a responsibility to > protect himself. In the context of the bidding it is rather obvious what has > happened. Anyway east (assuming a decent player), if he still had some > doubts, could have asked north another question before doubling 2S. I am > sure a question like 'why didn't you bid 2S earlier' would have given north > the opportunity to say that he now took the view his partner had a twosuiter > (it is rather extreme to expect North to say so unprovoked, North might well > be right that the system is 1NT strong). The whole discussion whether the > original explanation was according to system and how well NS knew their > system and how well NS knew each other could be postponed and is IMHO hardly > relevant at this stage. > > Jaap: > >>At this level doubling 2S can 'easily' be considered 'wild'. > > > Maybe I shouldnot have said that. If this really was an MI case where east > had no idea what was going on of course I would not consider doubling > 'irrational'. The whole point is that IMO east took a bad decision in full > knowledge of the situation. Is this what you call WIoG ? > No, it would be what we'd call "no damage". WGoI actions would tend to lead to split scores. > Jaap > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Sep 29 10:54:40 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:54:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <00a101c38666$f6681bb0$ee53e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003101c3866f$b4e1e1e0$7ae17f50@Default> > +=+ It is a pleasure to see subscribers grappling > with the problems of redrafting, defining and > interpreting. And they have only the opinions > of a few to accommodate or to distract them, not > the disparate opinions of eight coequal Zonal > Authorities and 118 NBOs, together with the > vagrant comments of a number of individuals > who have also been prompted to send us their > thoughts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Well don't overstate the issue. Not all 8 zones will provide equal input let alone all 118 NBO's. And you skip the ACBL problem. There are 7 zones, 117 NBO's, and the ACBL. But the real problem remain the definitions. Those are the fundament and without good definitions all the rest is a wasted effort. I know the current WBFLC is not responsible for the current mess which has evoluted over the years. Still I am not very happy with the current effort. Who will lead the necessary clean up act. I know it is hard work. And it needs serious political backing. But Grattan and Ton don't strike me as persons willing or capable to so so. Now don't take this personal. It was a political decision to give two Europeans without much of a bridge reputation (and for Ton no legal background whatsoever, for Grattan I don't know) the top positions at the WBFLC. This of course is a very good way (to continue) to ensure that the ACBL(LC) would not take the WBFLC too serious anymore. The weaker the WBF the stronger the NCBO's (for the ACBL Zone and NCBO is more or less the same). Now for the real question. Who is responsible for this political joke. Because bridge is just like real world politics. Without the Americans and the French you get nowhere in real terms. Like the Americans the French decide all relevant things for themselves. On blml it doesn't show because of the language issue we get way more info about the ACBL than the FFB. So if we want the WBFLC to really do something you need explicit ACBL and FFB commitment. The third big NCBO (the Dutch) tends to be way easier to handle. But I shouldnot forget the EBU. Culturally it has more influence than its numbers justify if only because of language. And just like real life, the British have more chance to get the Americans into line than any other nationality. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " All things are artificial, for nature is the art > of God." ~ Sir Thomas Browne. > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:23 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >The accolade of another David flame! > > > >Inter alia, I asked if a bid could be "natural" or > >not depending on where or at what level it was made? > > > >The example he ridicules is xxxx xxx AKQ AKQ > >-- I asked if it is "natural", according to David's > >definition, to open 1C with such a hand. > > > >If David's definition fails to discriminate even in > >my 10 simple cases, its efficacy may be limited. > > Richard James Hills: > > The Chapter 1 definition of convention states that > > ".....or length (three cards or more) there....." > > So, under current Law, opening 1C with a three-card > club suit does not automatically make 1C a convention. > Therefore, under the current constraints of Law 40D, > an SO is not permitted to ban the use of five-card > major systems which use three-card minor openings. > > However, an SO is equally not permitted to ban any > five-card minor systems which use three-card majors. > This has not prevented the ACBL from ruling that > opening one-of-a-major with less than four cards is a > convention. > > Therefore, the current Chapter 1 definition of > "convention" is not only logically flawed, but it is > also unsuited for current practical uses. This topic > surfaced on blml last year, and the year before, with > the same lack of resolution. Deja vu. > > In my opinion, David Burn is correct in thinking that > a Law change is necessary in 2005. > > And I fully agree that changing from the 1997 bipolar > classification (conventional or non-conventional) to > a Burned 2005 tripolar classification (conventional or > natural or non-conventional) will be an improvement. > At the very least, it would make the ACBL ruling > prohibiting three-card majors a legal ruling. > > But my personal preference, if I was El Supremo of the > WBF, would be to rewrite the 2005 Law 40D to read: > > "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of > partnership agreements." > > Again this is deja vu, having been proposed as a 2005 > Laws change last year, and the year before. > > Best best wishes wishes > > Richard Richard James James Hills Hills > > +=+ It is a pleasure to see subscribers grappling > with the problems of redrafting, defining and > interpreting. And they have only the opinions > of a few to accommodate or to distract them, not > the disparate opinions of eight coequal Zonal > Authorities and 118 NBOs, together with the > vagrant comments of a number of individuals > who have also been prompted to send us their > thoughts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Sep 29 11:17:06 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:17:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3F77E0B9.8050205@hdw.be> <000601c38662$35817760$7ae17f50@Default> <3F77EF08.4090604@hdw.be> <002501c3866a$dca28680$7ae17f50@Default> <3F77FD8C.4020002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003801c38672$d75d1020$7ae17f50@Default> Herman. > As in "a little bit pregnant" ? Being pregnant or not, is something docters can answer with yes or no 99.99% of the time. Since MI and misbid lead to different laws you have to make up your mind which laws you use so in that sense it is a yes or no question. But for legal reasons we can rule MI when we are 90% sure it is actually a misbid. This is what I call some variations of gray. Because in this situation I will keep in mind that although I use the MI set of laws, the MI was not that serious. What I see in this case and what happens often is that after coming up with some dubious argument to declare MI (and there is always an argument if you want) there is next a maximum 'penalty' or maximum 'adjustment'. Now this is typically American. Easy to understand in their legal system. But it as alien to European law rulings as it is normal to American law. This is what people call jiggling of laws I guess. If you want to hang the guy there is always a way to do it. Herman: > misbidding is not disallowed, misinforming is. Can something be > "slightly disallowed" ? No. But in any legal system it makes a difference if you overspeed by 10 km or 100 km and so on. And it is quite possible (at least in most European countries) that a judge finds someone formally guilty of a (serious) crime to give hardly a or even no penalty at all (even in those European countries that actually do have minimum sentences, in real life they don't matter). At bridge this is even quite common. The laws are such that we all make 'infractions' all the time but most go unnoticed or unchallenged or there is simply no (real) damage. Jaap From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Sep 29 12:49:23 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:49:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <020e01c38642$ac393660$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000701c3864a$05d8c4e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <001501c38664$3af6a4c0$7ae17f50@Default> Message-ID: <000f01c3867f$bb2f1760$399468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] I admire that you came up with some constructive thoughts. So far they are far from Nigel-proof, which is actually quite a good test. [Nigel] Thank you Jaap: When designing a taxonomy, you should first produce a set of simple test cases, on which to hone your definitions. I suggested such a set, although maybe I should have included more interesting cases that involve doubles, redoubles, and passes. [Jaap] Definitions should be clear. If you want to divide the set of bridge-calls in say conventional and non-conventional calls you need a mathematical type of definition so that every monkey can decide for any given call. [Nigel] We all have an intuitive idea of the difference between "natural", "conventional", and "artificial" Roughly... "Natural" denotes length in the bid suit or a wish to play or defend the indicated contract. "Artificial" means unnatural. "Conventional" means according to an agreement that is not implicit in the natural meaning. Hence "Conventional" overlaps "Natural" and includes "Artificial". For example... (1) a "Natural" 2H opener that promises hearts and another suit or is forcing to game. (2) an "Artificial" 5NT bid, meaning pick a slam. As ever, the devil is in the detail. And I am afraid it may be difficult to achieve concensus as to whether some kinds of call are natural or not. For instance.. Segal and Robson defended "fit jumps" as natural. Squire says a 1S is natural on xxxx AKQJT Ax xx. Some Americans may even imagine that it is natural to open 1C on AJxx Axxx Ax Jxx/ [Nigel] I wish David luck with his attempts at definitions that allow us all to agree whether any given bid is "natural"; because I think it is the same as defining a base for a "universal standard system" However I think it would be even more useful to define a complete standard system that we might be happy to play, at a pinch; and that this would simplify and clarify the laws even more. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Sep 29 13:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <009701c38636$9b766750$c5ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > And opening 1H shows a meaning other than willingness to play in hearts > - > I do not have longer spades or diamonds or clubs. Playing a call to show length in a bid suit does not, of itself, make it conventional. It is not therefore conventional to agree to open one's longest (or equal longest suit). "I do not have longer spades or diamonds or clubs." is not a meaning *other than* "Hearts is my longest or equal longest suit" - it is merely different way of conveying the same information. Not that I would wish to make such an agreement -,AKQJT,Jxxxxx,Kx is a 1H opener IMO. "I have a solid a 7+ card minor and 3 unstoppered suits, partner is expected to bid 4c without 3 stoppers (4d if interested in slam)" is, I would have thought fairly obviously, a meaning other than "length..High card.., etc, etc". I agree with Wayne that "3N to play, I expect to make because I have some stoppers and a source of tricks" is not conventional. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Sep 29 13:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001601c38664$4ff34360$7ae17f50@Default> Message-ID: Alerting is a red herring when it comes to distinguishing between "natural" and "conventional" calls. An SO may determine alerting policy independently of such definitions (as could the WBF were an universal alert policy considered desirable). However it is fundamental to L40 and L27. Much of the problem stems from the current definition trying to squeeze too many situations into too few words. Nat Pass: Denies values/non-forcing/content with contract Con Pass: Other than above. Nat Double: Primary aim is to increase penalties of contract going down Con Double: Primary aim other than above. No doubt there are other situations and borderline ambiguities to be addressed. Bids are slightly more complex, but: Nat NT: A suggestion to play in NT at the bid level that might also show - Stoppers in one or more known suits - A particular point range - A balanced or semi-balanced hand Con NT: A NT which is forcing and/or -specifically denies stoppers in one or more suits -promises extreme length (6+ in a suit) -promises length in two or more suits -suggest that NT is unlikely to be a suitable place to play OK, maybe there are a couple of other things. And yes I know this makes the 5N in the sequences 1N-5N/2N-5N conventional - I can live with that. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Sep 29 13:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <006301c38622$b9beb8c0$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel asked about the following: Working on what I think the law should say (which includes showing length/values in "natural" meanings and showing specific information about other suits in "conventional" meanings). Thus natural: > (i) Prepared minor e.g 1C on xxxx xxx AKQ AKQ (1C on AKxx,AKxx,xx,xxx =conventional) > (ii) 2C reply to 1S with say xxx AKxx xxx AJx (Of course a 2C reply on xxx,AKxx,AJx,xxx would be conventional) > (iii) Long suit trial bid. > (vii) Cue bid of ace or king. > (v) Bid to show stopper for notrump. > (viii) Lead directional bid. (despite occasionally being made on a void) Conventional: > (iv) Fit jump. > (vi) Fourth suit forcing. > (ix) Short suit trial bid. > (x) Cue bid of singleton or void. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 29 13:56:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:56:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <006f01c3861f$bb255500$24bd8051@pbncomputer> References: <022401c3861a$39ef94a0$cbe436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030929084302.025b05e0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:22 PM 9/28/03, David wrote: >The difficulty is that the present laws do not distinguish sufficiently >well between areas in which words are to be interpreted according to >their wider, "everyday", meanings, and areas in which words are to be >interpreted in a highly restrictive context. This is not an insuperable >difficulty, but it requires a great deal of thought and no little >diligence. But they do. We may not like the particular distinctions chosen by the lawmakers, but they are there. The very fact that our laws begin with a section of "Definitions" tells us that the words listed there are to be interpreted to mean something other than their "everyday" meanings -- that section supplies us with those meanings -- and, therefore, implicitly, any words not listed there are to be interpreted as meaning whatever the dictionary says they mean. It may indeed require a great deal of thought and no little diligence to make those distinctions more sensible and useful than they now are, but we do have them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 29 14:21:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:21:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030929091810.00a2d130@pop.starpower.net> At 10:08 PM 9/28/03, richard.hills wrote: >Sure the current definitions are not adequate. I >like Grattan's suggestion to cut the Gordian knot >- abolish all references to "convention" in the >2005 Laws, replacing them with references to >"partnership agreements". > >The Grattan solution has two disadvantages from >some points of view. Firstly, those blmlers who >do not trust their SOs will be horrified at the >new power SOs will be given to regulate *all* bids >(rather than merely Law 40D "conventional" bids). That's easy enough to solve; just eliminate L40D! Give SOs unlimited power to regulate the disclosure of partnership agreements, but rescind the power to regulate their use. Then we can play some "real" bridge! I do understand that the political situation in the world of bridge makes this suggestion totally impractical for 2005, but maybe by 2015... Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Sep 29 14:44:46 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:44:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10D7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Herman > How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force > South to pass? For once I agree with you on a matter of bridge judgement. This south = hand will not pass 1NT* whatever what. Jaap [Frances] Really? You bid a sandwich 1NT in this auction meaning it as showing = spades & diamonds & a weak hand. Your partner alerts it, explains it as = spades and diamonds and a weak hand, and passes (rather to your = suprise). RHO doubles. You are saying nobody would ever, ever by any = stretch of the imagination pass on the South hand? If I bid over the = double here, any partner of mine would accuse me of masterminding, and I = would certainly deserve my bad score. The only reason I can see for South's removal is the UI. I would rule = 1NTx stands. If South had given his partner a chance, it's possible = that North might have had a re-think about their system and pulled it = himself, which he's perfectly entitled to do. Screens do make life so much easier. =20 From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Mon Sep 29 15:17:23 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:17:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS's message of Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:44:46 +0100 Message-ID: > Herman > > How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination do we force > > South to pass? > > For once I agree with you on a matter of bridge judgement. This south = > hand > will not pass 1NT* whatever what. > > Jaap > > [Frances] > Really? You bid a sandwich 1NT in this auction meaning it as showing = > spades & diamonds & a weak hand. Your partner alerts it, explains it as = > spades and diamonds and a weak hand, and passes (rather to your = > suprise). RHO doubles. You are saying nobody would ever, ever by any = > stretch of the imagination pass on the South hand? If I bid over the = > double here, any partner of mine would accuse me of masterminding, and I = > would certainly deserve my bad score. > > The only reason I can see for South's removal is the UI. I would rule = > 1NTx stands. If South had given his partner a chance, it's possible = > that North might have had a re-think about their system and pulled it = > himself, which he's perfectly entitled to do. > > Screens do make life so much easier. =20 Frances makes a valid point. A further question that the AC might have asked NS, had they been present, is what the difference would be between a rescue to 2D and a redouble. I'd play 2D as showing longer diamonds and redouble with any other shape, including the 5-5 actually held. And it hardly needs pointed out that 2D is suggested over XX by the UI (though a good North should of course realize that XX can hardly be to play, we've all seen accidents happen). --- Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top posting deprecated? From john@asimere.com Mon Sep 29 17:06:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:06:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Steven Haver: > >[snip] > >>Given this, and assuming the use of some form of >>dealing machine, exactly what does the Director >>place upon each table, at start of second and >>subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to >>hand out a ready-to-play board, this would tend to >>involve use of more physical boards. > >[snip] > >Typical Canberra Sunday Swiss: > >Match 1 - preduplicated boards 1-8 distributed >Match 2 - preduplicated boards 9-16 distributed >Match 3 - preduplicated boards 17-24 distributed > >lunch break & hand records lunch break? LUNCH BREAK? _LUNCH BREAK?_ > ~ arrives at venue for the start of match 4. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Sep 29 17:12:37 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: <000001c38667$ad7e60c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c38667$ad7e60c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c38667$ad7e60c0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Steven Haver >......... >> Per prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication itself is fairly- >> common >> procedure in Europe. I am interested in finding out a little more about >> procedures; especially when multiple team matches per session are >> involved. >> >> I am "presuming" that, due to security, all plays of a given pre- >> duplicated >> deal have to occur during the same match. ie, that once a match is >> completed, all deals played during that match become freely-available >> public >> knowledge. >> >> Given this, and assuming the use of some form of dealing machine, exactly >> what does the Director place upon each table, at start of second and >> subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to hand out a ready-to-play >> board, this would tend to involve use of more physical boards. Thus, it >> "might make sense" to distribute only the cards, expect the players to >> replace these in boards, and come back--a few minutes later--to collect >> the >> just-replaced cards. >> >> I play primarily ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested in >> exactly how process is handled. More or less related, is it customary to >> also print and distribute "curtain cards"? > >I can answer briefly for the practice in Norway: > >We are not very happy with three-way matches so our matches for teams of >four regularly include sit-outs when there is an odd number of participating >teams. The result is that all matches are between two teams and identical in >setup. > >All simultaneously played matches are played with the same deals, and we >provide a sufficient number of pre-duplicated boards to keep the arrangement >going smoothly. > >After each match we usually publish printouts of the boards played during >that match, frequently including reports (tabulations) for each board of all >contracts played and the results obtained. This raises another, and slightly unrelated question ... Do your scorers enter table score cards? Does this mean you assign one round in arrears, or wait for the score entry before assignment? Has anyone suggested an ultra-fast keyboard routine for score card entry - I've designed one that runs on the numeric keypad only, but includes the contract, result, declarer and optionally opening lead. It takes a couple of hours to learn to use it but contains typically 3-4 keystrokes and a . > >Did this answer your questions? > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Sep 29 18:58:56 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:58:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <009201c38635$d64d3a80$c5ce36d2@Desktop> <00f201c3863b$892c9a60$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <020e01c38642$ac393660$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000701c3864a$05d8c4e0$24bd8051@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004201c386b3$62c5bd20$ab9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn -- second paragraph] [First paragraph of personal invective - SNIPPED] Whatever "have are we" means, of course we have are. 1NT over 1M on some 1-1-7-4 is just about OK, because they do that in Timbuktu. 2C over 1M on a 3-4-3-3 is not. But you persist in asking me to draw a line, when what has not yet begun to be established is whether or not a line shall be drawn. To that extent, your questions exhibit a degree of pseudo- sophistication that conceals a fundamental ignorance. [Nigel] Sorry for typo (even David isn't exempt from these). I asked if a baker's dozen of simple example bids are natural or not, according to David's definition. I hoped that players could achieve some agreement about the classification of bids, by applying his criteria. [David] Regulation may exist, depending on the level (or some other commonality) of the players, that determines what is or is not "common knowledge" - that is, what is or is not disclosable (by virtue of being unexpected). But what is or is not disclosable has nothing whatever to do with what is or is not "natural". [Nigel] Sorry again. I wrongly assumed that a motive for David's attempt to define "natural" was an intent to simplify disclosure laws. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Sep 29 18:39:09 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:39:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes References: <001f01c3864b$3ca7b980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a301c386b6$019a86e0$6cf7f0c3@LNV> > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > Second point. A hesitation is an irregularity contrary > > to Law 73A1. But read L73D1 as well, which makes it a very light form of an irregularity. Like a trafic light can be considered part of an irregularity when somebody ignores the red sign it gives. I have said this before so the ACBL can't be surprised when I say it again. In the ACBL LA's do exist more often than in many other bridge communitities, meaning that there are more 'hesitational offenders' than in other jurisdictions. No big problem for the offenders but an easy way to get very good scores as a non-offender (L12C2). That problem is solved by including the hesitation to the infraction, giving the non-offenders the 'normal' score on the board. More concrete: north hesitates before doubling 4hearts, south bids 4 spades and the AC decides pass to be a LA. NS back to 4hearts doubled made. But 4spades is the normal call, so EW get a score based on NS bidding 4spades. What I don't understand is that the ACBL probably knows that its interpretation is questionable but refuses to adopt L12C3 which aims in the same direction: trying to give an equity based adjusted score. ton A subsequent illegal call is an > > irregularity contrary to Law 16A. Therefore, when Law > > 12C2 is used to adjust the score after UI, *two* > > infractions have occurred - but Law 12C2 refers only to > > "the" infraction. > > This is a new one on me, that if I think a long time before acting, I am > committing an infraction. Someone else please say this isn't so. > > Asking a question is also UI, so it's an infraction? > No. 73C and 73F1 are the applicable laws when ruling on the existence of an > infraction, not 73A1. Acting on UI from a hesitation is the infraction, not > the hesitation itself (assuming no criminal intent). > > Marv From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 20:17:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:17:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000f01c3867f$bb2f1760$399468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <88FF9730-F2B1-11D7-ABA9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 07:49 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > However I think it would be even more useful to > define a complete standard system that we might > be happy to play, at a pinch; and that this would > simplify and clarify the laws even more. You keep saying this. I suppose if you hammer at it long enough, folks will roll over. But I keep thinking about the folks with whom I play, most of whom are novices (even if they've been playing for years) and most of whom have a hard time remembering the system they're supposed to be playing, much less some different system. As for alerts, they alert what people tell them to alert - they have no clue what the alert regs actually say. I daresay most, if not all, high level players have good memories. For them, what you suggest is probably not much of a burden. But for the folks I know, it would be way too much. Even if your idea worked at high levels, what would happen at the bottom of the heap? Simple - everyone would play your "standard system", because it's too hard to learn any more than that. Maybe that's a good thing, but I doubt it. I think it would stifle advanced in bidding theory. And I think that would be bad, if not fatal, for the game. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 29 20:25:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:25:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 12:06 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ~ arrives at venue for the start of match 4. Heh. At a recent sectional Swiss Teams, we won our first match by forfeit because one of the opposing team thought the session started at 1 PM, instead of the actual 11 AM. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 29 10:38:07 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:38:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <002401c3864e$02598c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c386c2$1008dea0$ae7387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > I think not. ACBL Convention Charts do not include this > item. Here is the applicable regulation from the ACBL > website: > > CANAPE SYSTEMS > > The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a > four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to > start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. > > This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card > suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention > (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such > niceties. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ "You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". (EBU Orange Book 12.2.1) Jointly illustrating the eternal truth that what the Gods will control they will control. I wonder if 'thereafter' means for the rest 'of the hand', 'of the session', 'of the event' or 'of your life'? ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 21:40:51 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:40:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <02cf01c386c9$fecb9850$1de536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2003 12:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > Wayne wrote: > > > And opening 1H shows a meaning other than willingness to > play in hearts > > - > > I do not have longer spades or diamonds or clubs. > > Playing a call to show length in a bid suit does not, of > itself, make it > conventional. I agree. > It is not therefore conventional to agree to open one's > longest (or equal longest suit). "I do not have longer spades > or diamonds > or clubs." is not a meaning *other than* "Hearts is my > longest or equal > longest suit" - it is merely different way of conveying the same > information. Showing length and showing the a suit is your longest (or likely to be your longest) are different things. I have length in hearts is by definition a non conventional meaning. I have length in hearts and hearts is my longest (or strongest) suit contains an additional meaning IMO. Actually I am playing the devil's advocate. I am willing to play in NT is a non-conventional meaning. I am told that 'and I have a long running minor' is an additional meaning. I think that that is an equivalent addition meaning to 'and I have some stoppers in every suit' or 'and 15-17 points in a Balanced or nearly balanced hand'. I also think that it is an equivalent additional meaning to 'and this is my longest suit'. Of course, I mean equivalent in that the same logic applies to what are obviously different meanings. Therefore I conclude that if your bid shows: 1. Willingness to play the denomination named 2. Length in the denomination named or 3. Strength in the denomination named then it is non-conventional. The alternative is to label every call as conventional. Wayne Burrows Wayne > Not that I would wish to make such an agreement > -,AKQJT,Jxxxxx,Kx is a 1H opener IMO. > > "I have a solid a 7+ card minor and 3 unstoppered suits, partner is > expected to bid 4c without 3 stoppers (4d if interested in > slam)" is, I > would have thought fairly obviously, a meaning other than > "length..High > card.., etc, etc". I agree with Wayne that "3N to play, I > expect to make > because I have some stoppers and a source of tricks" is not > conventional. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 21:47:14 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:47:14 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <000401c386c2$1008dea0$ae7387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Monday, 29 September 2003 9:38 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > "Would there be this eternal seeking if > the found existed?" > ~ Antonio Porchia. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > > > > I think not. ACBL Convention Charts do not include this > > item. Here is the applicable regulation from the ACBL > > website: > > > > CANAPE SYSTEMS > > > > The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a > > four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to > > start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. > > > > This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card > > suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention > > (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such > > niceties. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > +=+ "You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but > only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". > (EBU Orange Book 12.2.1) > Jointly illustrating the eternal truth that what the Gods will > control they will control. I wonder if 'thereafter' means for > the rest 'of the hand', 'of the session', 'of the event' or 'of > your life'? > ~ G ~ +=+ IMO this type of regulation only exists because the WBF is unwilling to stand up to NOs. The interpretation that the WBF have given on the powers of NO or SO to regulate the use of conventions do not come from a plain reading to the laws. This is ridiculous as has been shown by many examples posted of regulations that would be legal given the WBF interpretation. Wayne > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Sep 29 21:50:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:50:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10D7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <02e101c386cb$684c2690$1de536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2003 1:45 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] NABC appeal > > > > > Herman > > How do we get to 1NTX ? By what stretch of the imagination > do we force > > South to pass? > > For once I agree with you on a matter of bridge judgement. > This south hand > will not pass 1NT* whatever what. > > Jaap > > [Frances] > Really? You bid a sandwich 1NT in this auction meaning it as > showing spades & diamonds & a weak hand. Your partner alerts > it, explains it as spades and diamonds and a weak hand, and > passes (rather to your suprise). RHO doubles. You are > saying nobody would ever, ever by any stretch of the > imagination pass on the South hand? If I bid over the double > here, any partner of mine would accuse me of masterminding, > and I would certainly deserve my bad score. This reminds me of a hand where my partner made what one friend has described as the worst bid in the history of the game. He opened 3NT (Gambling) and was doubled. He ran! What were my stoppers? Could I have worked out whether or not there was a play for 3NT? I held nothing useful except Three side Aces in a balanced hand. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 29 22:32:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:32:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c386d1$39cfc370$6900a8c0@WINXP> John Probst ........... > >All simultaneously played matches are played with the same deals, and = we > >provide a sufficient number of pre-duplicated boards to keep the > arrangement > >going smoothly. > > > >After each match we usually publish printouts of the boards played = during > >that match, frequently including reports (tabulations) for each board = of > all > >contracts played and the results obtained. >=20 > This raises another, and slightly unrelated question ... >=20 > Do your scorers enter table score cards? Does this mean you assign one > round in arrears, or wait for the score entry before assignment? My answer below is mainly applicable to pairs events but with the = necessary amendments is also used for teams events. If I understand your question the answer is that there is a score slip = for each table in each round. On each such score slip the board number, the round number the teams or players to be seated at that table and boards = to be played is usually filled in and the players at the table (usually = North) fills in the contract and declarer at the end of each auction and the = number of tricks won and the score at the end of the play. Immediately after = the last board in each round has been completed the slip is handed over to = the secretariat. Each slip is entered into the computer by an operator who first enters = the table and receives a window showing the players at that table and the = boards that shall have been played in that round. He then types in the contract, declarer and number of tricks won. The computer displays the resulting score which the operator compares to the score filled in on the slip for the purpose of detecting errors.=20 =20 > Has anyone suggested an ultra-fast keyboard routine for score card = entry > - I've designed one that runs on the numeric keypad only, but includes > the contract, result, declarer and optionally opening lead. It takes a > couple of hours to learn to use it but contains typically 3-4 = keystrokes > and a . The typical programs we use in Norway use the following facility for = fast typing: (You can also use letters etc. for Denomination and declarer and plus or minus sign when entering the number of tricks) One digit: 0 for pass or 1 thru 7 for contract level. One digit for denomination: 1 for clubs through 5 for No Trump One digit for double (7) or Redouble (9) One digit for declarer: 2=3DSouth, 4=3DWest, 6=3DEast and 8=3DNorth One or two digits for the number of tricks. Look at a numeric keypad and you will grasp the idea with about 15 = minutes of training. Trained operators typically use less than one second for each board to = be entered into the scoring program. That means a round for 20 tables with three boards per round can be entered into the program in about one = minute. We never in Norway to my knowledge register the opening lead. Regards Sven From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Sep 29 22:54:06 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:54:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <000401c386c2$1008dea0$ae7387d9@4nrw70j> References: <002401c3864e$02598c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c386c2$1008dea0$ae7387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: >Grattan Endicott[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] >=============================== >"Would there be this eternal seeking if > the found existed?" > ~ Antonio Porchia. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marvin French" >To: >Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:53 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > >> >> I think not. ACBL Convention Charts do not include this >> item. Here is the applicable regulation from the ACBL >> website: >> >> CANAPE SYSTEMS >> >> The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a >> four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to >> start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. >> >> This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card >> suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention >> (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such >> niceties. >> >> Marv >> Marvin L. French >> San Diego, California >> >+=+ "You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but >only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". > (EBU Orange Book 12.2.1) >Jointly illustrating the eternal truth that what the Gods will >control they will control. I wonder if 'thereafter' means for >the rest 'of the hand', 'of the session', 'of the event' or 'of >your life'? > ~ G ~ +=+ > In this respect, the ACBL seems similar to Wotan in The Ring, not quite able to get its way in the long run, in spite of all its maneuvers. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Sep 29 23:07:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] NABC appeal In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10D7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Frances wrote: > Really? You bid a sandwich 1NT in this auction meaning it as showing > spades & diamonds & a weak hand. Your partner alerts it, explains it > as spades and diamonds and a weak hand, and passes (rather to your > suprise). RHO doubles. You are saying nobody would ever, ever by any > stretch of the imagination pass on the South hand? Surely it depends on the range of the 1N call? If the actual hand is (as I would consider it) an absolute dog-minimum worth only a single trick in NT then pulling is stand-out. OTOH hand if it is an average hand in terms of partner's expectations then standing the double may have some merit (still not much merit since partner's 1N denies a fit and this hand will play at least 2 tricks better in D than in NT). More importantly however the threshold is not "had partner alerted and explained.." (that too is UI), but "playing behind screens..". Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Sep 29 23:07:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <02cf01c386c9$fecb9850$1de536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > Showing length and showing the a suit is your longest (or likely to > be your longest) are different things. > > I have length in hearts is by definition a non conventional meaning. > > I have length in hearts and hearts is my longest (or strongest) suit > contains an additional meaning IMO. It contains "additional meaning" in the sense of being more specific. However "longest" is a subset of showing length. It is not a meaning "other than" showing length. > Actually I am playing the devil's advocate. Misplaying I'd have said. > I am willing to play in NT is a non-conventional meaning. > > I am told that 'and I have a long running minor' is an additional > meaning. Not precisely. You are told it is a meaning "other than". Even if you consider this distinction borderline (ie a source of tricks is a subset of wanting to be in 3N) the secondary condition of a gambling 3N (I have 3 suits without stoppers) is clearly *not* a subset of willingness to play in 3N. > I think that that is an equivalent addition meaning to 'and I have some > stoppers in every suit' or 'and 15-17 points in a Balanced or nearly > balanced hand'. "Stoppers in every suit" is a subset of "values in every suit", balanced is a subset of "length in every suit". Obviously one cannot have values/length in NT so a reasonable interpretation of the definition is that the "values/length" referred to may have a certain minimum requirements in each suit. > The alternative is to label every call as conventional. We know that non-conventional calls exist (or conventional would need no definition). We know (or we should) that it makes no sense to the bridge-playing public that restricting a NT bid to balanced hands/stoppers makes the bid conventional. Until the law changes it would seem sensible to find an interpretation of law that fits these two items. Of course the definition is imperfect - even DALB/DWS agree on that. But the definition is not unworkable. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Sep 29 23:21:58 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:21:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <012001c385f4$298dd020$cbe436d2@Desktop> <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <006301c38622$b9beb8c0$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001b01c386d8$2cb7b240$2d9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] This test-data for the definition of "Natural" comprises: Forcing pass, Gambling 3N, Suit opener on balanced Yarborough, Prepared minor, 2C reply on three cards, Fit jump, Long suit trial bid, Short suit trial bid, High card cue bid, Shortage cue bid, Stopper bid, 4th suit forcing, and Lead directional double. A. Which bids do you judge as natural? TWM NG Hand Action Nat Nat AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer Nat Art 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N Nat Nat 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C Nat Art A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C Nat Art 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C Art Nat AK97 64 Q8 KQJ96 (1H)1S(P)3C Nat Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Art Art AKJ63 AKJ5 J94 3 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Nat Art AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Art Art AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Nat Art QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S Art Art 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H Nat Art 9765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X B. Which bids are natural (according to David Burn's criteria, below)? NG Hand Action Nat AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer Art 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N Nat 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C Nat A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C Nat 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C Nat AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3D Nat AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Art AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Art QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S Art 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H Art 9765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X I have tried to include Tim West-Mead's answers in the above tables. If I've got them wrong, Tim, please accept my apologies and correct them. If anybody can understand the format, they may add their own answers. [David Burn] My view is that a call is "natural" if: [1] it shows 4+ cards in the suit bid; or [2] (explicitly) expresses the view that the denomination named is (on the information so far) most likely to be the denomination of the partnership's best contract; or [3] while doing neither of these things, has a nature so well defined by custom and practice that its use will almost never be unexpected. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 29 23:52:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:52:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000901c386dc$6731cd30$082ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:47 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a > > > four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to > > > start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. > > > > > > This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card > > > suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention > > > (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such > > > niceties. > > > > > > Marv > > > Marvin L. French > > > San Diego, California > > > > > +=+ "You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but > > only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". > > (EBU Orange Book 12.2.1) > > Jointly illustrating the eternal truth that what the Gods will > > control they will control. I wonder if 'thereafter' means for > > the rest 'of the hand', 'of the session', 'of the event' or 'of > > your life'? > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > IMO this type of regulation only exists because the WBF is > unwilling to stand up to NOs. > > The interpretation that the WBF have given on the powers of > NO or SO to regulate the use of conventions do not come > from a plain reading to the laws. > +=+ Well, Kaplan thought it did; so did (and do) I. And the full combined strength of the WBF Executive and the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee confirmed that it did.+=+ > > This is ridiculous as has been shown by many examples > posted of regulations that would be legal given the WBF > interpretation. > > Wayne > > +=+ Is it your contention that what is ridiculous (in your judgement) cannot be lawful? I am unaware of any provision in the laws that voids a regulation on grounds of derision. In my belief it is for the regulating body to determine what is sensible in its exercise of the powers given to it. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 30 00:05:09 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:05:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] NABC appeal References: <000701c385f2$5a3c7fc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004701c386de$2261c3c0$2d9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Marvin French] Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session Bd: 28 Dlr: West Vul N/S Q 9 4 5 4 3 A 4 9 8 7 3 2 10 8 A K 5 K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 K 8 7 Q 6 5 K Q 10 6 4 A J J 7 6 3 2 A J J 10 9 3 2 5 West North East South 1C P 1H 1NT P(1) P Dbl 2D 2H 2S Dbl End (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement according to their Convention Card) The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the club ace. The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these comments were made after the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they were made after dummy came down.) The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled that the table result would stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W were concerned that an agreement appeared to exist because of North's free 2S bid and his later statement that he figured his partner had spades. They believed that North's successful fielding of his partner's 2D bid indicated that some implicit agreement existed. If there was, then they believed that North owed them an explanation before he bid rather than after the hand. The Committee Decision: Normally in cases of misinformation versus misbid, the alleged offenders bear a heavy burden to show that a call was a misbid.In this case the Director determined that sandwich notrumps were not on N/S's CC and concluded that there had been a misbid. The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free 2S bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince the Committee otherwise but were they were not present at the hearing. Therefore, the Committee found that there had been misinformation. If E/W had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, they would have been very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee changed the contract to 4H by East making five, for both pairs. The Committee briefly considered whether South's pull of 1NT doubled to 2D was aided by unauthorized information from North's failure to Alert 1NT and his subsequent explanation of the bid as natural. They rejected that approach since they believed that passing 1NT doubled was not a logical alternative. Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief that before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North had already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in this case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agreement was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North later decided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits he was required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after his partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I would allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S doubledmade two, +670 for N/S, to stand. Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather were upset with the result. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the table result to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result are the only logical decisions. I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to make it fit. [Nigel] As Frances Hinden points out, the demonstrable UI is a more important consideration than the (less likely) misinformation. Two points that intrigue me... (1) Since the NOS did not appeal on the grounds of UI, should the AC consider UI, at all? (2) When a partnership adopt a new agreement, in the same context as an old agreement, then a misbid often conforms to the *previous* agreement. So it may be much easier for the OS to diagnose and recover than for the NOS. In any case, IMO, the TD/AC should try to establish any *prior* agreements. For example, a 1NT overcall may have been natural (with various ranges), unusual, sandwich, Baron 3-suiter, or a Comic single-suiter. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 24/09/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 00:04:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:04:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Long Beach 2003 minutes Message-ID: Ton explained the new ACBL LC interpretation: [snip] >More concrete: north hesitates before doubling >4 hearts, south bids 4 spades and the AC >decides pass to be a LA. NS back to 4 hearts >doubled made. But 4 spades is the normal call, >so EW get a score based on NS bidding 4 spades. >What I don't understand is that the ACBL >probably knows that its interpretation is >questionable [snip] Richard James Hills continues: The new ACBL LC interpretation is not only questionable under the Laws, it is ethically and logically wrong. West North East South 4H Double(1) Pass ?(2) (1) Penalty double, but break in tempo. Bidding demonstrably suggested over passing. (2) Both pass and 4S are logical alternatives, but 4S would be the usual choice without a break in tempo. Set 1 - South is aware of their obligations under Law 73C and Law 16A. South passes. Result: EW +590, NS -590 Set 2 - South is unaware of or ignores their obligations under Law 73C and Law 16A. South bids 4S. Result: EW -620, NS -590 The ACBL LC interpretation only makes sense on the cynical assumption that no ACBL member uses active ethics, and Set 1 is an empty set. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 30 00:08:07 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:08:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <002401c3864e$02598c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c386c2$1008dea0$ae7387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008101c386de$903d3d20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: "Marvin French" > >>. Here is the applicable regulation from the ACBL > >> website: > >> > >> CANAPE SYSTEMS > >> > >> The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a > >> four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to > >> start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. > >> > >> This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card > >> suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention > >> (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such > >> niceties. > >> > >+=+ "You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but > >only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". > > (EBU Orange Book 12.2.1) Which is the ACBL's back-door weaselly way of handling Laws-legal non-conventional bids that it doesn't like. What a shame. You can open a 5-carder and rebid a 3-carder, but not vice-versa. Whether one wishes to bid first the longer or the shorter (>=2) of two suits is a matter of taste, as either method makes good sense. But the latter makes the majority of opponents uncomfortable, so get rid of it. The tyranny of the majority. We have a very enjoyable Wed night club "Masters" game that does away with all such nonsense. No masterpoints, so ACBL regs can be ignored. I haven't enjoyed bridge so much for many decades (NABCs excepted). Jim Backstrom does a good job organizing and reporting on the game, see www.sandiegobridge.com. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From curnowr@bigpond.com Tue Sep 30 00:18:35 2003 From: curnowr@bigpond.com (Roger Curnow) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:18:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <002401c3864e$02598c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c386c2$1008dea0$ae7387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003c01c386e0$01e77c50$1c49fea9@rebildjuly03> Perhaps "whom the gods would destroy they first make crazy" or whatever the quote is (i am sure Grattan will know) would be the appropriate quote at this point. roger curnow. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > >Grattan Endicott >[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > >=============================== > >"Would there be this eternal seeking if > > the found existed?" > > ~ Antonio Porchia. > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Marvin French" > >To: > >Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:53 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > > > >> > >> I think not. ACBL Convention Charts do not include this > >> item. Here is the applicable regulation from the ACBL > >> website: > >> > >> CANAPE SYSTEMS > >> > >> The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a > >> four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to > >> start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. > >> > >> This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card > >> suit is not a convention, and canape is not a convention > >> (it's a treatment), but the ACBL does not care about such > >> niceties. > >> > >> Marv > >> Marvin L. French > >> San Diego, California > >> > >+=+ "You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but > >only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". > > (EBU Orange Book 12.2.1) > >Jointly illustrating the eternal truth that what the Gods will > >control they will control. I wonder if 'thereafter' means for > >the rest 'of the hand', 'of the session', 'of the event' or 'of > >your life'? > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > In this respect, the ACBL seems similar to Wotan in The Ring, not > quite able to get its way in the long run, in spite of all its > maneuvers. > > REH > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Sep 30 01:03:19 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:03:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c386e6$47260560$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:07 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > > I am willing to play in NT is a non-conventional meaning. > > > > I am told that 'and I have a long running minor' is an additional > > meaning. > > Not precisely. You are told it is a meaning "other than". > Even if you > consider this distinction borderline (ie a source of tricks > is a subset of > wanting to be in 3N) the secondary condition of a gambling 3N > (I have 3 > suits without stoppers) is clearly *not* a subset of > willingness to play > in 3N. In a similar way having shorter spades is not a subset of having length in hearts. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Sep 30 01:06:45 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:06:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002701c386e6$c1f89640$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:07 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] SO rules > > > Wayne wrote: > > > Showing length and showing the a suit is your longest (or likely to > > be your longest) are different things. > > > > I have length in hearts is by definition a non conventional meaning. > > > > I have length in hearts and hearts is my longest (or strongest) suit > > contains an additional meaning IMO. > > It contains "additional meaning" in the sense of being more > specific. > However "longest" is a subset of showing length. It is not a meaning > "other than" showing length. > > > Actually I am playing the devil's advocate. > > Misplaying I'd have said. > > > I am willing to play in NT is a non-conventional meaning. > > > > I am told that 'and I have a long running minor' is an additional > > meaning. > > Not precisely. You are told it is a meaning "other than". > Even if you > consider this distinction borderline (ie a source of tricks > is a subset of > wanting to be in 3N) the secondary condition of a gambling 3N > (I have 3 > suits without stoppers) is clearly *not* a subset of > willingness to play > in 3N. > > > I think that that is an equivalent addition meaning to 'and > I have some > > stoppers in every suit' or 'and 15-17 points in a Balanced > or nearly > > balanced hand'. > > "Stoppers in every suit" is a subset of "values in every > suit", balanced > is a subset of "length in every suit". Not true. Length in this definition is defined as "three cards or more" . Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Sep 30 01:16:35 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:16:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001b01c386d8$2cb7b240$2d9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003c01c386e8$215be0f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:22 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > [Nigel] > This test-data for the definition of "Natural" > comprises: Forcing pass, Gambling 3N, Suit > opener on balanced Yarborough, Prepared minor, > 2C reply on three cards, Fit jump, Long suit > trial bid, Short suit trial bid, High card cue > bid, Shortage cue bid, Stopper bid, 4th suit > forcing, and Lead directional double. > > A. Which bids do you judge as natural? > > TWM NG Hand Action > Nat Nat AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer Conventional in most jurisdictions > Nat Art 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N Not conventional > Nat Nat 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C Not conventional > Nat Art A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C Not conventional > Nat Art 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C Not conventional > Art Nat AK97 64 Q8 KQJ96 (1H)1S(P)3C Not conventional > Nat Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Not conventional > Art Art AKJ63 AKJ5 J94 3 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Conventional* (or psychic) > Nat Art AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Not conventional > Art Art AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Conventional* > Nat Art QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S Not conventional > Art Art 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H Conventional if 4th suit forcing Not conventional if showing something in Hearts > Nat Art 9765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X Not conventional if showing willingness to play in clubs. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 01:32:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:32:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] VPs Message-ID: [snip] Tom Cornelis: >This VP-scale would convert the ratio of IMPs to >VPs, which would eliminate the statistical >disadvantages of the current scales. [snip] Richard James Hills: Tom's suggestion is very similar to the Zirinsky Victory Point scale, which was used in the former Far East Zone for Zonal Championships. Some decades ago, the WBF performed a review of Victory Point scales, with Mr Zirinsky as a member of the review panel. The panel concluded that quotient method of the Zirinsky VP scale was more accurate than the subtraction method of other VP scales. However, the panel also concluded that the difference in accuracy between the two types of VP scales was trivial. The panel also concluded that simple subtraction of the losing side's imps from the winning side's imps was vastly easier for players and captains to comprehend and apply. The WBF therefore issued a recommended series of VP scales based on the subtraction principle. However, the WBF recommendation is merely a recommendation - only in events directly run by the WBF is the WBF VP scale necessarily used. Other SOs are permitted to use their own VP scales customised for local traditions. And many SOs do. Example: Many of the ACBL VP scales are heavily influenced by the ACBL tradition of knockout teams matches, so bonus VPs are awarded to the victorious team. But, since the Zirinsky VP scale was abolished, I am not aware of any SO still using a quotient method VP scale. Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Sep 30 01:44:10 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:44:10 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <000901c386dc$6731cd30$082ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <003f01c386eb$fc7ef0c0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:52 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > This is ridiculous as has been shown by many examples > > posted of regulations that would be legal given the WBF > > interpretation. > > > > Wayne > > > > +=+ Is it your contention that what is ridiculous (in your > judgement) cannot be lawful? I am unaware of any provision > in the laws that voids a regulation on grounds of derision. In > my belief it is for the regulating body to determine what is > sensible in its exercise of the powers given to it. > ~ G ~ +=+ It is my view that what is ridiculous is harmful to the game. So are you saying that the WBF is intentionally giving SO the right to form derisory regulations. I cannot see how this can be good for the game. It doesn't matter anyway my NO position is that "When this law was drafted it was NEVER intended to constrain NCBOs." So they blatantly make regulations that are contrary to the laws of the game. My NO goes further than the EBU or ACBL and defines Canape openings as Yellow Sticker: "An opening suit bid at the 1 level that does not promise at least one specified suit of at least 4 cards. This rule does not apply to a 1C or 1D opening in a system where 1C is forcing and has as one of its options a hand that shows at least 13 high card points without reference to distribution." They further regulate that Yellow Sticker Systems can not be played except in Open Teams Events. So without any basis in law they make a regulation that prohibits all players playing non-conventional methods. And when they are queried they say the WBF never intended the laws to constrain them. Did the WBF also not intend to constrain players with the laws? I bet that would work well as a defense to the appeal committee. "The WBF never intended to constrain me with this revoke law." IMO we have evolved a nonsense situation ... NOs do what they like WBF turn a blind eye. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 30 02:08:56 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:08:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001b01c386d8$2cb7b240$2d9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <012001c385f4$298dd020$cbe436d2@Desktop> <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <006301c38622$b9beb8c0$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030929204828.01e885d8@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:21 PM 9/29/2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >A. Which bids do you judge as natural? > >TWM NG Hand Action >Nat Nat AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer Artificial if the pass promises certain strength; not automatically artificial because it includes this hand. An agreement to pass all hands is entirely natural. >Nat Art 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N Conventional because it promises a solid minor. >Nat Nat 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C Natural. Similarly, a Kaplan-Sheinwold style controlled psychic (742 86 642 KJ432 must be opened 1C not vulnerable) is natural, as the bid shows either 4-5 good clubs and 3-6 HCP, or at least three clubs and 12+ HCP (and a hand that doesn't qualify for any other opening). The control for the psychic is conventional, of course. >Nat Art A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C Natural; there is no obligation when showing a suit to show the longest biddable suit. >Nat Art 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C Natural, as above; it is not a conventional agreement that 2H promises five, and there is no obligation to tell any one particular lie on a hand like this which does not qualify for any bid in the system. >Art Nat AK97 64 Q8 KQJ96 (1H)1S(P)3C Conventional if it promises spade support (as the heading suggested). >Nat Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C I would say natural because this bid does show length in the suit, and asks partner to place higher value on high cards in the suit. The 3C bidder wants partner to bid as if he had a club-spade two-suiter, and the fact that he doesn't quite have such a hand just means that he has deviated from the ideal hand for the bid. >Art Art AKJ63 AKJ5 J94 3 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Conventional because it shows shortness. >Nat Art AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Natural if it guarantees a high card; conventional if it could have been on a void. >Art Art AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Conventional because it shows shortness. >Nat Art QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S Natural because it shows high cards. >Art Art 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H Artificial because it says nothing about the suit bid. >Nat Art 9765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X After you call the director, who finds the missing H4, the double is conventional because it does not show values in clubs. >B. Which bids are natural (according to >David Burn's criteria, below)? > >NG Hand Action >Nat AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer >Art 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N >Nat 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C >Nat A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C >Nat 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C >Nat AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C >Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3D >Nat AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C >Art AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C >Art QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S >Art 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H >Art 9765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X > >I have tried to include Tim West-Mead's answers >in the above tables. If I've got them wrong, Tim, >please accept my apologies and correct them. >If anybody can understand the format, they may >add their own answers. > >[David Burn] >My view is that a call is "natural" if: >[1] it shows 4+ cards in the suit bid; or >[2] (explicitly) expresses the view that the >denomination named is (on the information so >far) most likely to be the denomination of the >partnership's best contract; or >[3] while doing neither of these things, has >a nature so well defined by custom and >practice that its use will almost never be >unexpected. > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system >(http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: >23/09/2003 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 08:01:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:01:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) Message-ID: [snip] >>We have a very enjoyable Wed night club "Masters" game that >>does away with all such nonsense. No masterpoints, so ACBL >>regs can be ignored. I haven't enjoyed bridge so much for >>many decades (NABCs excepted). Jim Backstrom does a good >>job organizing and reporting on the game, see >> >>www.sandiegobridge.com. >> >>Marv >>Marvin L. French >>San Diego, California Jim Backstrom's mission statement: >To provide an "Invitational" game that promotes strong bridge >competition for players of San Diego County. Weekly games will >vary from regular duplicate to various other types of scoring, >including some new and innovated styles. Games may or may not >be ACBL sanctioned. All types of conventions, that are >currently approved by the ACBL at the highest level, will be >allowed. Participants will be welcomed subject to the rules of >the evening, which will be set down by the dictator in charge >at the time. Jan 2003 Richard James Hills: What a heretical concept, having fun with unrestricted use of conventions. Surely Marv and Jim should realise that the only point of playing bridge is *not* to have fun, but rather to engage in one-upmanship by criticising both partner and opponents. Therefore, the ACBL should promptly inflict a lifetime ban on Marv and Jim for the heinous crime of Convention Disruption. :-) Best wishes Richard James -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 30 08:35:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:35:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Convention - was SO rules References: <000001c384d9$cafaf580$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c3872a$55a44130$e92ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: [blml] Convention - was SO rules Maybe I must revert to "I cannot define an elephant, but I know him when I see him"? (For a moment I did in fact believe that now I could define him!) Regards Sven +=+ We define elephants to our infants by the association of 'elephant' with a picture of an elephant, and later if possible by showing the child a live elephant. Could someone draw me a picture of a convention please? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ P.S. I have just seen a photograph of a convention. It shows a lot of people standing around talking. :-) From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 30 09:05:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:05:29 +0100 Subject: NO position [was Re: [blml] Deja vu] References: <003f01c386eb$fc7ef0c0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000c01c3872a$5660b360$e92ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:44 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) -------------------- \x/ ------------------. > > It doesn't matter anyway my NO position is that "When this law > was drafted it was NEVER intended to constrain NCBOs." > > So they blatantly make regulations that are contrary to the laws > of the game. > > My NO goes further than the EBU or ACBL and defines Canape > openings as Yellow Sticker: > > "An opening suit bid at the 1 level that does not promise at least > one specified suit of at least 4 cards. This rule does not apply > to a 1C or 1D opening in a system where 1C is forcing and has > as one of its options a hand that shows at least 13 high card > points without reference to distribution." > > They further regulate that Yellow Sticker Systems can not be > played except in Open Teams Events. > > So without any basis in law they make a regulation that prohibits > all players playing non-conventional methods. And when they are > queried they say the WBF never intended the laws to constrain > them. > > Did the WBF also not intend to constrain players with the laws? > > I bet that would work well as a defense to the appeal committee. > > "The WBF never intended to constrain me with this revoke law." > > IMO we have evolved a nonsense situation ... > > NOs do what they like > > WBF turn a blind eye. > > Wayne > +=+ In the southern hemisphere, too, it seems there are Gods. As for turning a blind eye I imagine that there is a question whether any effective sanction could be applied. We are governed by consent. We could perhaps believe that someone has given consent on your behalf with which you disagree (but in which you acquiesce since you do not export yourself to some other regime). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 30 09:10:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:10:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <003f01c386eb$fc7ef0c0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000d01c3872a$57621dd0$e92ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:44 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > > This is ridiculous as has been shown by many examples > > > posted of regulations that would be legal given the WBF > > > interpretation. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > +=+ Is it your contention that what is ridiculous (in your > > judgement) cannot be lawful? I am unaware of any provision > > in the laws that voids a regulation on grounds of derision. In > > my belief it is for the regulating body to determine what is > > sensible in its exercise of the powers given to it. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > It is my view that what is ridiculous is harmful to the game. > > So are you saying that the WBF is intentionally giving SO the > right to form derisory regulations. > > I cannot see how this can be good for the game. > +=+ I am saying that where it empowers regulation, other than in Law 80F, the law puts the question of what is sensible (and does not harm the game) in the hands of the regulating body. If you take that a step up it is symptomatic of a view among the legislators that it was sensible for the law to place the responsibility with the regulators. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ < From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Sep 30 09:17:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <001b01c386d8$2cb7b240$2d9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > A. Which bids do you judge as natural? > TWM NG Hand Action > Nat Nat AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer Prob Art. OK one might require better hands to open but seems unlikely. > Nat Art 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N Art (unless you have agreed 3N as eg 10-12, no singleton/void) > Nat Nat 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C Prob Art. Natural if you have agreed to always bid. > Nat Art A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C > Nat Art 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C Both of above: Don't Know. Are you promising values in clubs or is 1C/2C a catch all bid that can be Cxx? > Art Nat AK97 64 Q8 KQJ96 (1H)1S(P)3C I'd bid 3C (nat, forcing, clubs) on this just as I would on x,-,AQJTx,AKQJxxx. Obviously bidding clubs to show spades is artificial. > Nat Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Looks more likely to be an artificial try requesting help in clubs (could be natural game try showing Hxx or better in C) > Art Art AKJ63 AKJ5 J94 3 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Yep > Nat Art AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Could be natural showing CA/K or art showing C control > Art Art AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C yep > Nat Art QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S Assume natural game-try showing values in S? > Art Art 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H Prob art (unless is showing H values) > Nat Art 9765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X Nat if 5C is art, art if 5C is nat (assume is lead-directing) Which mostly goes to show that specific hands can clearly prove a call as artificial but often leave ambiguity as to whether it is natural. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Sep 30 09:17:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <002401c3864e$02598c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > CANAPE SYSTEMS > > The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a four-card > major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to start a canape > sequence, is reaffirmed. > This is an illegal "principle," since bidding a three-card suit is not a > convention, and canape is not a convention (it's a treatment), but the > ACBL does not care about such niceties. If by "Canape" we mean 1 of a suit openers *promise* another suit of equal of greater length then surely it *is* conventional (a "meaning other than..."). OTOH a 1H opening which is 3+ cards and may (or may not) contain a longer suit is clearly a treatment. The latter is not affected by the ACBL statement and, whether they consider it "natural" or not, not subject to ACBL regulation. Of course the GCC states that "anything not allowed is disallowed" and then fails to make any provision for opening 1S/H (conventional or otherwise). Nevertheless I think we can take the use of 1S/H, when not conventional, as being permitted. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 30 09:30:59 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:30:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Natural/Artificial/Conventional References: <003c01c386e8$215be0f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <001601c3872d$30835fa0$699868d5@tinyhrieuyik> I notice, from contributions by David Burn, Tim West-Meads, David J Grabiner, and Wayne, that we have subtly different understandings of basic concepts. IMO, it is futile to try to agree definitions of "Natural", "Artificial", and "Conventional" so we would be better to skate round this issue by defining an arbitrary "Standard System" FWIW, my crude intuitive definitions are... "Natural" denotes length in the bid suit or wish to play or defend the indicated contract. "Artificial" means unnatural. "Conventional" means according to an agreement not implicit in the natural meaning. i.e "Natural" and "Artificial" are opposites. All "Artificial" bids are "Conventional". "Conventional" overlaps "Natural" and includes "Artificial". Both the following bids are "Conventional": (1) "Natural" 2H opener that promises hearts and another suit or is forcing to game. (2) "Artificial" 5NT bid meaning pick a slam. I'm afraid it may be difficult to achieve consensus as to whether some kinds of call are natural or not. For instance.. Segal and Robson defended "fit jumps" as natural. Squire says 1S is natural on xxxx AKQJT Ax xx. Some Americans may even imagine that it is natural to open 1C on AJxx Axxx Ax Jxx. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 30 09:37:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:37:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] VPs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c3872e$2066cfc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > But, since the Zirinsky VP scale was abolished, I > am not aware of any SO still using a quotient > method VP scale. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James In Norway we use the IMP quotient (Total IMP won divided by total IMP = lost) as a determining factor when there is a tie (on VP) in serial = tournaments. I would be surprised if we are alone? Regards Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Sep 30 10:25:12 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:25:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Convention - was SO rules References: <000001c384d9$cafaf580$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3872a$55a44130$e92ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <00d401c38738$67b465e0$cb053dd4@m1q9j9> > Could someone draw me a picture of a > convention please? > > 1+1=2 :-) From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Sep 30 11:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <002701c386e6$c1f89640$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > Not true. Length in this definition is defined as "three cards or more" That is in the reference to "denomination named". Why not try to find a workable interpretation when the denomination is NT? Clue: One cannot have length in NT. Solution: It is reasonable (but not required) to specify minimum suit lengths/values for non-conventional NT bids. I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve. Nobody is arguing that the current definition of convention is perfect (or even close). It is solely in the interests of dictatorial SOs to say that every bid is conventional (not something of which you approve). It is certain that "no small doubleton/singleton or void" is not conventional (since it promises 3+ or values in all suits), what is achieved by saying that allowing a small doubleton makes the bid conventional? > In a similar way having shorter spades is not a subset of having > length in hearts. OK, if you wish, playing a 1H opening that guarantees shorter spades than H is conventional, I can live with that? Playing a 1H opening that shows length in H and may or not have shorter spades is natural. When, playing weak NT, I open a natural 1H in first it denies a 3433 12-14 count. That of itself, doesn't make it conventional - it is merely a function the fact that I open all 3433 12-14 counts with 1N in first seat. The additional meaning is not conveyed by the call itself but by the existence of other calls more suitable for the particular hand. Having said that if I construct a system where 1S openers always contain 5S4C the line has been crossed. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 30 13:21:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:21:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] SO rules In-Reply-To: <02cf01c386c9$fecb9850$1de536d2@Desktop> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030930081136.023e9280@pop.starpower.net> At 04:40 PM 9/29/03, wayne wrote: >Therefore I conclude that if your bid shows: > >1. Willingness to play the denomination named > >2. Length in the denomination named >or >3. Strength in the denomination named > >then it is non-conventional. I'd call the above condition necessary but not sufficient. A bid that satisfies the above is nevertheless conventional if it carries a specific message regarding some other suit. Consider a 2H opening that promises at least four spades and five hearts. Or a new suit bid after an overcall that denies three-card support for opener's suit. However, specific agreements regarding the characteristics of the suit bid -- such as "at least six cards with two honors", or "the longest suit in my hand" -- while certainly viewable as "additional information" beyond the simple promise of "length", should not preclude the bid's being classified as non-conventional. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 30 13:33:48 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:33:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <000901c386dc$6731cd30$082ce150@endicott> References: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030930082923.023eac90@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 PM 9/29/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: > > > > This is ridiculous as has been shown by many examples > > posted of regulations that would be legal given the WBF > > interpretation. > > >+=+ Is it your contention that what is ridiculous (in your >judgement) cannot be lawful? I am unaware of any provision >in the laws that voids a regulation on grounds of derision. In >my belief it is for the regulating body to determine what is >sensible in its exercise of the powers given to it. If I may speak for Wayne, I think it is his contention that what is (patently and obviously) ridiculous cannot have been the intention of the authors of the law. Personally, I'd have used a stronger word than "ridiculous" to describe an interpretation of law that gives the WBF's blessing to SO regulations like "Jews may not use transfers." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Sep 30 13:35:43 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:35:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <012001c385f4$298dd020$cbe436d2@Desktop> <003f01c385f8$784e8020$24bd8051@pbncomputer> <006301c38622$b9beb8c0$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.1.1.6.0.20030929204828.01e885d8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <003a01c3874f$5e25af40$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David J. Grabiner] AK8 AQ65 KQ42 K8 Pass as dealer Artificial if the pass promises certain strength; not automatically artificial because it includes this hand. An agreement to pass all hands is entirely natural. [Nigel] Intended as an example of a "Forcing Pass" [David] 87 62 94 AKQJ953 Open 3N Conventional because it promises a solid minor. [Nigel] I agree that a "Gambling 3N" is "Convenional" becasue of the agreement that iot shows a solid minor. But is it "Natural"? or "Artificial"? [David] 742 862 642 6432 Open 1C Natural. Similarly, a Kaplan-Sheinwold style controlled psychic (742 86 642 KJ432 must be opened 1C not vulnerable) is natural, as the bid shows either 4-5 good clubs and 3-6 HCP, or at least three clubs and 12+ HCP (and a hand that doesn't qualify for any other opening). The control for the psychic is conventional, of course. [Nigel] Agree [David] A863 742 AKx AKx Open 1C Natural; there is no obligation when showing a suit to show the longest biddable suit. 986 AK94 632 AJ9 1S(P)2C Natural, as above; it is not a conventional agreement that 2H promises five, and there is no obligation to tell any one particular lie on a hand like this which does not qualify for any bid in the system. AK97 64 Q8 KQJ96 (1H)1S(P)3C Conventional if it promises spade support (as the heading suggested). Art AKJ63 AKJ5 3 J84 1S(P)2S(P); 3C I would say natural because this bid does show length in the suit, and asks partner to place higher value on high cards in the suit. The 3C bidder wants partner to bid as if he had a club-spade two-suiter, and the fact that he doesn't quite have such a hand just means that he has deviated from the ideal hand for the bid. AKJ63 AKJ5 J94 3 1S(P)2S(P); 3C Conventional because it shows shortness. AKJ63 KQ65 3 A84 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Natural if it guarantees a high card; conventional if it could have been on a void. AKJ63 KQ65 A84 4 1S(P)3S(P); 4C Conventional because it shows shortness. QJ9 xx AKJT63 AQ 1D(P)2D(P); 2S Natural because it shows high cards. 82 J42 KJ4 AKJ65 1S(P)2C(P); 2D(P)2H Artificial because it says nothing about the suit bid. 98765432 63 J32 - (4H)4N*(5C**); X After you call the director, who finds the missing H4, the double is conventional because it does not show values in clubs. [Nigel] Yes Sorry about that. The quiz misfired in an unexpected way. I assumed that if a bid is "Unnatural" then it is "Artificial". But most responders think that "Conventional" is the antonym of Natural. Whereas I think a Conventional bid can be Natural. For example... A 1S bid is natural and conventional if it shows four spades or at least six spades but never exactly five spades. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003 From toddz@att.net Tue Sep 30 16:03:40 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:03:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <003a01c3874f$5e25af40$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Guthrie > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > [Nigel] > Yes Sorry about that. The quiz misfired in an > unexpected way. I assumed that if a bid is > "Unnatural" then it is "Artificial". But most > responders think that "Conventional" is the > antonym of Natural. Whereas I think a > Conventional bid can be Natural. For example... It seems beside the point. The Law defines conventional. It doesn't care a whit about natural or artificial. So if you were going to open a Muiderberg 2H and didn't see the 2S opened on your right, your partner will be barred for the rest of the auction, not because 2H is artificial, but because it's conventional. -Todd From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Sep 30 16:16:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:16:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural and Conventional Message-ID: <3F799E40.9070503@hdw.be> I have followed with growing incredulity the amount of mail spent on this topic. And yet the solution is simple (at least for 2005). The notion about conventionality or not crops up in just two places in the FLB: -L40D (and L40E, but that's not important) which can easily be changed to allow SO's to regulate everything (and why not?) -L27B, which can easily be changed into something like: "if the changed call conveys the same meaning as the insufficient one" or even to allow all changes plus UI rules. Then we'd be rid of this particular problem of defining elephants. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Sep 30 18:43:30 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:43:30 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Natural/Artificial/Conventional In-Reply-To: <001601c3872d$30835fa0$699868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO, it is futile to try to agree definitions > of "Natural", "Artificial", and "Conventional" > so we would be better to skate round this > issue by defining an arbitrary "Standard System" Except, of course, that we already have a definition we have to live with for the present. (And not all of us are eager to make all partnership agreements regulatable or to adopt a standard system.) > FWIW, my crude intuitive definitions are... > > "Natural" denotes length in the bid suit or > wish to play or defend the indicated contract. > > "Artificial" means unnatural. > > "Conventional" means according to an agreement > not implicit in the natural meaning. > > i.e "Natural" and "Artificial" are opposites. > All "Artificial" bids are "Conventional". > "Conventional" overlaps "Natural" and > includes "Artificial". This is very close to my understanding of the terms. If I can attempt to spell out the current situation (for bids, doubles, and redoubles, anyway:) Let "N" be "willingness to play in the denomination named, or high-card strength or length there." Natural: showing N. Artificial: not showing N = not natural Conventional: a call conveying a meaning other than N. Not Conventional: not conveying a meaning other than N. If "partner must bid again" is a "meaning other than," a whole lot of natural bids become conventional, which may or may not be a good thing. (The current laws say "an agreement as to overall strength" doesn't make something a convention, but that's not quite the same as an agreement that partner must bid again.) The current law leaves a loophole - calls that convey no meaning at all aside from general strength, appear to be artificial but not conventional. Again, that may or may not be a bad thing, depending who you ask. I don't think we are that badly off right now. The current definition is imperfect, but most of the other proposals have presented some loopholes even stranger than the ones we have now. As for notrump, I can see two kinds of natural notrump bids: showing a willingness to play NT, or showing a stopper in the last suit named. I don't see any basis for automatically equating "unbalanced" with either artificial or conventional. The only place I would like to see a change is in clarifying what "conveys a message other than" means -- to find a way to formally say "negative inference doesn't make an otherwise natural call a convention," without allowing people unlimited room to sneak one convention per auction through as a very tightly constrained catchall. I could even live with saying negative inference doesn't make a call a convention, period, and accepting a few odd bids would become unregulatable (but still disclosable / in some places alertable.) I fret about the lawyering this would lead to. Burn, among others, is proposing a considerably narrower definition of the term "natural" than I have been using it above. I am still playing around in my mind with a few alternatives for this and may post again later. GRB From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Sep 29 14:38:04 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10D6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3868E.E8C73F03 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events Per prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication itself is = fairly-common procedure in Europe. I am interested in finding out a = little more about procedures; especially when multiple team matches per = session are involved. =20 I am "presuming" that, due to security, all plays of a given = pre-duplicated deal have to occur during the same match. ie, that once = a match is completed, all deals played during that match become = freely-available public knowledge. =20 Given this, and assuming the use of some form of dealing machine, = exactly what does the Director place upon each table, at start of second = and subsequent matches? Altho it would be "ideal" to hand out a = ready-to-play board, this would tend to involve use of more physical = boards. Thus, it "might make sense" to distribute only the cards, = expect the players to replace these in boards, and come back--a few = minutes later--to collect the just-replaced cards. I play primarily ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested in = exactly how process is handled. More or less related, is it customary = to also print and distribute "curtain cards"? Steven P Haver/602-242-9708/8330 n 19th av 1083 phx az 85021 =20 =20 [Frances] I can tell you what happens from a player's point of view: the director = comes round, puts two boards on your table and tells you which way to = pass them (e.g. to the North). You then play an 8-board (or whatever) = Swiss match which everyone playing the same boards. If you have, say, = 96 teams that means you have 24 copies of each board in action or 192 = physical boards out. Sometimes if one table plays its boards quickly = they either have to wait for the next table to finish, or irritate the = director and ask for boards out of order. =20 For a big event like Brighton the TDs have had to organise the = duplication of thousands of boards. This always seems to work very = smoothly. =20 =20 For the next Swiss match, there are new boards distributed, so match 1 = plays 1-8, match 2 9-16 and so on. At the session breaks you get hand = records. =20 It is not customary to distribute curtain cards. It is customary to = check the hand records during the dinner interval for errors, though = I've found these to be very rare indeed. =20 In my opinion, the switch to pre-duplicated boards for Swiss teams = events is one of the biggest improvements in the running of Swiss events = ever seen.=20 =20 NB: there are occasional events where you cannot discuss the hands at = the interval (the Tollemache is a prime example) but usually if there = are different timings for different parts of an event, there are also = different boards. =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3868E.E8C73F03 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication = procedures=20 for Swiss Team Events

Per=20 prior discussions, appears that pre-duplication itself is = fairly-common=20 procedure in Europe.  I am interested in finding out a little = more about=20 procedures; especially when multiple team matches per session are=20 involved. 

I am "presuming" that, due to security, all = plays of a=20 given pre-duplicated deal have to occur during the same match.  = ie, that=20 once a match is completed, all deals played during that match become=20 freely-available public knowledge. 

Given this, and = assuming the=20 use of some form of dealing machine, exactly what does the Director = place upon=20 each table, at start of second and subsequent matches?  Altho it = would be=20 "ideal" to hand out a ready-to-play board, this would tend to involve = use of=20 more physical boards.  Thus, it "might make sense" to distribute = only the=20 cards, expect the players to replace these in boards, and come back--a = few=20 minutes later--to collect the just-replaced cards.

I play = primarily=20 ACBL events in which pre-duplication; am interested in exactly how = process is=20 handled.  More or less related, is it customary to also print and = distribute "curtain cards"?



Steven P = Haver/602-242-9708/8330 n=20 19th av 1083 phx az 85021
   
=
 
[Frances]
I can=20 tell you what happens from a player's point of view:  the = director comes=20 round, puts two boards on your table and tells you which way to pass = them=20 (e.g. to the North).  You then play an 8-board (or whatever) = Swiss match=20 which everyone playing the same boards.  If you have, = say, 96 teams=20 that means you have 24 copies of each board in action or 192 physical = boards=20 out.  Sometimes if one table plays its boards quickly they either = have to=20 wait for the next table to finish, or irritate the director and = ask for=20 boards out of order.
 
For a=20 big event like Brighton the TDs have had to organise the duplication = of=20 thousands of boards.  This always seems to work very = smoothly. =20
 
For the=20 next Swiss match, there are new boards distributed, so match 1 plays = 1-8,=20 match 2 9-16 and so on.  At the session breaks you get hand=20 records.
 
It is=20 not customary to distribute curtain cards.  It is customary to = check the=20 hand records during the dinner interval for errors, though I've found = these to=20 be very rare indeed.
 
In my=20 opinion, the switch to pre-duplicated boards for Swiss teams events=20 is one of the biggest improvements in the running of Swiss events = ever=20 seen. 
 
NB:=20 there are occasional events where you cannot discuss the hands at the = interval=20 (the Tollemache is a prime example) but usually if there are different = timings=20 for different parts of an event, there are also different=20 boards.
 
= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3868E.E8C73F03-- From henk@amsterdamned.org Tue Sep 30 23:00:02 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Sep 30 21:51:16 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:51:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural and Conventional In-Reply-To: <3F799E40.9070503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030930164417.00a2a7b0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:16 AM 9/30/03, Herman wrote: >I have followed with growing incredulity the amount of mail spent on >this topic. > >And yet the solution is simple (at least for 2005). > >The notion about conventionality or not crops up in just two places in >the FLB: > >-L40D (and L40E, but that's not important) which can easily be changed >to allow SO's to regulate everything True, but... >(and why not?) ...if anyone doesn't know the answer to this one, they haven't been reading BLML very assiduously these last few years. Give the ACBL the explicit, untrammeled authority to regulate everything, and I can assure you that they will. And the regular complaints on BLML about how the ACBL does things differently from everyone else will be nothing compared to what will follow. >-L27B, which can easily be changed into something like: >"if the changed call conveys the same meaning as the insufficient one" >or even to allow all changes plus UI rules. I think that would be a good idea totally apart from the question of defining "convention". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618